talk with republican congressman jason chaffetz, and lead -- later, democrat from vermont, peter welch. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2012] host: one of those days in washington where several major decisions will come to a head. contempt vote on the attorney general, transportation and student aid funding, and of course, supreme court decisions on the constitutionality of the health-care law. that is what we want to hear from you about this morning on "washington journal." the supreme court is due to rule on health care today.

allow 30 days between your calls, please. and you can contact us electronically as well -- and our facebook page is a continuing conversation from last night. from politico this morning -- this article goes through and talks about their view on who .ould win and who would not

mitt romney, politico writes -- for house speaker john boehner, politico writes -- that is just a couple of the winners and losers as seen by politico. at the "the hill" writes

this morning -- finally, before we get to calls, here is "the new york times."

so, that's a little bit from "the new york times." the first call up on health care and the supreme court comes from west virginia.

please, go ahead. what is your name? caller: middleton. host: go ahead, middleton. caller: i hope the supreme court upholds the law because we need something like this. republicans keep talk about -- they wanted to get rid of all of it. when they did pass the bill, the republicans kept stonewalling and they would not go for anything to get it passed. that is why the democrats did it without them. that is the way the republicans do it now and the house. they don't use the democrats. our government is never going to work if they don't work together. host: that was a democrat in west virginia. joining us on the phone is russell berman from "the hill."

what have you been hearing from congress, is a press conference scheduled after the supreme court rules? guest: democrats and republicans have press conferences scheduled to respond to the ruling, expected shortly after 10:00 a.m.. speaker john boehner has actually sent two leading republicans, congressman tom price, a doctor, and congresswoman rogers, they both will be in the supreme court when there ruling comes down and they will lead the response. and the speaker and the republican leadership will meet with their members and then hold press conferences at around 11:15 a.m. to respond to the ruling.

then nancy pelosi, democratic leader and former speaker, she will hold a press conference at 12:15 p.m. in the capital. host: what about the president's? guest: as of yesterday there were no public events for the president's scheduled, but there is every expectation he would respond to the ruling, lightly with a statement probably on camera. host: as we talked about at the beginning of the show, today is a day of pretty major decisions. what is the view on fast and furious? are democrats breaking with the attorney general and will democrats be voting for contempt today? host: there seems to be some division in the party. at least a handful and perhaps

up to a dozen or more democrats will be voting with republicans to hold the attorney general in contempt. these are democrats who are more conservative and prince oblique in tougher reelection races this fall. many democrats are very angry about the republican move. the congressional black caucus expects to lead a walk out during the vote and many democrats, perhaps several dozen up to 100 are expected to join in in walking off the floor during the vote today. host: would that hold up proceedings? would there still be a quorum? guest: i believe the vote would proceed, a majority in the house being present -- but that is a good question. host: is it any coincidence that

this vote on content of the attorney general is held the same day the health care decision is being released? guest: there has been a lot of talk about that. this is something conservatives have been very much asking for, for the republican leadership to take the lead and press forward with a content resolution. but to hold the vote the same day guarantees it will not be the big story of the day. and republicans have been clear they want to keep focus on the economy. there is the thought that holding the vote today and making sure it is not a dominant story, they are getting it out of the way so they can get back to focusing on economic issues. host: finally, i want to ask you about your story this morning -- "house, senate strike deal on

highway bill, student loans." guest: this is probably the last big deal before the elections, or at least the august recess. what they are going to do is pass a one-year extension of the current rate for student loans, along with a two-year, three months highway bill which is longer than what they talked about doing at least in recent weeks. it looks like they will attach a flood insurance bill on to that as well. at least three pieces of legislation. there were a couple of smaller bills tacked onto this. it seems like they might be but therossing the t's expectation is it is passed by the end of the week. host: where will you be spending your day? guest: i will be going to the press conferences that we

mentioned in response to the healthcare bill and then following the developments on the capitol on both the high wage deal and the contempt both on eric holder, which is expected toward the end of the afternoon. host: russell berman is a staff writer with "the hill" newspaper. thank you. at 10:00 a.m., c-span will continue its live coverage at the supreme court on the health care decisions. the last couple of times the supreme court could have decided health care we have them live and tracking the decision. and we will be taking your calls as well today when the supreme court doesn't decide on the health-care law. that will be on c-span 3 at 10:00 a.m., both the house and senate are in today, so we will be live on c-span 3. and one of both ways we track it is the scotus blog.

here is "the washington post" this morning.

that is from "the washington post" this morning. back to your phone calls. gordon is an independent from houston. caller: first-time caller. people in this country have forgotten that we are not capitalists. it is a democratic republic. when we have a national emergency like health care it is just like a hurricane. everyone is entitled. the way we go about giving the entitlement to health care should be through taxes. interstate commerce has absolutely nothing to do with it. when we are required to buy insurance to own a car, nobody complains. that is the only thing i wanted to say. host: appreciate calling in from houston. bill is a republican in cape

cod, massachusetts. caller: good morning. regardless of what the supreme court decides, both sides are going to claim victory. both sides are going to say that the decision enhances their position. all the decision is going to make today is act as a super glue to take the divide america is in an and solidify it. it is just going to increase the polarization that is what america is today. with respect to your interview with mr. berman and the possibility that the congressional black caucus is going to walk out today on fast and furious -- you know, i woke up this morning and i said today is thursday. i am sure you will up and you probably said today is thursday.

yet there is a huge group of people who will go and said, my gosh, today i am black. and so everybody gun went up today and just say it is thursday, this country is doomed. host: but would you like the supreme court to do today? caller: i wanted totally gone. i am 59 and a democrat all my life but in 2010 i voted across the board republican. we have so many government programs, from social security, welfare, medicaid, medicare, food stamps, every one of them broken. the american citizens for years have said six of these programs. what did they do? a democratically controlled product -- congress and white house passed another big bill, the health care bill, when they can't even fix the old? we complain about immigration,

do they do anything? no. they pass another big bill. i changed my registration to republican. and i am a first-time caller, by the way. host: from the front page of "the washington post."

and today there is a contempt both. north carolina, independent line. what do you think about the supreme court decision? we are listening. caller: first of all, an issue i don't think is addressed in this health care bill is how they are going to enforce these penalties against these illegals who come across the border from mexico and how the anchor babies here? host: we will leave your common right there. in regards to the student loan deal put into place and will be voted on either today and tomorrow --

those are some of the details of the deal that was put together. next caller, california. david, republican. what would you like to see the supreme court do?

caller: i was following this on c-span, listening to the supreme court, and it is clear whether it -- it is not whether it is a good of that idea but constitutional under the limited powers of the government. host: thank you for your call. and another tweet we received on this issue comes from robert -- monti -- monty -- finally, michael says --

joy is a democrat from milwaukee. what do you think? caller: i think they should not do what they are doing to and -- doing to the guy who is over the finance held in contempt of court. they should not be doing that. the republicans are wrong. during the discussion had in congress, they would not even allow the democrats to ask certain questions. they told the people, you don't have to answer those questions. they are crooked. host: i tell you what, just when to let us leave it stand there. we appreciate you calling in. independent from strasbourg, pennsylvania. caller: thank you for taking my

call. i believe the supreme court should strike down as unconstitutional. the healthcare bill, as it stands, the average citizen does not know what is in it. all i know is it was probably put together at the behest of the health-care industry who is lobbying. we have our democratic republic being invaded by corporations. thank you and have a nice day. host: "wall street journal" --

we will be talking with representative peter welch about that when he comes out, a democrat from vermont. havre de grace, maryland. steve. caller: my name is steve. i just have an observation.

everybody keeps using the car reference. you are not required to own a car. yes, if you buy a car, yes, you are required to have insurance. one of the justices was talking about the emissions device on the car. yes, the epa can regulate the car, and if you buy the car, yes, it must have an emissions device. but you don't have to buy a car. once you buy the car, you can be regulated. that, i understand. what the government is trying to do it is trying to regulate the individual person instead of the actual industry that governs the whole thing. the government cannot tell you you have to do something, that is a monarchy. host: this is from the front page of "the washington times" and their coverage of health care. dave is a democrat from michigan. caller: i would like to counter

the previous caller, if you do not want to buy health insurance you should stay out of the hospital. once you step into a hospital or go to a doctor's office, yes, you have to have health insurance. the commerce clause -- this constitution allows congress to regulate interstate commerce. the health insurance is allowed under the commerce clause, just like car insurance. so, if you do not step into a hospital or a doctor's office ever, then, yes, you should not have to buy health care. but if you to go into a doctor's office or hospital ever in your life, then you should have to have health care. host: bowie, maryland. caller: the last caller was absolutely correct. the commerce clause, it is constitutional. i was listening to the oral

arguments of the supreme court a little less than an hour ago on c-span, and one of the attorneys who was against the mandate was trying to use the analogy of car insurance to help insurance. it is not the same thing, not even close. anybody who has blood in their body is responsible for their own health. and the reality of the situation is, of the majority of people are going to get sick and are going to need some type of medical help and they are going to need to go to the hospital. and also, what about the babies who are born to mothers who don't have health insurance? there are thousands and thousands of babies born every year and the mothers have no health insurance and the cost of just delivering a baby is thousands of dollars. i am sick and tired of my health

-- tax dollars having to pay for those who do not have health insurance. everybody should be responsible for getting health insurance. i agree with the mandate and it is constitutional. host: houston, texas. lafayette on the republican line. what do you think was a month caller: good morning. i would like to say that i would make a prediction that they will go ahead and pass the affordable health care act. the problem is your average citizen like me believes that there is a shadow over washington in the way health care was passed. we don't trust the attorney general and we don't trust a lot of politicians and we feel like the constitution is being violated and all of our rights are slowly being chipped away one at a time. host: from the front page of "roll call" you can see the headline.

