and up next a bit of breaking news from the nfib, what it says about the overall economy.>>> it's tuesday and it's time for trump, he talks politics and business. ♪ [ kareem ] i was fascinated by balsa wood airplanes since i was a kid. [ mike ] i always wondered how did an airplane get in the air. at ge aviation, we build jet engines. we lift people up off the ground to 35 thousand feet. these engines are built by hand with very precise assembly techniques. [ mike ] it's going to fly people around the world. safely and better than it's ever done before. it would be a real treat to hear this monster fire up. [ jaronda ] i think a lot of people, when they look at a jet engine, they see a big hunk of metal. but when i look at it, i see seth, mark, tom, and people like that who work on engines every day. [ tom ] i would love to see this thing fly. [ kareem ] it's a dream, honestly. there it is. oh, wow. that's so cool! yeah, that was awesome! [ cheering ] [ tom ] i wanna see that again. ♪ >>> the latest on small business sentiment out from the national federation of independen

my clients are private individuals who don't want to be forced to buy health insurance, and nfib both organization that represents those individuals and in its own right. >> what about the jurisdiction question, why is that so important? >> whether the injunction act is jurisdictional? well, the government in this case is affirmatively arguing that the anti-injunction act doesn't apply. to

according to the nfib, the net percentage of small businesses planning to hire is 4%, the third straight monthly drop. many firms can't justify taking on an extra employee until they see a bigger pick-up in revenues. others are relying on existing workers to work extra shifts, or using technology to enhance productivity. but it may be bigger than that. >> they're not that comfortable that the future is going in the right direction, and that has a direct bearing on their desire or willingness to hire. john krubski is an advisor to small businesses, and thinks the fact that it's a presidential election year is increasing anxieties. but he also says many firms simply don't want to grow in size. >> there's an interesting thing that happens to a company as it grows in size. when the business grows too big, they're no longer having any fun, and when you talk to small business owners, having fun, really enjoying the business, it's a big component. >> reporter: so what's stopping the firms that want to hire from doing so? a common problem is finding suitable applicants. >> in our job description

counsel for nfib and the private individuals and also appearing on behalf of the states as well. thanks. see you all tomorrow. >> thank you. everybody see okay. ready to go. this is a very, very important day for america. this is a, as i've said in this campaign, there's no more important issue, the most fundamental issues of the day which is our economic security and stability, job growth, the size and scale of government, government deficits and spending, and of course the imposition of government rule over people's lives, both economic decisions and of course their decisions about even their own personal faith. this bill has far reaching consequences for the economic health of this country, and for basic liberty in our society. and that's why this decision and the debate that is going on right now is fundamental. and there is one candidate in this race who can actually make the contrast that is necessary between the republican position, the conservative position, and one that is an overwhelmingly supported by the american public and one that barack obama believes in. and that'

is now under submission and we've had an opportunity to explain to the court why the states and the nfib think the statute is unconstitutional and why not just the individual mandate is unconstitutional because that's what was argued before the court yesterday, but also that the medicaid expanse is unconstitutional and that the invalidation of the mandate would cause it's entire statute to be struck down. that was the nature of the proceedings today. a great privilege to be able to present our case to the united states supreme court, obviously. a great privilege to argue and share the podium with the solicitor general of the united states, who did a terrific job. so this is all been something where we really feel like this is a process that started back in florida at the very beginning when this law was passed. it was challenged. we worked our way through the 11th circuit. the idea all along to get the opportunity to present our case to the supreme court of the united states, we've now had that opportunity. we're delighted to have had the opportunity and, of course, now, the case is unde

here's michael carvin of the nfib, one of the lawyers who just came out of the court now. >> -- hopeful the court will do the right thing and strike down the individual mandate. anything else? >> how do you feel about the arguments today? >> as i said, i think obviously all the justices were very informed and very active. i think their questions went right to the heart of the matter since i think we've got basic and better first principle responses. i'm hoping that that will carry the day when they write the opinion. >> did anything surprise you? >> no. i think both sides pretty much staked out their positions in the briefing and the prior arguments, and obviously, a new level of sophistication in digging by the individual justices, but i think the issues before, and i think they were adequately addressed in the argument. >> anything in the courtroom there give you thoughts one way or the other how it's going? >> i never make predictions. >> do i introduce -- i. want to also introduce to you, i run nifbs small business center and one of the named plaintiffs in the lawsuit. he is a busin

