have other resources to pay for it. i made provisions to take care of my health. i go to the dentist three times a year, i see the doctor when i need it and i go to the hospital when i need it. i just take my checkbook with me. >> this law would affect millions of people. why is it bad for america' side from your own position? >> really, what it comes down to is what kind of america do you want, a socialized one or a free one? >> is it that simple? >> it is in my view. >> any other questions? >> pardon me. >> thank you. >> thank you all. >> do you have the first speaker's name? >> michael carvin. >> now the supreme court today heard arguments on what d ashe mandate. just so everyone is clear, i

just want to read a passage from the summery of the senate's health care law that lays out the mandate. quote, requires each citizen or lawful permanent resident to be covered under a qualified health plan or equivalent health care program. in other words, each citizen is mandated to have health insurance. now, i just want to make one clarification. this is indeed from the senate health care law, but it's not from the affordable care act. it's an excerpt from the senate republican health care proposal from 1993. the concept of individual mandate was first floated by the conservative heritage foundation. it was taken up by conservative republicans as an alternative to the universal health bill proposed by president clinton. senators grassley, hatch and lugar were co-sponsors, as was senate majority leader, then senate majority leader, bob

dole. and countless other republicans have endorsed the mandate in recent years. in 2009 senator grassley did. in 2007 senator deminute did. senators graham, alexander and corker have all endorsed an individual mandate. hey were co-sporesors of the included an individual mandate, so what we're seeing now is baffling. republicans have gonemain champ individual mandate to being a main antagonist, and you have to ask why. the republicans were fathers of the individual mandate. now suddenly they want to give it up for adoption on the steps u.s. supreme court. the flip-flop on the individual mandate is the prime example of anng proposes simply because he proposed it because it was their idea, and, of course, there is theomney wh care in massachusetts which is

based on exactly the same model health care law we passed due years ago. there's no question that the health care law mitt romney passed as governor of massachusetts is the same one that president obama passed at the federal level. four years ago mitt romney even called the law he signed in massachusetts a model for the rest of the country. he wrote an op-ed in "usa today" in july 2009 while the health care debate was raging, calling on the president to follow the example he set with his law in massachusetts, and then thehe p plan said he was basing it on mitt romney's idea in massachusetts. now that the mandate sun popular with conservatives, romney is trying to disown what he did massachusetts. well, mitt can run, but he can't hide. no matter what he tries to say now, mitt romney is a walking,

talking amicus brief in favor of the president's health care law. if he tries to make it an issue in a debate with president obama, it's just going to confirm that he's the etch-a-sketch candidate. he should just admit it was planned all along f.mitt romney is the nominee, in effect health care will be off issue, and with that i am going to call on the chairman of our ju proceedings, senator leahy. >> i found the proceeding interesting. it's interesting, too, the final argument, the last two minutes of therg the solicitor general saying that this would work well just as it does in massachusetts to cover everybody. that did bring a little bit of a murmur in the courtroom, but as you listened to the argument on the question of constitutionality today, it's

very obvious that if this law is unconstitutional, then tomorrow somebody can come in and attack social security for the same reason, and that would unconstitutional, or people like myself who buy insurance but also have to pay medicare, we could say, well, medicare is unconstitutional because why should i have to pay for that when i'm also paying for private insurance? you can go through all of these examples, that this is inconstitutional, the argument can be made that all the rest of them are unconstitutional. i don't think that that's what the american public wants. i'm not sure that that is the kind of issue the supreme court wants to unleash on americans. >> senator harkin, who is chairman of the health committee who was instrumental a good part of this law. >> well, it's clear after spending two hours in the supreme court listening to the arguments that the opponents of

the health reform act, the affordable care act, are basing thar politics rather than precedence. on politics rather than what is best for the american people. senator leahy is right. every time that we in the congress have tried to fulfill our obligation under promote t general welfare, there have been those who have tried to undercut it by going to the supreme court. they tried to undercut social security. they tried to undercut the voting rights act, the civil rights act, you name it, there's always been a group out there that tried to undeut congress he the general welfare. the affordable care act, i thin the supreme court this morning are very clear. congress does have the power to regulate commerce. every person in this country, virtually every person in this country will at some point in