this is beneath the picture of "don't tread on me" and front of the supreme court. the supreme court ruling today. what do you want them to do? caller: it is all a bunch of crap. you know the republicans will vote for it. they are for the rich. the rich want everything. it is all a bunch of crap. host: roswell, georgia. denise, independent. caller: in response to the two people who said that you cannot walk into a hospital without health insurance -- the point is, you have to be able to pay for it. if you can pay for it independently, fine, you don't need health insurance to make sure you are in good health. the constitution does not say we are entitled to health insurance, it says health, it may just be genetics' or taking care of ourselves. i think this dependence is what

is wrong in this country. host: our coverage after "washington journal" is over -- we have been showing live pictures of the supreme court and as this morning progresses used will -- you will see more activity. a little bit out here now. the supreme court will hand down its decision after 10:00 a.m. this morning. and they have three or four still left in this first session of the court this year. the decisions will come out relatively rapid fire. and we will be charting those and we will be live and we will be taking your calls as well. at 10:00 a.m. on c-span 3, you can watch it. the front page of "usa today," they have a long interview with ann curry who is stepping down. this will be the last day as co- host of "the today show."

that is and "usa today" this morning. and from "the new york times," south carolina panel to hear ethics complaints against the governor.

again, that is from "the new york times." don from fort wayne, indiana, on the republican line. caller: thank you for taking my call. this whole thing is all about the democrats cannot govern unless they spend somebody else's money. what is going to happen is if it does pass and the supreme court does not knock it down, obama oil well have anything he wants to do with that money. -- obama will have anything he wants to do with that money. what irritates me and my wife -- we are 72 and we have been retired some years and we worked for a major corporation in this country and they have a supplemental insurance company that they provide us, and they

pay the premium. and i know what is going to happen -- if i have to start paying the premium, that a major corporation will withdraw the supplemental insurance policy, probably take 10,000 and then go away from it soon, because there is no reason for them to pay it if the government is going to pay it. to set up a honeypot pool for obama to take money out of, it is ridiculous, completely ridiculous, because you know what they are going to do with it. and just about every bill that comes through the democratic side, any kind of cuts -- they don't want to cut anything, but they sure want to spend it. i used to be a union person and i belonged to two unions and i used to be a democratic party -- and i am old enough to remember when john f. kennedy got elected. host: what kind of work did you

do? caller: i was in the transportation business. but this is a sad day if they pass this. host: thank you for calling in. the front page of "the new york times," the lead story --

that is a little bit from "the new york times." frontpage, lead story. on the front page as well as a profile of the new first lady of egypt, the wife of mohammad morsi, the new president of egypt. in case you're interested, that is on the front page of "the new york times." here is the front page of "the denver post" this morning with a dramatic picture of colorado springs and some of the five years starting to encroach on the city, very close to the air force academy. and here is the front page of "

the guardian" out of london. the queen of england meeting martininn fein's mcguinness, featured on any front pages this morning. ed, from baltimore. on our independent line. caller: good morning. thank you for c-span2. first of all, it is called the affordable health care act, not obamacare. they seem to get their cues from individual party spin doctors. republicans and democrats alike can both agree on the restrictions placed on the insurance companies not to deny people with pre-existing conditions. the only reason there is an individual mandate is because of that. so, you cannot while you are having a heart attack that

insurance. they say have an individual mandate so you have to have insurance and be covered. i don't know how the supreme court will find this. it is a lot of legal mumbo jumbo. if they do strike a doubt it will give us an opportunity to actually gets -- if they strike it down, it will give us an opportunity to actually get single payer and if not, i am moving to vermont. host: from "roll call." john sullivan, the only one in tuesday's primaries to get knocked out. he served for five years. he was knocked out by a navy reserve pilot. this is a tulsa area district held by republicans. from the business section of "the new york times" --

next call on health care comes from doran, north carolina. gary on the republican line. caller: i am a physician. i am retired but i am trying to keep up with what is going on with this. pre-existing condition idea, that sounds great and that is how we get sucked into these things. it sounds like, sure, wouldn't you helped -- like to help a kid to get out of a tree or something that appeals to people? you don't realize that aids has a potential cure of individually reviewing each cell in their immune system and then destroy the immune system and replacing it 1-by-one selected cells -- which could run up to $22

million. or for diabetes, pancreatic transplant that could be easily a couple of million dollars when all is said and done. there is no limit -- once you start going into court and say you are being discriminated against because of your disease, there is no limit on this. you are talking trillions and trillions of dollars over decades. the existing preconditions that are out there -- people have to think that through and realize it is an economic timebomb to put that thing on their. the number of diseases that people will be demanding -- people will be demanding heart transplants and lap belts to lose weight. a tremendous amount of money you could spend easily. i am just guessing easily a couple of trillion dollars in just three years. people have to think it through. it sounds great, but you have to

think this through. host: a couple more tweets -- grace says -- from "the washington post" --

that is just a little bit of this story. next call comes from new jersey, sal of the democrats' line. what would you like to see them do? caller: i am not smart enough to know exactly what is right to do but i would like to see it up held. people who use the claim of the car insurance and how you don't have to buy a car, we can't choose to be non-carbon based bodies. we get sick and we need some kind of system. if it struck down, president obama needs to come out and say we should just do a single payer system and then everyone would complain because we would all be on medicaid. but if he wins he also needs to

reiterate how important it is for him to be reelected because this is only step one if it is upheld because republicans want to take this down anyway. if he wins today, he needs to make sure he stresses we need to show up in november because if he does not win it will be gone. thank you for taking my call. host: here is a chart in "the washington times."

nrwalk -- norwalk, conn. lisa? caller: i just wanted to say all the republicans and people with labor union health insurance, they don't understand that we people who purchase our insurance privately have astronomical premiums, especially as we get older. and we either go into poverty

trying to pay for this insurance or we have to cancel and have nothing. understandon't and -- that, that there are no regulations on people, on the insurance companies, to give us affordable health care. people like -- who have group insurance like labor unions, the lobbyists, they have all kinds of provisions to get more benefits and to keep down their costs. that does not happen to us privately. frankly, if i was not going to go on medicare soon because of my age, i would have to move to massachusetts because i could not handle this any more. and i just hope that the supreme court just passes beholding for president obama because i thought he did a wonderful job -- passes the whole thing for

president obama. host: chris, republican from brooklyn, new york. caller: thank you for taking my call. a couple of things are being missed. this no longer becomes an insurance pool because the insurance is not making decisions on risk. pre-existing conditions, we all have them. for me to throw my lot in for some of the will take millions of dollars out for experimental cancer treatment, that money is going to doctors. it is not -- health insurance, and health care are two different things. but more important, we have a limited government because we do not want government to mandate us to do things. the commerce clause is about regulating commerce by and between the states. the wickard decision says things that would substantially affect interstate commerce, which is a real expansion of that. thank you for c-span, but i just want people to understand that i for my prescriptions and

dentist another printout of pocket and you should not be ashamed about paying for health care out of pocket. if you smoke cigarettes, i will not take care of your health care. lose weight if you are obese. we are not in the same pool together -- i cannot paying for you and i am not asking anybody to pay for me. it is a crazy thing, that people want me to pay for them and i am not asking them to pay for me. host: thank you for calling in. we will return to this topic later in "washington journal" and at 10:00 a.m. we will continue to live coverage on c- span 3, awaiting the decision, and we will take your calls. two members of congress in a few minutes. in just a second, representative jason chaffetz, republican of utah, will be out here, followed by peter welch, a democrat from vermont. we will be talking about this issue with them as well.

we will be right back. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2012] >> this is the conversation we need to have in this country that nobody is willing to have. what role should the government play in housing finance? the multiple of surprise winning the your times columnist gretchen morgans and talks about the subprime lending collapse, the 2008 meltdown, and a continuing issue of government socialize -- >> if you want to talk about and the populace agrees it is something that should be subsidized, put it on the

balance sheet and make it clear and evidence and make everybody aware of how much it is costing. but when you deliberately, through these third party enterprises, fannie mae and freddie mac, when you deliver the subsidies from a public company with private shareholders and executives who can extract a lot of that subsidy for themselves, that is not a very good way of subsidizing homeownership. i think we have seen the end of that movie in 2003 more with gretchen morgenson sunday at 8:00. july 7 and eighth, book tv and american history to be explores the heritage and literate culture of missouri's state capital, jefferson city, with the global content binnacle and book tv of the campus. >> this is what we like to show to visitors one day come into the archives year at the library.

this is a book about harriet tubman, called "the moses of her people." this book was written in 1866. the seventh thing about this book is harriet tubman made her mark in there, and that is really the most favorite photograph, if you want to call it that. obviously, she could not read or write, so she left her mark, the sign of the cross. >> watch for book tv and american history tv from jefferson city, missouri, july 7 and eighth. >> "washington journal" continues. host: representative jason chaffetz of utah. what decision of the supreme court made today that would benefit republicans politically?

guest: it is disappointing that we are at this -- we have to deal with health care in one degree or another. i am hopeful they will strike it down. i think it is unconstitutional. i am very much opposed to the individual mandate. and i think we ought to give more flexibility to the states. i think we -- how we deal with it in utah should be different from florida, maryland. i believe in state's rights. i think you would have better records and the viability if you push it back to the states. it is not that we do not have to deal with it, but that states will have to deal with it differently -- different populations, different needs, different approaches, and they really do believe in states' rights. host: if it is struck down a, what will republicans and house do? is there a legislative agenda? guest: i want to make sure we did not make the fundamental mistake that president obama and the democrats made, slamming something through and not doing it with any sort of bipartisan

support. i think that is hurting the country right now. the idea that you will pass something before you know what is in it is sort of a ridiculous notion. but there are things with them do about making sure that people can get things across state lines. i think we have to deal with pre-existing conditions. i think the principle of being able to own your insurance products so that you can take it with you once you leave your job -- these are all things that i think there is bipartisan support on. i just am really opposed to the notion of an individual mandate. host: how will you vote this afternoon on the content of attorney general eric holder? guest: i will vote in favor of it, unfortunately. it cannot come to this. i am on the oversight committee and also judiciary as well. remember, brian terry, the border patrol agent was killed in december of 2010 and here we are in june of 2012. this should have been disposed of long ago.