. >> i wanted to also introduce to you, i'm karen, i run nfib's small business legal center. plaintiffs in the la owner from virginia. please step up to the mic. >> anybody have any questions? i was real happy with the way things went in there. it seemed to -- it seemed to stay simple and there was a lot of conversation. it seemed likeve well. we're real pleased with it. >> why was it important for you to challenge the law? >> pardon me? >> why was it important if you to challenge the law? >> it directly affects we're a sole proprietorship in a small community, it would put an added tax that would put us out of business. >> could you expand on that. >> >> pardon me? >> could you expand on that. >> we run a retail flooring store in a community with a population of 383. there's not a whole lot of revenue to spend on things that we don't deem necessary. >> my auto insurance covers me for that. as far as medical goes, i don't go -- i'm covered. i built an emergency fund and i have other resources to pay for it. i made provisions to take care of my health. i go to the dentist thre

counsels for nfib and the private individuals and also appearing on behalf of the states as well. thanks. see you all tomorrow. >> so, there you got an insider's view of what it was like to take the questions from the justices. that was gregory katsas, attorney for national federation of independent business, also representing states' positions and mr. katsas is an attorney at the law firm jones jay. prior to that he held a number of positions in the george w. bush justice department including the role of assistant attorney general for the civil division and acting associate attorney general. you're watching c-span's continuing live coverage on this monday of the supreme court's first of three days of oral arguments into challenges of the affordable care act, the nation's health care law. supreme court's oral argument, 90 minutes in length, all over for today. and soon we will be letting you hear the justices in their oral argument as they release that to the public and we present to the you on c-span3 and cspan.org. we're taking your calls, tweets in the interim. here is don rich

>> i represent the nfib, sole proprietorrors who don't think they need health care. and if they did, it would be of a catastrophic nature, not a cadillac plan that the government's forcing on them, including wellness programs and contraceptives so they decided they would rather pay out of pocket, than pay $7- to $20,000 in insurance premiums. the government will only spend $500 for helt care is making them spend $20,000 for insurance. they don't think the government can force to you buy a product and you can't buy a product that is too expensive for the avowed purpose of helping other people. >> greta: is this the first time in the supreme court arguing? >> no, this is the sixth time. >> greta: does this change from time to time? tell me the personal side of. >> this there is nine very intelligent people, eight of whom ask a lot of questions and very aggressive. so you spend your half hour being a ping pong ball between the justices because some of them are trying to make a point. in of them are trying to rebut the point. all of my previous cases have been 5-4. this

small business sentiment, the nfib sentiment up to six straight months. business inventory is better. german business confidence. >> did you just throw the zew in there? >> that's very important. finally, china's growth is being revised up. in other words, gloem globally china, germany, usa, we've got some good news. >> i have three words for you. no, i guess this is four. welcome to the recovery. larry, you remember when that was written? it was about this time last year when, guess what, there was a very similar attitude about global growth, about u.s. growth, and let's go back the last couple of years, remember where we were. february, i think, of 2011 we saw the ten-year peak at 3.7%. the previous year 2010, the ten-year peaked at 4%. where are we now? we're at 2.1. do you really want to buy into this market now, or do you want to have bought in? >> which market? >> stock market. least let me switch gears. do you really want to buy into risks? do you want to get exposure here to risks, to stocks now or do people who basically wish they had exposure du

i do think, justice sotomayor, that, with respect to one of the arguments that my friend from the nfib has made in of the brief, that bailey v. george is a significant problem because i think their argument on the constitutionality under the taxing power is essentially that the affordable care act provision is the same thing as the provision that was held unconstitutional in bailey v. drexel furniture company. >> that's a different issue. >> but on the same day - right, but on the same day as bailey v. drexel furniture, the court issued bailey v. george, which held that the anti-injunction act did bar a challenge to that provision, even though the court had concluded that it was invalid under the tax power. so -- and i think the reason for that has been -- is clear now after williams packing and bob jones, in that in order to find that the anti-injunction act doesn't apply to something that otherwise would be a tax that triggers it, you have to conclude essentially that there is no substantial argument that can be made in defense of it as a tax. we don't have that here, so i don't thin

. >> are you throwing out what the nfib is saying?le than a year ago whereas the adp numbers shown small business hiring. is small business really out there hiring? >> small business is hiring. the adp for february was a big number. the nfib is a mixed back. i think it's credit dependent. credit is improving, it's changing. >> do you follow the household survey, booming. >> super strong. >> 450,000 jobs the last three months. that's a small business indicator. >> it's a great indicator and usually it moves pretty much in line with heralds. we could be looking at 350 payrolls so household survey has been super strong. >> what about the unemployment rate, the idea was especially last month you had people come back into the workforce, almost equal to the number of people put to work so the unemployment rate stayed the same. >> i don't think that will continue. i'm sure people will come back in, participation has got to go up but if we're going to print 300,000 a month, generate 4 million plus jobs a year i don't think it can keep up, and

, chief counsel for the constitutional accountability center, and karen, executive director of the nfibess legal center. nsib is a party to the case before the supreme court. welcome to you both. >> thanks for having us. >> shannon: this has to do with the fact that under the president's health care law, the states will have to take on a bigger medicaid burden. some of them say that it's an unconstitutional power grab. elizabeth, the one they can't afford. how do you respond? >> many folks were surprised that the court even took the medicaid issue in the first place. it was a complete loser in the lower courts and for good reason. medicaid is and always has been a voluntary partnership we know the federal government and the states. and now it's up before the supreme court and we really have to take it seriously. i think that even if the court upholds the constitutionality of the medicaid expansion, which it should based on case law in the texas history of the constitution, the court could still do significant damage to the federal government's ability to give money to the states and the

our country cannot spend $1.4 trillion on an unconstitutional government mandate which the nfib reveals it will destroy 1.6 million jobs. in conclusion, god bless our troops and we will never forget september 11 and the global war on terrorism. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from michigan seek recognition? >> to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: and the gentleman is recognized. >> madam speaker, i rise today in support of repeal ipab. however, i speak in opposition to tying this repeal to house resolution 5. this is disingenuous at best. it relingishes -- it passes it to insurance companies, undermines congress' ability to represent the needs of our seniors and make decisions on health care policy for medicare beneficiaries. we must preserve access to quality medicare while containing costs and replacing the flawed payment system. simply cutting reimbursements is not nf. if we should repeal ipab, we should do it as a stand-alone bill. the senate will not bring this up for a vote. why are we wasting time on this when it won't become

>> i'm here on behalf of the small business owners represented by the nfib to try to find this healthcaredate unconstitutional. >> you are a business owner in west virginia? >> correct. >> why don't you think this is unconstitutional? >> they are mandating people in binding contracts with other private companies. it is not the role of the federal government. >> so you don't want to have to health insurance >> i don't. i have always managed to take care of my own affairs through my whole life. i have a savings and emergency fund to take care of situations when i need a doctor, i pay for him myself and i think that is the way i should choose. >> how has the health insurance law changed for you and why do you feel so strongly that you have gone to this length to be part of the case? to understand that i have a retail flooring store in a town that the population is 383 people. i'm a sole proprietorship. i don't have any employees. the business and environment isn't big enough to take care of that. if i start having to put out health insurance, which is a product that i don't need incidentally

republicans have already voted to repeal the unconstitutional government takeover of health care which the nfib has said will destroy 1.6 million jobs. the senate now needs to vote. in conclusion, god bless our troops and we will never forget september 11 and the global war on terrorism. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentlelady from texas seek recognition? the gentlelady is recognized. ms. johnson: madam speaker, for decades women in this country have unfairly borne the burden of excessive health care costs. fortunately through the affordable care act, millions of women no longer have to worry about going bankrupt if they get sick. the affordable care act ensures that being a woman will no longer be treated as a pre-existing condition. the affordable care act bans insurance companies from requiring women to obtain a referral for access to necessary ob-gyn care and bans insurance companies from dropping women when they get sick or pregnant. despite these accomplishments in women's health, the war on women continues in texas. the governor, governor perry, political decision t

understanding and businesses that operate in my state represented by the chamber of commerce, the nfib, and to mainstream alliance of small business -- from the left, to the center, to the right -- don't understand is how you don't have a bill at all and you haven't been able to put one together for -- we've now been in this congress for a year and a half? -- you've had one and a half years to put a bill together, and you've yet to come up with one, so we put one together that looks pretty good. i mean, it it's -- no one that i know of from any group has said anything really bad about our bill. i mean, it's pretty, you know, plain, i mean, in one sense that it's not changing the course of western civilization. it's not -- it's just trying to fund roads, broidges, and transit that are just fundamental to the operations not only of our government but our economy and, frankly, the economy of the world. because without highways, it's hard to import or export products. so, this bill has impacts way beyond even america. so for the life of me, i cannot understand how the house of representati

i do think, justice sotomayor, that, with respect to one of the arguments that my friend from the nfib has made in of the brief, that bailey v. george is a significant problem because i think their argument on the constitutionality under the taxing power is essentially that the affordable care act provision is the same thing as the provision that was held unconstitutional in bailey v. drexel furniture company. >> that's a different issue. >> but on the same day - right, but on the same day as bailey v. drexel furniture, the court issued bailey v. george, which held that the anti-injunction act did bar a challenge to that provision, even though the court had concluded that it was invalid under the tax power. so -- and i think the reason for that has been -- is clear now after williams packing and bob jones, in that in order to find that the anti-injunction act doesn't apply to something that otherwise would be a tax that triggers it, you have to conclude essentially that there is no substantial argument that can be made in defense of it as a tax. we don't have that here, so i don't thin

challenge to the affordable care act brought by the attorneys general of 26 states and my client, the nfib. spread over three days, this will be the largest supreme court argument in nearly 50 years. the unprecedented length of time allocated undermines the confident predictions of a multitude of law professors that the challenges to the affordable care act were frivolous and this would be an easy case for the court if it were to ever to get to the court. the extended arguments to six hours. that is a lot of time to devote to an easy case. that is a lot of time to devote to an easy case involving a frivolous claim. regardless of how the case comes out, i think it is fair to say this assessment by experts on constitutional law and the supreme court has been refuted -- it is not an easy case. i will state why the mandate is unconstitutional. i will not be discussing a separate issues of jurisdiction or the several ability of the mandate from the rest of the act. i will be happy to talk about those in the q&a. rather than get into the weeds of particular cases and doctrines in my opening rema