but i think we are left with no choice. the attorney general has refused to comply with a duly issued its subpoena. this is not about eric holder, per se, but the department of justice and in the united states of america, you don't just ignore a subpoena. if anybody watching a show ignored a subpoena, you would go to jail. we have a duty and responsibility to provide congress documents, and they have not done so and yet we have -- so we have to hold them in contempt. host: if it passes, what happens next? guest: there will be two votes. one will be the content vote and the other will allow us to go to civil court. when it is referred criminally -- i believe the proper terminology -- to the u.s. attorney, if the u.s. attorney refuses to prosecute it, then we can go into the civil court and pursue it that way, which ben really puts some pressure on the white house and the department

of justice because they literally go document by document and say, ok, white house, why did you exert executive privilege? remember, there are something like 140,000 documents. that could be an arduous task. but i do not buy the idea there is executive privilege on all 140,000 documents. if we go through the civil court, the process will play out. i have no idea of the timing. host: white house press secretary yesterday talked about the republicans and fast and furious. i want to get your reaction. [video clip] >> there was ample opportunity yesterday to resolve this, as there has been in the past when the attorney general met with the chairman. unfortunately republicans have chosen politics. i say that, not just using my own voice but i am quoting a leading house republican who described in this process -- describe this process as politics.

the justice department has been extremely cooperative in providing thousands of pages of documents. the attorney general has appeared to testify numerous times on this matter, and the chairman of the committee himself said on sunday that he has and there is no evidence of any white house involvement in this operation, this issue. guest: with all due respect to mr. kearney -- carney, i disagree. there are 140,000 documents pertaining to fast and furious and they have given us less than 8000. the attorney general has come to testify to the house of representatives this of the onetime in fast and furious. he has only come to the oversight committee one time. it is very simple. it is not about eric holder but it is about the department of

justice and justice in the united states of america. provide the documents, and this goes away. remember when we have the secret service scandal? within days, people were put on administrative leave and some people were fired. when we have problems with the gsa living at hi and las vegas, be dealt with that and had of that agency step down. here we are since december of 2010, still have not disposed of this and no repercussions in the department of justice. in fact, some people got promotions, and as my colleague said, nobody got a frowny face. the presence 72011 people would be held accountable and we would fix that -- the president said in 2011 people would be held accountable and would fix this. thousands of weapons out there and the attorney general admits

the process was flawed. we have the duty to fix this. it is not politics, but it is the fact we have a dead agent and we have to solve this. host: student loan and transportation funding, what are your thoughts? guest: there really should not be a flare up, particularly on student funding. speaker boehner bank said mobile times this is a fact -- fictitious argument that we are on different sides of this argument -- speaker boehner said it multiple times. just like this is not the time we should be raising taxes. and transportation, really if you are going to do transportation planning and execution, you need a eight-year type of bill to get out there. there have been no one's is back and forth. i know the senate is trying to do some things and we are trying to do some things in the house, but they need a long-term bill. host: you will support it? guest: depends on what is in it. that is the problem. i disagree with spending more

money. i also happen to believe the gas tax is something states should be able to of so they can tax and take care of the transportation needs in their states. again, i am very much a states' rights kind of person. the state of union -- state of utah, we would like to take care of our own taxes and roads without the bureaucracy of washington, d.c. host: are you faced with some of the flyers? guest: i spent two full days out there. we lost some 25 or 30 homes, and of the my own use of county there was a raging forest fire. not to the degree, mirada has had but we have had a loss of life and loss of property and still have major fires out of control. very dry out west and very windy. a lot of resources need to be put at this, but we are suffering along with colorado. host: have you talked to your senior senator since he won the

republican primary? guest: i talked to his campaign manager and congratulate him. orrin hatch, running for his sixth term, he was able to defeat dan, a good man. but our and had to did what he needed to do. everyone in the state of utah got a hug from our hatch what you wanted it or not. host: did you supported? guest: i stayed out of it. but now that he is the republican nominee, i will support him. and he ran a good race. he spent a lot of money and work hard and it would be needed to do and wants -- won by a large margin. i really was thinking about it, but my wife and kids to vacation there in august and decided will love it in the house, such a great opportunity and rather than get in the bloodbath which is taking on a senior senator,

we have an opportunity in utah. we go from three congressional seats to four and we would love to move from two republicans to four republicans. a great opportunity in the house. and i love working on the mitt romney campaign. i am a huge supporter. host: your former boss, as you used to be chief of staff to jon huntsman when you were -- when he was governor. was that a tough decision? guest: it was. jon huntsman is a great man. i'm grateful for the opportunity. i would not be here without the opportunity jon huntsman provided me. i supported mitt romney. i thought he was the right person at the right time with the right talent. it was nothing against jon huntsman.

i was pro-mitt romney. it was a difficult decision, but nevertheless i think it is the right one. host: a former utah governor was recently on the hill. he is a mitt romney circuit, right? guest: he was very involved in support of mitt romney. we have interacted with him. we invited him to capitol hill to meet with lawmakers to talk about health care and the ramifications of the supreme court decision. we have a long view of what health-care could and should look like. host: do you feel house republicans are fully on board with mitt romney at this point? the guest: every house member shares something in common, they are on the same ballot together. it was a contentious primary,

but i was pleasantly surprised in how people quickly coalesced in supporting mitt romney. if there's one thing that unites republicans, and i am hopeful this is not too offensive to democrats, but it is the deep desire to defeat barack obama, november. we are very united on that front. mitt romney is the right person at the right time. he is a man of integrity. i think he has the right policies, the right background, all of the elements to make a great president. host: is mitt romney on board with house republicans? guest: not necessarily. on most things, yes. on other things, no, but that is healthy. we should not shy away from that. you have to take issue-by issue. host: one more questions come --

question, and then calls. would you like to see paul ryan chosen as vice president? guest: i am huge paul ryan fan. he is the brightest person on capitol hill. he is a very good man. he has been tried and tested. i have said to a few folks in the mitt romney world that he would make a good was president. there are other good choices, but you could not go wrong with a man like paul ryan. host: representative jason chaffetz, republican from utah, is our guest. he is a graduate of brigham young. is in a second term. the first call comes from lawrenceville, georgia. edward on our republican line. caller: i think the representative has done a great job. all of these democrats keep talking about the good things

about obama-care but nobody is talking about the punishment like if i went to sell my house and i have to pay 3.5% to the government -- things like that. could you explain all of the bad things in obama-care, the punishments, and all the things that are wrong with it? guest:-appreciate the kind comments. if there is something like 20 different taxes associated with obama-care. when i am sensitive to is the medical device tax. the president promised there would be no new taxes for anyone earning less than two hundred $50,000 a year. a medical device tax kicks in. there are 20 different taxes of their that i find fundamentally wrong. the other thing we should be concerned about, it takes $500

billion, a huge number, out of medicare. there are people saying to not touch my medicare. it is only president obama and the democrats that have taken $500 billion out of medicare, and you have to be able to address those challenges. combine the tax increases, the devastation in how we are dealing with medicare, it has never really ended up to a lot of us. those are a couple of them. host: representative chaffetz, the next call comes from florida. caller: you are against health reform. guest: now i am not. caller: let me finish. you do not want health reform. 50% to not have health insurance, but they did you health insurance.

the senators after four years get $60,972 a year. i do not see paul ryan cutting things down. would you raise your hand and say you would cut your benefits? if i'd buy a car, do you want to pay need the benefits? host: we have the point, representative chaffetz? guest: i'm sorry you have had those strokes. healthcare is a sensitive issue and i understand that. i do believe there should be reform. i do not like the way it happened under nancy pelosi. i'm in my second term. the first term by was here with nancy pelosi as speaker and i thought the way it was crafted was fundamentally wrong. do i believe there should be reform dealing with pre-existing conditions and buying health

care across straight lines next there are a lot of things i need to happen -- lines -- state lines? there are a lot of things i think needs to happen. in my first two years i gave $640,000 back to the united states treasury. the legislative branch as a whole has cut its budget 13% under john boehner as the speaker of the house. so, we have dramatically cut those back in terms of what we in the legislative branch are doing. we are calling for cutting and spending in lots of different areas of. our federal government and we did that starting at home. i can tell you personally i did not spend all of the money allocated to me and we returned $640,000 to the treasury.

host: is mitt romney vulnerable on the health-care issue because of massachusetts? guest: i think it is a strength. he has lived it and breathed it. that will give him a great perspective. he, too, believes in many of the state right issues that i like to talk about. i personally disagree with what governor mitt romney did in the state of massachusetts, but being a state's right guy, i believe how the craft that even massachusetts would be different than how they do it in north carolina. you will always learn once you have gone three things. i think it was harder for him in the republican primary, but in the general election he will do quite well because he will be able to talk firsthand about how he managed the massachusetts pros and cons and it will give him a great perspective. host: donna tweets in, buying

health care across state lines -- time to retire that tired old talking point. wayne from tennessee says how does mr. chaffetz view a national law permitting the purchase of health's share -- health-care across state lines? guest: if you provide more options, you will allow people to purchase a better product. the previous caller asked about what we do in the united states congress. house republicans have tried to do what members of congress and the federal government does. we have an option of 500 different insurance coverages. i chose blue cross/blue shield. i paid for that premium. it gives me options. that is the same thing we are trying to do for everyone across

the country. give them options, but typically dealing with people with pre- existing conditions. my parents went through this. both of them passed away, said lee, from cancer. it would have been difficult to go through that process and change insurance for them if they had moved or done something else while battling cancer. host: the next call for representative chaffetz comes from long island. go ahead, grace. independent line. caller: 5 that a junkie on c- span, but i loved c-span. i remember chuck grassley, he talks about health care, and then he goes to a town hall meeting, talking about throwing momma from a train. you get health insurance, your dental, and your glasses. we pay for that.

you want to give us nothing? guest: good morning in long island, i do not wear glasses, i participate in the dental program, but i'd pay premiums for that. that comes out of my paycheck. i think there is a degree of personal responsibility that comes into the equation, but i do not want government running this program. i want to provide the atmosphere and the opportunity for people to choose for -- from an array of plans and be able to purchase those. our role in government is limited, and i just do not believe we need to set up an individual mandate, making everyone pay into it. there are things to like and dislike you have to be careful what the proper role of government is, and that should be dealt with the state level more than the federal level.

host: 20 minutes left our guest. cleveland. republican line. good morning. caller: representative, i have a question for you. our founding fathers dressed up with cash on their face at the boston tea party in case they were caught by the british. now, we took the country from the natives because we had an army to do so. the lady that was that the house yesterday from hawaii trying to pass an act from 1921. i saw your reaction. i wanted your opinion on that issue. guest: well, what i believe she was trying to do is resurrect an authorization that was done in the 1920's. she was trying to put more affordable housing into hawaii, asking for something like $13 million. that was ruled out of order.

there is a point of order put in place. we did not end up voting on that particular proposed amendment. host: one issue we are not talk about is the arizona immigration issue. here is majority leader harry reid talking about republicans. [video clip] >> unfortunately, republicans who once faced a solution are deserting efforts to find common ground. the only decisive voice on this issue today seems to be from mitt romney, who has called it -- called the unconstitutional arizona law the model for the nation. that is what he said. he is also promised to veto the dream act. democrats believe the institutionalized racism in the air is, what is hardly the model for reform in a country that stands for justice for all.

we believe that young people what not known a home of vivendi united states of america should be able to go -- home than in the united states of america, we should be able to go to college. we know where mitt romney stands, even though we disagree with him. guest: i have always argued we need to fix legal immigration. i want the fans out there, but i do not care how big and wide it is. he did not fix immigration, it will not matter. i passed an immigration bill this year that a sitting in the united states senate. other than a wheelchair races and a bingo nights on wednesday, what does the united states senate do? i did not know how they earn their pay check. if they have not done a budget in more than three years they come here for a weekend vote on

one item -- they need to get engaged in the. of the democrats have the house, the senate, and the presidency for two years and they did nothing on immigration. i was on the subcommittee. i ask the speaker to be on this subcommittee the caller wanted to get my fingernails dirty to help solve this immigration problem. we met 12 times in two years and not once did we debate and immigration bill. so, for two years we did not do anything. i actually passed something, and it is sitting in the senate. harry reid should get up and do something about this. is in his court, rather than blame mitt romney. they had their chance, they did nothing. i am convinced mitt romney will work on this issue and i think house republicans are anxious to get after this and six legal immigration. if it was easy, it would have been done a long time ago, but

there are definitely things we can do. host: the next call comes from georgia. ken, a democrat. caller: high, mr. chaffetz. you mentioned that $500 billion have been taken out of medicare. 1000heard that same thing times, probably 900 times on fox news, but maybe you can clarify this. i have what is called the medicare advantage plan all under one plan. my understanding was, and please correct me, that the $500 billion that was taken was not actually taken out of medicare, but that the $500 billion was actually being used to subsidize those insurance companies that had written those policies for the holders of plan c, medicare

advantage. am i wrong? and, one more thing, did you happen to see by john michael on cnn? he lost his composure and it was truly kind of embarrassing. guest: i think that was on msnbc and it went on for a long time. i did see part of it. as it relates to medicare advantage, and it is complicated, it was disassembled under the affordable health care act. remember, the president multiple times said if you have your insurance, you will keep it. if you like it, you will keep it. that would not be the case specific to medicare advantage. there are different subsets.

it sounds like you are involved in that. this is what is creating anxiety. i know there are people on both sides of the issue. they like it. some sites do not like it. i think we can all agree this is terribly complicated. i do not think anyone understands what this act does because you create this independent payment advisory board, something that is very offensive to a person like me, with 15 unelected bureaucrats that will make decisions about what you can and cannot do. that is one of the more troubling aspects of the program. it creates all of this uncertainty, solid person like yourself is left wondering what is going to happen. that anxiety is causing a lot of problems for a lot of people. host: niche. florida. caller: good morning, america. good morning c-span.

i would like you to explain to these people that if they pass this commerce law we will not be able to stop them from anything. people do not seem to understand that. if they pass this law, there is nothing we will be able to -- they will not be able to make us do. nothing. i wish people would understand that. people are so ready to give up their freedom that so many people died for. i'm a veteran myself. guest: first of all, thank you for your service, and thank you to all of the veterans. i think we can do more as a nation for people like yourself. the individual mandate does create a dangerous precedent. it is too simple and convenient to compare it to automobile insurance. the idea and the notion that your federal government will

force you to spend money on something is not a direction we want to go. i think the principle is wrong. i believe in fiscal discipline, limited government, accountability and strong national defense. the constitution was divinely inspired, and we ought to adhere to that. if we have to be careful. the federal government should not be all things to all people can and should not mandate how people spend their money. host: our guest has been represented jason chaffetz, a republican of utah. thank you for being on "washington journal." we have another guest, the chief deputy whip of the house, peter welch, a democrat of vermont. we are awaiting the supreme court decision at 10:00 a.m.. we have a line -- live camera outside of the supreme court right now. at 10:00 a.m., we will be covering the supreme court decision making live on c-span3

and taking your calls as well. we will be right back with represent a peter welch red after this news update from c- span radio. -- peter welch, right after this news update from c-span radio. >> the author writes about the president. >> harry truman goes to the white house, and sells to elinor -- eleanor roosevelt, can i pray for you, and she says no, we need to pay for you. >> there are a lot of promises made. they say they would have to rent a large hall to get all the people jack kennedy promised the vice presidency to. >> ideals. >> calvin coolidge might of the molest jeffersonian. he believed the resistance -- he

resisted the temptation to extend federal power. the senate, your questions live for the author. also, the obama administration of the response to the air of string, and the israel- palestinian peace process. but this sunday night at 9:00 p.m.. -- that is sunday night at 9:00 p.m.. >> this is the conversation we need to have -- what role should the government play in how things are finance? >> in "reckless endangerment" greece more concerned he tells the sub-prime collapse -- greece and morrison details the sub- prime mortgage. >> if you want to subsidize housing, put it on the balance sheet, make it clear and evident come and make everyone aware of how much it is cost -- costing.

when you deliver it through third party enterprises, fannie mae, freddie mac, subsidies to a private company with private shareholders, and executives that can extract a lot of that subsidy for themselves, that is not a very good way of subsidizing homeownership. i think we have seen that, the end of that movie in 2008. >> more with gretchen morgenson sunday at 8:00 on c-span's "q&a ." >> checking on the headlines this hour, in syria, one day after the state department said the secretary of state with only attend an international meeting on syria if participants agreed to a political transition in the country, word today that secretary of state hillary clinton will participate. the emergency meeting is set for saturday in geneva. it was called by kofi annan, and it will include diplomats from

five permanent members of the security council. on a voice from the united nations, the european union and the arab league are also invited. secretary clinton made history, stepping off of her playing in latvia. it is her 100th visit to a foreign country. no previous secretary has visited more than 96 while in office. the previous record holder was madeleine albright who served as secretary of state during bill clinton's second term in office. those are the headlines on c- span radio. >> "washington journal" continues. host: joining us is representative peter welch, democrat of vermont, and he is the chief deputy whip for democrats in the house of representatives and a member of the oversight and government reform committee. representative peter welch, the contempt vote on attorney general eric holder is being

held this afternoon. what are your views? guest: bad idea. it is a legitimate investigation. fast and furious was an enforcement effort that went bad. they were trying to follow the sale of illegal guns into mexico to connect with a bigger fish, basically. what happened is some of these guns that were sold and went across the border they lost track of, and a couple of these semi-automatic machine guns were found at the scene at the death of an agent. the question is where these guns used in that episode? the investigation is legitimate. the democrats support it, and we also support the subpoena power of congress to get access to administration documents, but contempt is premature and it has the hinge of being politically

motivated. fast and furious, the whole program, started under the bush administration. if you want to get to the bottom of the program, started the beginning. many of us on the committee have asked the committee to bring in the bush administration folks that were present at the creation, and we are not allowed to do that. why? the original subpoena that was outstanding and until just days before the contempt load was demanding that the attorney general turned over information that had he done so with that been a violation of federal law transcripts of grand jury proceedings, wiretap transcripts, a specific violation of the united states code. we view this as essentially premature and very unnecessary. when you add to that, darrell issa has acknowledged that there is no evidence the attorney general knew anything about it,

and: saddam, this is the attorney general who shot -- and coincidently, this is the attorney general who shut this down. the question we are asking is why the contempt both for the first time in the history of this country, they will be holding a vote on hold in the attorney general in contempt. it seems political and not wise. host: you said this is a relatively common law enforcement procedure? guest: it is common to set up a situation where you can follow evidence of to a higher kingpin, basically. this one did not work. it was not wise because guns were being able to walk. it was a botched operation. the motives were probably very typical of law enforcement who are trying to get to bigger fish. that is basically it. it went awry. we lost the life of an agent,

and that is obviously very serious. there is a great sense of obligation on the committee to try to help the family find out what happened and how, but it is not something where there is some kind of cover-up by the attorney general. by the way, there is no evidence that there is anything at a high administration level in the bush administration, or president obama, or either attorney general been involved. all of the evidence focuses on the phoenix branch. host: representative, you were at the fast and furious hearings. what you think of the conduct of the oversight committee? guest: i did not have an objection to the oversight committee. this was a partisan vote, which i think is regrettable because it gives the american people once again the sense that this is a typical washington road show where it got political.

the argument that i was making, and it was really more of a question before we voted on contempt is why not allow was to bring in the bush administration folks so that we begin at the beginning? why not work with the attorney general who had been very forthcoming. this was senator -- this was an attorney general who testified before our committee, and seven other committees in congress. he has been quite cooperative. then we got into this crunch situation where the clock was ticking, and i am not quite sure why the chairman felt he had to act that day, but in my view it was premature and unnecessary, and gets in the way a loss been successful in get -- gets in the way of loss been successful in getting to the bottom of this. host: the supreme court at 10:00 a.m. this morning, health care

-- this argument from "dell." guest: medicare for all. i think that makes sense substantively and politically. a lot of us were for medicare for all when this debate happened, and one of the reasons is because it works. everybody who is on medicare helps to pay for it. they appreciate the fact if you're going to pay for health care, you have an obligation to pay for it, much like we all do with social security. we had a compromise. we accepted the public option with which we passed in the house, and we have to compromise that away because it could not get through the senate, and then we have had this health-care bill that has been civil war in congress ever since the ink dried on the president signing it. my hope is the supreme court will uphold it, and then our

challenge will be to make it work as best as we can for america, to find kinks in it and make adjustments unfortunate, i think we will continue the internal battle in congress where the republican majority is intent on repealing every vestige of anything related to obama-care. comedic -- politically, i also think it makes sense to come up with an alternative. democrats have a solid record supporting medicare. the paul ryan budget in the house in the name of reform would turn it into a voucher program, so if you're 55 or under, if you get to 65, you would go of the marketplace with a certain amount of money -- go out into the marketplace with a certain amount of money and it would cost you more than if you head medicare. host: are you satisfied with the bill for transportation, and of

the student aid issue? guest: i am on student aid, but i am not sure about transportation. deposited it is six months instead of 60 days or 90 days, but i think it is exhibited a of how bad congress is in that we cannot pass it transportation bill. roads and bridges exist in democratic and republican district, and the infrastructure is crumbling, and we know if we want to be a modern economy we need enormous improvements in our infrastructure. our inability to pass a transportation bill is an indication of how congress is not getting the job done because we have this enormous problem of reaching across the aisle, finding common ground.

i'm glad we have six months. that will give some visibility to planners in our state capitals. student aid, i'm very relieved we will keep interest rates at 3.4%, rather than have them double that 6.8%. the stafford loans were named after a republican of vermont, who worked a democrat from rhode island and they did more to make lower-interest loans available to kids going to college than just about anybody else, and the idea that we would let those interest rates doubled when the united states government is borrowing at 1.6%, and we're going to charge middle-class families 6.8%? that is outrageous. we are very happy and credit to the speaker and leadership for reaching an agreement on that. host: our guest is representative peter welch, democrat of vermont, chief

deputy whip, membership -- member of the oversight and reform committee. i will put the numbers on the screen if you would like to be in the conversation jarrett. a republican in a shrill, north carolina. -- charlotte, north carolina. caller: i am 17 years old, and involved in politics. how can you support obama-care, the transportation act, and all these bills your tried to pass, but we have such a large deficit that it will not cause a serious problem for your generation, but for mine. i wake up worrying that we will end apply greece because we will spend ourselves into debt? guest: we do have a debt. we have to look at how we got

there. in some instances it was paying what money we did not have a four two wars. -- four two wars. then, of course, when the economy when off the cliff with the sub-prime mortgage crisis, that depressed tax revenues and was brutal on the balance sheet. however we got here, you are right, we have a serious problem, but how do we get out? it is a combination of restraining spending, paying for things that we are going to do -- it is outrageous to put a war of a credit card. we also have to reform health care, so the cost is not increasing significantly faster than inflation wages and profits, but i also believe we have to include revenue as part of the package. it is an all-of-the-above strategy.

we have domestic/discretionary, revenant -- and revenue, and if we do that in a balanced way, we convicted dent in the deficit and strengthen the economy. host: arizona. democrat. caller: it is frustrating living in arizona and knowing exactly what happened in fast and furious, but the story is not coming out. it all has to do with arizona's gun laws. the alcohol tobacco people were tracking the straw buyers. in arizona law they gun store and buy thousands of dollars worth of guns, walkout in the parking lot and sell them right

out there. that is who they are tracking. they tried to stop the guns from walking by going to the attorney general who refused to prosecute and confiscate those weapons. the only thing that we're not clear about is which attorney general. the previous one was disbarred for illegal activities, and we do not know if it was the current attorney general. guest: you are talking arizona attorney general, right? caller: correct. guest: that statement speaks for itself, and that collor has much more information than i do. -- caller has more information than i do. she is talking about the arizona attorney general, not the bush attorney general or mr. eric holder. host: another issue arizona is

facing is the supreme court decision on immigration. do you support what president obama has done with regard to immigration? guest: i do. this is a wonderful opportunity. the president said the kids that came here and had no choice in that, parents that got here one way or the other, they have the opportunity to use this discretion. they will not be deported. they can go to school. they can apply for a job. they can get married. this is a great opportunity to take these folks out of the shadow of enormous apprehension for no illegal act on their part. they would be deported. these are americans in every sense of the word. they grew up next to your kids and mine siccative we and in reality implicit -- figuratively and in reality.

i think it is great these kids have the opportunity to contribute. i do support it. host: as a border state, does vermont have any immigration issues? guest: nothing like the southwest. we used to have an open border, just come and go with canada, and we have a lot of communities where of the kids play hockey and travel back and forth. host: are there still roads that you can go over without getting stopped at? guest: not since 9/11. we have a couple of buildings where the border goes through it. i was at a factory where part of it is in canada, and part is in the west. there is such a long tradition of friendship back and forth, and that is obviously not the case now on the southern border.

so, we of some border issues, but to some extent the border issues we have is the sense that there has to be more flexibility and less restriction in order to maintain the social and commercial ties that have been established over the years between vermont and canada. host: there are border patrol agents at each road crossing? guest: there is now. since 9/11, they have been tightened up, and that is the source of some frustration. host: what do they do with the building that is split down the middle? can you walk from one side to the other? guest: you can walk from one side to the other. the entrance is on the u.s. side. you get to sneak across the board quickly. it cannot go to start.

host: richmond, virginia. laura on the republican line. caller: i hope the supreme court strikes down the man did today, because this health-care bill was never anything but a giveaway to corporations. once the supreme court strikes down the bill, the republicans have nothing to fix health care. these insurance companies are locked in a death spiral with the american people. they charge higher premiums and they deny us more care so they can make a profit. if i will tell you what the american people are going to do. we are going to bankrupt these blood-sucking health insurance companies once and for all. all right? then, the american people can truly have health care, rather and profits going to ceo's

executives that do nothing to provide us with health care. host: congressman? guest: a lot of the anchor she expressed that insurance companies is widely-shared. there are huge salaries for many of the ceo's. before the health-care bill, you could not get insurance if you have pre-existing conditions. they only wanted to cover you if you were healthy or our kids could not stay on their parent'' health insurance. that is been a tremendous benefit. kids getting out of college or high school, it is tough to get a job, and to get one it is often with our health care benefits, and that is enormous anxiety for parents and insecurity for the kids. insurance companies, pre-health care bill, would be able to throw you off of insurance if

you get sick. these are protections that a stand up to the worst abuses of the insurance company practices. if the court overturns it, we're back in the wild west days where the health insurance is in the iron grip of the health insurance companies, which i think is a bad situation. host: an article in "the wall street journal" -- house bill will not care state's bills. it says that vermont is setting up its own plan that would go much further than the federal health law, and by 2017 to give the state a canadian-style single-payer system

guest: vermont has an ambitious goal that everyone will be covered. we will have a plan that does much better than the national approach to controlling costs, because there is a recognition in vermont that if you want access for everybody, you have to control what the cost is parent of the road to wider access to health care is to better -- it is. the road to wider access to health care is better delivery and lower costs. we have move the way to the fee for service, which moves towards performance. we have in vermont and infrastructure that is nonprofit. we have 14 hospitals that are all nonprofit. blue cross/blue shield is a

nonprofit insurance company that is been doing a good job. we have the tradition of doctors and health care administrators being very engaged in the debate. when i was in the state senate, we have a democratic state senate, working on expanding health care, a republican governor, and jim douglas, and we had a lot of back-and-forth with the governor focusing and keeping jobs down, and the democrats focusing on extending access, and we agree that we are both right. the governor's point on cost is essential to achieve democratic goals on access. how we get there is a tough, tough challenge, but a challenge that we are engaged in and it involves our doctors, our hospital administrators, our health insurance executives, and our practitioners. it really is very promising. the health-care ruling made by the supreme court is important to us.

if the law is struck down, the federal money that would go into state exchanges to help us extend access to the uninsured would not be there. this would be a significant setback for vermont and other states if the court reviewed -- reverses the health-care bill. host: when we were talking with representative chaffetz awhile ago, he said he sees health care as a state issue, that utah, florida, vermont would handle it differently. do you think of -- what do you think about the state system, and could california did the same thing as vermont, or are the states to diverse? guest: there has to be a partnership. when the challenges in vermont is we can reach a full agreement, and what -- might have a system that will work for our citizens, but what happens when someone from vermont goes somewhere else?

what happens when someone outside of vermont comes in? these are challenges of portability, a challenge under the current system, but there has to be a federal role in order to allow states to be able to finance a sensible program that they designed and administered at the local level. i was the sponsor of an effort to give the states waivers and a lot of flexibility. this is where i would agree with jason chaffetz. the more you bring this down to local level, the more confidence you can have in the administration of it. having states involved is a good thing. what is not a good thing is to have 50 different standards for what is covered and what is not covered, because that tends to end of been a race to the bottom. host: the next call for peter welch, a democrat from vermont, comes from new hampshire. chris.

republican line. good morning. caller: good morning, representative. i have been following the attorney general hearings, and it was interesting to see that the attorney general was not necessarily forthcoming on the entire request for documentation relative to the fast and furious program, and often times during the contentious hearings, you know, frequently referred to, i think, and i may be wrong, 1700 documents that have been turned over, but not all of the thousands of documents that had not been turned over. when the hearings kind of culminated in to demands, the current administration conveniently invoked executive privilege, which, you know, i think does not really pass the smell test, but all during this

process neither the attorney general nor the administration acknowledged that a young man lost his life because of this program. i guess what i am trying to figure out is where in all of that lies the truth, and unfortunately, it is a vote against the attorney general, it might not have happened if the current administration had not taken the path of invoking executive privilege. guest: two things. number one. this is a program that went on over to the wall of administrations, and a lot of us on the committee felt if we are going to -- over two or administrations, and a lot of us felt that we should get to the beginning, and we are not allowed to bring in any one from the bush administration.

second, there was an over-broad request, with the subpoena demanding the attorney general turn over documents that it would have been illegal for him to turn over. third, normally things get worked out. if it is an endless loop of asking for information, that is turned over, and there is a new cycle of requests, this is a never-ending process, and as you will downpour's what you need, i think you have to get more space -- as you whittle down to what you need, i think you have to get more specific. if we had not rushed to this contempt vote, i have some confidence we could ever worked this out. i'm member of congress and a member of the committee, and i support the investigation and the aggressiveness of the access

to documents, and a lot of democrats agree with me, but this has taken a political turn. when the chairman was scalding -- calling eric holder a liar, or saying the obama administration is the most corrupt in history, that undercuts the ability. i think the committee could end of this better than it did. host: we will show you a live picture from the supreme court this morning this picture is taken from a camera situated on the capitol lawn. you can see that the crowd is getting a little bit bigger in front of the steps. the crowd is starting to gather out there in front of the supreme court. it will get larger as we get closer to 10:00 a.m. and the supreme court decision. westport, connecticut. michael. you're on with representative peter welch, democrat of vermont. caller: thank you for taking the

call and thank you, representative. i would like to bring up some talking points. being a democrat, i do not have to follow the democrats as far as getting on the bandwagon with you guys. i am not happy with a lot of the things you guys are doing these days. one of the things it is first of all, i am unemployed, and that happened about five months ago, and the first thing i want you to understand is you guys keep talking about employment numbers, but you do not realize that people are taking jobs that they probably do not even want to do just to pay their bills. in other words, whether they're still is that, they're taking a job at burger king if they can get one, and they are doing that. that is the first point. i also want to -- that is the first point. i also want to point out that i've been supporting democrats since 2006 and nancy pelosi, and

i want to talk about the housing debacle, because i think it was called by maxine waters and friends. i am also not happy with the fact that if obama gets in, the estate tax will be raised to 55%. people have been paying taxes all their lives, and if they die, they're going to give something to their family. obama wants to take 55% of those taxes, and i do not want the health care effort to continue. i hope the supreme court roadstead down. i have a lot of other things to say, especially about the attorney general, and other things he did other than this fast and furious, from the time that the black panthers intimidated people and they did not prosecute them. i will let that go, and you can say what you want to say. guest: your point on the economy is an absolutely right. it is tough.

employment number is 8.2% or so. it is really high, but it does not reflect discouraged workers, people that are not counted because they have given up and cannot find a job. the length of time that people are out of work is the longest it has done since, i think, the depression. it is really tough. there was a study that says the average family have seen a 40% reduction in their net wealth since the sub-prime crisis. you're absolutely right, the jobs people are getting do not match their skills. if they get a job to help pay their bills they feel lucky. it is a lot of insecurity. it is the residue of a lot of things, the particularly the credit bubble that resulted in the collapse of the housing market. that is why this economy, this debate we are heading down here,

where a lot of folks are doing that the path forward is through more and more austerity, i think it does not make sense, and we will barely passed the extension of the transportation bill. that should be long-term carriage should not be short- term, -- long-term extension. -- long term. that should not be short term. we have a lot of work to do. host: what is the economy of vermont like right now? guest: we are luckier than most. unemployment is below 5%, so people are working, but the caller makes the point that a lot of people that are working have to be will jobs to try to pay the bills and the wages are low. people have suffered with a decline in the value of their home, a loss in retirement security. vermont is doing better in many places, but it is still a challenge for many people. i think that has to be job one

for us in congress. there is not one answer for this, but it is definitely not cut, cut, cut. there has to be some investment in the future. something like the stupid loans is very important. it's called a couple -- student loans is very important. host: a couple of tweets -- what happens if government just gets out of the way? and the other side -- why can't we follow canada and european nations with their health care plans? guest: the free market does not work in health care because the logic is to make a profit, and that means that insurance companies would want to insure people are relatively healthy, and not insure people letter sick. so, for instance, but say you are healthy until you are in your 60's.

you might need to get health insurance at a reasonable price, but then when you start meeting that, you cannot buy it. the logic of the free market is basically to take care of the people that are healthy, and not ensure the risk of people who are not because they will lose money. the free market is about making profit. there has to be some governmental role to make certain that everybody can have access to health insurance. all of our competitor countries debt have some form of universal health coverage -- that have some form of universal health coverage have some form of government toll road. france has an insurance-based system, but public payments into that. in most of these countries, the employer does not have to pay health insurance, which is a significant competitive advantage for their employers as

a postal hours -- as opposed to ours. they tend to have more people covered, at lower cost, with better health care outcomes than the united states. host: the next call comes from maryland. robert parish -- robert. independent line. >> that is actually virginia -- caller: that essentially virginia. i will be brief. down there, in arizona, when the fast and furious thing went to the gun shops, if they did not turn around and get in touch with the nra, and say they're trying to knocked bond lost down, i wonder if the nra did not -- and knocked the gun laws down, i wonder if the nra did not go in there. that seems suspicious.

this thing with health care, if congress and the senate would agree to go ahead and led everyone go over the border, the health care would go to compare the costs would go down -- would go down. the cost would go down. lobbyists would not want that to happen. a lot of congressmen in virginia on property that are subsidized by hud and their rent is sky high, putting taxpayer money in a loop and putting it back in their pockets. host: a lot on the table there. guest: there is no evidence in the hearing that the nra had any role in fast and furious. i agree, i sponsored legislation when i was a state senator in vermont to try to allow prescription drugs from

canada, which were must -- much less expensive at the time. i think you have a good point. host: speaking of the national rifle association, they did send a letter to congressman issa and cumming about this. they said heightening the concerns and requiring involvement it the white house use tohite house's dance the gun-control program agenda. guest: i see no link whatsoever. this started and the bush administration. the notion that the program somehow had our role in a gun policy by the obama administration, i have seen no evidence of it.

this policy did start under president bush. that, i do not think it makes a lot of sense. president obama has not done anything on guns. there has been no legislation offered by the obama administration on restricting second a member rights. host: is vermont a second- amendment-type state? guest: yes, it is. it is not difficult at all. vermont has a culture of responsible use of guns. a lot of vermonters take their kids out and teach them how to hunt in shooting and is a thinly activity. we are very fortunate with their rural traditions we have that one of them is very responsible use of firearms. teaching their and moms kids about responsible hunting

and then use. in vermont we support second amendment rights. host: how did you get into politics? guest: i grew up in the 1960's when civil-rights was a huge issue, and it was inspiring to all of us who saw the bravery of people who like one of my colleagues, john lewis. when i was in college i was the robert kennedy fellow. i worked in the west side of chicago as a community organizer. president obama was in the south side years later. you saw how was really make a difference in restricting or expanding opportunity for people to become the potential they have to become. there was enormous amount of legal discrimination against people that were african- american. areas of the city were redlined. you could not get insurance on

homes there. it created a situation where speculators would come in and sell a home on a contract twice what the market rate was, but that was the only way an african american family could buy a home, so we began organizing to try to change that. what i got a sense of is how laws really make a difference in what opportunities will be there for all americans. >host: you went to uc-berkeley? guest: i went to uc-berkeley. i like the weather out there. we talked you going skiing ones and how cold it is. i grew up in massachusetts, and right after law school came back and lived just north of where i grew up. i started my law practice in vermont. the university of california had a tremendous loss cool,, and it was a chance for a young man to see the west coast. host: indiana. don on the democrats' line.

you are on with peter welch. caller: thank you. i have been watching c-span for the past five years and have not called in, and i am getting so tired of everyone blaming george bush for every problem we have. please remember the odot com bubble. let's remember 911. -- 9/11. we went to nothing after that terrible day in rv sales. the george bush administration came in 2003 to george bush and said there is something wrong with fannie mae and freddie mac. john mccain in 2005 went to congress and said we need to look at these things. let's stop the blame game on

george bush and try to figure out what we can do. i know i was not happy with george bush's spending after giving free prescription drugs, but i wish we would stop. he is been gone for 3.5 years. host: we have your point. congressman peter welch. guest: you are right, we have to focus on the decisions that need to be made to move ahead. in that sense, i absolutely agree with you. we of a tough economy, big debt, and we have to move forward. s always an argument to how we got where we are. that is a legitimate debate. one of the things i mentioned about george bush today was the fact that fast and furious program began under his administration.

also, in congress now there really is a debate about whether we should go back to policies that were very much promoted by george bush. tax cuts for the wealthy. many of my argument -- colleagues argument we need more of them. they already contribute to the significant dent we bt we have. in colorado asks --r rocco as yout: it depends on how want to finance it. in some cases where you have public financing for health care, it is much like social security. and apparel reduction, the pay roll issues you your texcheck

and takes up the amount that will go to social security and puts that in the trust fund. if you have a system that we were it is you, the worker who is paying for your retirement or health care, the role of the employer would simply to send that money to the trust fund. that is the big challenge. how will you pay for anything? right now we have individuals being. employers pay but then you do not get a race. ise. a lot of unions have given up pay increases for the continuation of health care benefits. one of the challenges that we have, no matter what health care system you want, employee- sponsored were they pay, individual sponsor were you paid, you have to keep the costs to health care close to the rate of inflation. we just cannot sustain a system worth going up two and three times the rate of inflation. host: just a few minutes left

with our guest. bill, democrats line. caller: hello. i was wondering if the representative have read that ark -- article. the truth about the fast and furious scandal. and how the world came to believe the opposite is a tale of rivalry, murder, and critical blood lust. you have to read this. host: according to several news reports, the congressional black caucus is finding a work -- walked out. do you support that? will you join it? guest: i will not. one of my major jobs is to vote, so i will be there to vote. host: as chief deputy whip, do

you have a duty this afternoon on a fast and furious? guest: i do. i am encouraging my colleagues to vote against the content actions, so i will be on the floor talking with my colleagues. i am also a committee member, so i have knowledge and having been present so i will be advocating among my colleagues to vote more on the contents of the motion. host: what is your view of the potential walked out. guest: they are raising the question of the motivation, and i think they have a pretty legitimate question. before the evidence was in there were calling the attorney general a liar, that is a bad thing. that is a very offensive thing to do. that is using the l word. the congressional black caucus is questioning the motivations here. different people come to different conclusions, but the reason is because of some of the conduct by committee leadership.

host: blocky, larry. independent. -- milwaulkee. think a walked out of the black caucus is really significant. i think besides the committee making this a political issue, i have said and no one talks about it, i think it is a racial issue. you can feel it watching the proceedings on television. this has been the underlying factor over the past 3.5 years. i think the committee is going after attorney general holder, because they cannot get to president obama. one of the representatives actually brought an impeachment. this is totally ridiculous.

i would like to comment also on the lack of respect to office holders. i would refer to rep as rep. attorney-general holder should be addressed as attorney general holder. president obama should not be dressed as -- address as obama. there is a total underlying lack of respect and animosity towards our black leaders. i am just wondering what the representative would think about that. guest: i really like your call for mutual respect. i think that helps us listen to each other. one of the problems in politics is we do not. when you start dismissing other people by using their regular names or denying them the title

they have earned, i think it leads to degradation of the public debate, so i appreciate your focus on civility. host: as we wrap up, a couple of more calls. there has been a memo leaked that supposedly is a republican memo in case health care does get overturned, what the plan would be in the house, and some of the issues. i just want to get your view on some of these individual issues. but if you could see yourself supported it, allows small businesses to pool resources for health care expenses. guest: i can support that, but i have seen the list. the bottom line is the house republicans have been fighting against the health care bill from the beginning. when they became the majority stake repealed it. mr. boehner, said the would ger said they would get

rid of any form of this. where is planne a? if this is struck down, we go back to the old days where the insurance industry has an iron grip on health care. it means people who want to get health insurance but have a pre- existing condition, they cannot. it means folks that have insurance when they get sick and lose it. that is what will happen. and all of these piecemeal things that are being thrown out are not a health care system, it is just dodging the reality that the system is broken and needs repair. >> reducing junk lawsuits against doctors. >> we're all in favor of that. guest: i have supported hsa. host: peter welch has been our

guest for nearly the past hour. democrat of vermont talking about slight jerk -- several different legislative issues on the floor of the house and in the supreme court. we appreciate your time. we're not going to take you to the supreme court. we will show you what is happening out in front. live pictures from the supreme court.

>> [inaudible]

host: live pictures and live video from the steps of the supreme court. 45 minutes from now the supreme court will begin its final decision making at rendering for this session of the supreme court. we will continue live coverage. the house will begin at 10:00. we will not be able to show it

to you on c-span right away. on c-span3 we will be live, continuing coverage of the supreme court's decision on health care. we will continue to take your calls at that point, and it will also be live at c-span.org. you can watch it all live there just like here. many hearings recover on c-span. you will be able to watch the whole thing live on c-span.org. now, we have a little over 40 minutes left in this morning's "washington journal." we want to go back to your calls on the supreme court held care decision today. we will put the numbers of on your screen. -- we want to go back to your calls on the supreme court health care decision today. we are going to begin taking those calls. we will go back through some of

the articles we found in this morning's papers in just a few minutes. first, a news update from c-span radio. >> just a note, you can hear live coverage of the supreme court decision here on c-span radio after 10:00. on other news, unemployment numbers are in this hour and show the number of people seeking benefits fell last week, but the level of applications still remains too high to signal a pickup in hiring. the labor department says weekly applications fell to a seasonally-adjusted 386,000, down from 392,000 in the previous week. if the commerce department says the u.s. economy grew only modestly in the first three months of this year. consumer spending increased at a slower pace than previously estimated, while business investment grew faster than estimated. economists believe economic growth in the nearly-completed april-june quarter will come in and around 1.9 percent signed, a

modest pace not strong enough to make a significant improvement in unemployment. shares of j.p. morgan shares are lower in pre-market trading as a published report says the ba ass losses may be as high $9 billion, far higher than the $2 billion loss announced last month. "the new york times" says the losses have grown recently as they unwind positions. a j.p. morgan representative declined to comment. those are some of the latest headlines on c-span radio. host: again, live coverage of the supreme court this morning. that camera is sitting -- the picture you're looking at is being taken from the u.s. capitol. it is right across first street to the supreme court there.

we have cameras out on the steps of the supreme court as well. live coverage down to about 40 minutes before the supreme court begins its decision making. we want to hear from you now. your chance to weigh in on what you would like to hear the supreme court do or think they should do. what would you like to see as the future of health care? we will begin with a call from may in newark, delaware. caller: this is more of a comment. what i would like to know for the american people to think about is what quality of life do they think we will have without the health care bill? that is basically to give food for thought. thank you. host: thank you for calling in. on the front page of "the washington times" -- been covering health

care for a long time, and these are just some of the dates that have over the past couple of years that have been key in this health-care decision today. february 24, 2009 president obama of formally called for congress to pass the national health-care law on november 7 of that year. the house passes its version of the bill. the vote was 220-215, no gop support. christmas eve of 2009 the senate passed its version of the bill 60-39. again, no gop support. then on march 21, 2010, the senate and the house passed the final bill over two years ago on the 23rd of march. if the president signed that the bill into law. may 14, 2010, the national federation of independent business in 20 states went to court challenging the constitutionality of the law

off. on november 14, 2011, the supreme court agreed to hear the case. march 26 of this year the supreme court holds the first three days of oral arguments on the law. it will be noted that june 28, 2012, is the day the supreme court made its decision on health care. texarkana, ark.. james on the independent line. please go ahead with your comment. caller: hello, and think you for taking my call. i am a disabled veteran. i get treated at the va hospital in little rock, and i want to thank the tax payers for the chance to be treated under the health-care system. second thing i want to say, the mandate for the affordable health care act is that you should be afforded to buy insurance. you go to buy food at the grocery store, and i think

anyone would agree that you have to eat to exist. you have to pay sales tax on up the food. guess what? you are mandated to pay sales tax on food that you buy. get off of it. i hope it passes. again, thank you for the taxpayers to pay my medical care for me. i am a disabled veteran. it is a socialist government-run health care system, not communism. they do. host: james, a -- hi, nick. caller: i am a small business owner, and of the past several years i applied for health care three times. one time i was turned down because i was obese. the other time because i was a

smoker. most recently i was turned down because i am an expectant father. the system is obviously broken with someone who has the money still cannot buy a policy. i am very eager to see what their decision is today. it seems a bit ago one of three ways. the good side with the health- care plan, against it, or like they have done in the past where they purposely try to make their decision rise above the politics and keep parts of it that are essential for the american people. health care is the right, not a privilege, and definitely something we need. host: are you still a smoker in still obese? [laughter] caller: my grandmother would tell you i am a little bit overweight, but i was never obese. the nation has a standard set of numbers if they go by, but i recently quit smoking. i still need health care. fortunately my wife and two new

daughters have it. host: just to play devil's advocate. we have callers earlier today saying i am not paying for your health care, you do not have to pay for mine. so as a smoker in someone who is self-identified as being overweight, and someone who just had kids, do you see the other caller's point saying i will not pay for your smoking problems, eating problems? caller: sure, i do. if i choose to smoke, i should pay more. at the same time, it is not everyone out there who need health care is poor and wants to "mooch off the system." that is just as much of the burden on the system. there are times now where i go to the doctor and have to pay $1,200 for a basic test or get refused for care because they think i will not pay for it. it is not just people who cannot

afford it that need it. it is broken in many ways. host: think you for calling in for calling in. caller: i am sure counselor here in ththe state of illinois. we help for senior citizens get their insurance. came in in 2006,d senior citizens were required to get prescription drugs. if they choose not to, then they had to pay a premium when they decided they need the coverage. so if this law is unconstitutional, then requiring plan hasto buy part d to be unconstitutional also. host: we are continuing to show

you live coverage from the steps of the supreme court. seemed like there were some the answers out there as well. as a ship counselor, do you work for the state of illinois? caller: no, i am a volunteer. i work for an agency. we do not get paid. we are volunteers. it stands for senior health insurance program. every state has this program. host: is this a state agency? caller: no, it is through an agency in town, but i am a volunteer. the state does give us a little bit of money, but not much. we council's senior citizens. when part d came in, there were many senior citizens who did not take any drugs so they did not want to pay the premium, but they were required to because if they do not take it when they

need it, and five years later they decide they have to have drugs, they pay 01 percent signed penalty per month on their premium -- the pay a 1% premium per month because they did not have it when they need it. i understand this plan is the same thing. if you do not take it, when you finally do take it, you have to pay a penalty. part d has to be looked at as unconstitutional also. host: gene from illinois. bill in new york city on the independent line. caller: i a couple comments to make, and the last calller touched on it a little bit. the whole health-care mandate was a conservative idea, which came out of the heritage foundation as a way to shrink the size of government and get people into the private markets. george bush wanted to privatize

also security, and now paul ryan wants to privatize medicare. his idea is to get a voucher and you go by private insurance. if the supreme court strikes that down, they will cut their nose off to spite their own face just because they dislike president obama so much. i think the individual mandate is a mistake. i agree with the dancers that were up there. i hope they strike it down, and we will see now that all of these people that want to shrink the size of government will not be able to, because you will never get people into the private market without compelling them to do so. and no one talked about this. i am surprised we're not seeing more people point this out. host: we will leave it there. from "the washington times" -- these are some of the decisions the supreme court could make.

host: those are some of the decisions that the supreme court

could make. we have live pictures of the supreme court. the court will begin its release in about 30 minutes. four or five opiums left for this session that there will be releasing. they begin with the individual -- most junior justice. they start their and the buildup all the way to the most senior justice. one way to track the supreme court is through scotus blog. this is one way we do it. he is been on the program many times. he is 81 years old and an ambitious goal, breaking the news of the supreme court landmark decision on the health

care law. this is scotus blog. they're expecting upwards of 250,000 people on their websites today as they live blog from the supreme court today. would like to see the supreme court -- what would like the supreme court to do? caller: there was a book a few years ago called "the healing of america." he visited countries that have health programs. of them all, only the united kingdom could be called socialized medicine. the rest or a combination of private insurance and government control.

they work quite well. he talked to highly regarded doctors that had no major complaints. it seemed to me that that sets a good example for us. this seems self-evident. people who say there's no precedent for the government mandating that people pay for services, what did think social security and medicare are? that money is taken out of your pay before you even see it. works well except for the people that shecheat. thank you. host: on the front of the supreme court, we'll show you --

that is a republican of nebraska and he is out on the supreme court steps. will we learned earlier from jason chaffetz is that two represents as will be going into the court to hear the decision. the republican senator from georgia is a doctor and a republican and part of the house leadership from washington state. they will be in the court holding a press conference. we learned this from jason chaffetz earlier this morning. we did an interview with a reporter from "the hill" newspaper and he talked about the different press conferences that will be popping up on the hill and c-span will have cameras getting reaction to the supreme court's decision. daniel republican from new york

is no longer with us so we will move to san diego. caller: hi. i want to pose a question to the american taxpayer. the would need to ask ourselves, where do we want our tax dollars going? the federal reserve and the international -- we're paying money in interest on the national debt. the idea that the the fed makes sense. the with defense for what recall the project for a new american sensory where we are offensively invading other countries. i did nothing that is in the american spirit or tradition. the war on drugs has been a failure. all this money -- homeland security. what is the tsa nonsense at the

airports? all this money could be spent on the war on disease. ultimately our health is very important. so something has to happen or we have to join the other developed countries. host: carol, democrat from connecticut. caller: good morning. i wanted to make a comment about being a breast cancer survivor and still to this day, not being able to get health care. i am to 1 1/2 years out from the breast cancer so do not have breast cancer anymore thanks to some wonderful doctors. a handicapped school bus driver. i was on top of my game.

everything was going fine. i didn't feel sick at all. then i had the carpet pulled out from under my feet. four major surgeries and almost two year out any in come. income.-- not any in cwithout y i lost everything. now i can go back to work. i still drive handicapped school children. host: when you had your cantor, did you have insurance at the time -- when you had your cancer. caller: the insurance is not available for school bus drivers

unless you are in a union co.. is this something i owe and i keep paying on. i wanted to get health care. but i have a pre-existing health care. no one will give me health care insurance. host: hasn't that been phased out? caller: it is not in effect until 2014. maybe by then with the rates going up and up, maybe i will be able to afford the health care. host: just an idea of all your medical bills work for the breast cancer. caller: astronomical. four major surgeries. host: is there a total?

caller: you are talking in the thousands. one bill alone was $2,500, and that was just with blood work and medication. all the medication, i had to pay for the medication and everything. host: what would you like the supreme court to do today. caller: leave obamacare alone. host: we appreciate you calling in and sharing your personal experience with us. hi, kimberly. caller: kathleen sebelius has given money to the states so she should have been able to get access to health care coverage. i would like to address

repealing this entire thing because it was never designed to lower cost or to provide coverage in a way that was meant to be effective or to save lives. if they wanted to improve health care coverage or the drive -- or to drive down costs, they would have addressed it in a way like treating it in a way that we treat car insurance and other insurance products. this is not a solution. i read it about 39 times. i am sick and tired of hearing people comment on it when i have not taken the time to read it. there are things in the constitution like the auto enrollment feature that kicks in in 2014 which is in essence forced welfare. it forces them that earned $80,000 or less, families of four that might have employer- sponsored insurance to go onto

medicaid and that is going to be an unfair burden on the state s, i know has been addressed in front of the supreme court. the toll that will take on people's psyches -- i am sick and tired of moving towards socialism when we see countries like greece and spain. i do not see them living happily and healthfully. i am sick and tired of hearing how much better their health care is. it is not. it is fiction. it is a lie. we're losing millionaires at the rate that i cannot speak to. china is growing millionaires. germany is growing millionaires.

we're going down the path of greece and spain. we do start by repelling health care -- we need to start a repellent health care. host: "the new york times" --

host: that is a little bit from "the new york times" looking at the legal arguments. brian from california. you are on "washington journal." caller: good morning. thank you for taking my call. i groban make liberal house. my views have changed. i do have as burger syndrome -- asperger syndrome and i have a

hard time by getting on insurance. this obamacare thing has been portrayed in immediate as a legislative accomplishment. he only has the support of the democrats, from what you showed earlier. no republican support. that is nothing to be proud of. he proclaims wanted to do this bipartisan stuff and it is not happening. i don't know. thank you for taking my call. to these people who put these videos on youtube, i think that is disrespectful. i feel this respected by it. host: do you receive -- do you receive social security disability? caller: yes. can you repeat the question please?

host: if you received disability because of year asperger's? do you/ caller: i currently get a checked from the government from my father's pension. he passed away when i was 13. host: is your health care provided by the government? caller: not really. it is probably some but i have to apply for. this type and from my father's pension will eventually run now -- the stipend my father's pension will eventually run out. host: we have 3 tweets. this is from laura.

host: it is about 15 minutes before the court starts issuing its own opinions. quite a big crowd and we'll show you the pictures in just a second. the house is coming in at 10:00 a.m. and the senate is coming in and c-span2, we will continue our live coverage on the process of the supreme court on c-span3 and we will continue to take your calls on c-span3 plus on line. we will continue to take phone calls and tweet.

s. caller: i'm calling from massachusetts. we were told that we have to have insurance. if this on constitutional to the supreme court, if that is where it ends up, would it be unconstitutional for the people of massachusetts to have to have what mitt romney gave us is mandatory health insurance? i want to know if we could overturn that as well if we do not want to be told we have to buy insurance like we do now. mitt romney knows he told us we have to have insurance. your refund will be gone. host: from "politico" this

morning is an article about winners and losers, depending on their view of what the court does and it starts with president obama and it says -- host: "nothing would energize supporters than the supreme court upholding the affordable care act." kelly from houston, you're on the air. caller: i sell health

insurance through the state of texas and also group health insurance. some of the things i have realized -- on the individual side, if somebody gets declined twice through two different carriers, they can get health insurance through blue shield even with pre-existing conditions. with what has happened, with a child that is 18 and under, they can get insurance and only certain times of the year. i wrote one and the problem was they raise their rates significantly high that the person -- it was way too expensive. they can declined for a pre- existing condition, the rate is raised so high that the person decided against it anyway. some be on the reform with all of

the tax penalties that will be subject to employers, which that will kill the company's. and then with the employees. people --deal that the health insurance premiums are exempted. the majority of people cannot get health insurance anyway. these are problems that i see that are not going to help us as a nation when it comes to health insurance. host: you say that you are -- are you an underwriter or insurance agent? caller: i work with several different health insurance companies. host: ever since congress passed the law, what has it done to

your business? caller: it has cost a lot of stress among the employers that i work with. i'm talking about small companies that try to do everything they can to offer health insurance to their employees. the problem is a lot of them cannot afford it. it has become a problem. they have to have a person to participation rate as a group to offer health insurance to everyone. it affects the rate we don't have employees the cannot pay for it. with the reform, down, it has the employees worried because they are worried about having it offered to everybody and the

cost -- and fear that what the cost will be. host: dennis in massachusetts, independent line. would like to see the supreme court do? caller: strike down the entire thing and send back to the house and senate. i downloaded the built five or six times. about 900 pages and fell asleep. just sign the bill. the bill needs to be reworked. the bill should be rewritten. a certain group wants this pas

sed. thank you very much. host: jennifer is a democrat from alabama. caller: i just feel some of your callers make good points but there is some callers that call and with health insurance and i have health insurance, by the grace of god. among them are kind of callous -- some of them are kind of callous about those who do not have health insurance. god forbig they lose it. you cannot go to a doctor when you need to. it has to be an emergency thing. this health care bill may not be perfect but we have to help people that are in bad

situations that cannot afford health insurance, that have lost it because they have lost their job. you have to take on an attitude of "i care about my neighbor and want to see him get the care that he needs." host: that was jennifer in alabama. harold is a republican in richmond, virginia. caller: good morning. how are you doing? host: good. caller: good morning. i'm glad the supreme court will finally make a decision. i want to ask you a quick question. when you become a republican, democrat, or independent, you say you uphold

the constitution of america. the republicans guarantee they will not raise taxes. i did not see anything in the constitution that says an independent congressman has to sign a document promising not to raise taxes. how can listeners rewrite the constitution for republicans? the united states why are they representing the united states of america? host: house of representatives is coming in in about five minutes. they will be in session for most of the day. they will be voting on the fast

and furious contempt motion against attorney general holder, around noon is what the schedule says. we will continue live coverage of the supreme court, it will be kind of seamless. we will throw to the house of representatives. you can go online or c-span3 and you can continue to watch and colin. the phone numbers will change a little bit. you'll be able to watch online or run c-span3 our coverage of the supreme court. we'll keep you updated with live blogging and the reaction to what the supreme court does. you can send any tweet to c-

span. and there is it hash tag that we're using, as well -- #aca, which stands for affordable care act. perhaps we can use them on the air. we will try to fit in one or two more calls before we go to c- span3 and online. caller: i support the mandate because it evens the playing field. i am on medicare now. i worked as a hotel maid. i had my own insurance.

the premiums were high. they said people like me were paying for those who go to emergency rooms and do not have insurance. a man called and said he did not want to pay for other people's insurance. someday maybe he could be in an accident or come down with a disease. who will pay for him? host: mildred in baltimore will be the final word. againsti'm for it but it. abortions and birth control and sterilization was not covered. to make it mandatory, the churches have to cover this is wrong.

you knew when you took a job that you were -- it should not change. host: that was mildred in baltimore. would you like to see the supreme court strike down the entire law? caller: i would like to see them a strike down. they should work with companies to offer riders except pre- existing conditions. host: thank you for calling in. c-span3, online, our coverage is going to continue. we will be doing the house live. fast and furious will be fast and furious will be happening in the h