his or her li they will be in the commerce of the the other side, the opponents say, well, but congress could tell you to pay for it wen but that you have to have you befor. talk about splitting hairs. that's where it now political r. i am convinced after listening to the two hours this morning way but to uphold the individual mandate thatthput into the affo act. >> senator reed. everyone as senator harkin pointed out uses health care. the question is whether everyone will be required to pay their fa way that benefits everyone, and that's at the heart of this casr we already have a mandate in

this country, and the mandate says that if you are sick, ou'll be treated, usually in mandate exists. question is, again, who will pay for that care which is provided for by the public policy and the aws of the united states, and pointed out, this idea originated with republicans who are today trying to vociferously deny its legitimacy. in n '89 the heritage foundation mandated to t every household have health care insurance. in r colleague john i see as someone who in the only understood the health care system by also respected the constitution, in fact it as a marine in gaudal canal in korea, his bill included an individual mandate, and it was sponsored by many, including senator robert dole.

the same year former speaker newt gingrich went on "meet the press," and he said he was for the federal government requiring individuals to buy health care. i guess times have changed. this is basically the same model that's the affordable care act. as again my colleagues have pointed out, governor romney of massachusetts deserves credit for passing the bill, but also indicated that in his view he and i think he spoke at that point on behalf of republicans, quote, don't think the free market ever envisioned an idea that we'd be able to do something and make other people pay for it, and that's the present american health care system. this is the national commodity. 17% of our economy is devoted to health care costs so the idea that this isn't interstate commerce, the idea that this is an option that we're compelling people to participate in, i don't think stands the test of

common sense and common reason. so today i hope the court listened well, and i hope that senator harkin is right, that based upon the arguments, they will uphold this affordable care act so that we can get on with providing better, more efficient care for all of our citizens and also doing it in a way that won't bankrupt our government. >> are there any questions for any one of senator leahy, you the court. most prognosticators think that this is all going to come down to justice kennedy. can you describe his reaction in the court and whether he was receptive to certain arguments on one side or the other? >> i never try to speculation. just looking at the justices on the they ask, it was interesting some of the things that were said. juice scalia wasferenced one consistent with the way he ruled in that case, it was a marijuana

case, he'd have to uphold the health care legislation. i found more interesting that kind of going back and forth, and it -- in the court today we were arguing the constitutionality. i think it's a clear-cut case. i think you have to really stretch to say that this was unconstitutional but social security, for example, or medicare is constitutional. if you say this is unconstitutional, then you've got to say social security and medicare are also unconstitutional. i'm not sure the court is prepared to do that. >> senator, what is the role of the senate in this right now? obviously it's in the court's hands? why even talk about it? >> well, you know, we -- we passed the law, and i think we have a real interest in seeing -- seeing what they do. i want to hear what the arguments are. i'm a member of the supreme

court bar. i wanted to hear it in that capacity and as chairman of the senate judiciary committee just how they react. i picked this particular one, the argument on the constitutionality because it affects just about everything else we do in the judiciary committee and others. i wanted to hear how they react to it. >> senators, the president has been pretty silent about this law over the last couple of weeks. i'm wondering if you're satisfied, or should the president be doing more to defend it. >> i think the president probably felt if he was on the demilitarized zone between the two koreas might not be the best place to talk about health care. i think he -- he stuck to the things that he was doing on -- on his trip abroad. he's spoken about this over and over again. i don't think the president wants to see himself in a position of trying to tell the court what to do. there is separation of powers, but i think that the president

spoke out on this many, many times. he's going to be in vermont on friday. i won't be surprise federal he speaks about it again. >> will we be hearing more from your end of things in the interview? it seems like the house republicans came out several times yesterday and several times today. will we hear more from senate democrats later this week? >> it will be interesting. i don't see anybody in the house republicans other than the rhetoric introducing legislation to wipe out this health care. i don't think they want to go to parents and say we're going to wipe out your ability to have your children on your policy whilecollege. i don't think they want to say we're going to wipe this out so, tough, if you've got a pre-existing condition, you won't be able to get health care and on and on. about it. as they said, you know, just as have to insure everybody. that's the only way it works. >> senator schumer.

>> yes. >> you say if romney is the nominee that do you think that's not a good issue for democrats to run on in 2012? >> i'm just saying senator --'m governor romney was so much involved in creating just about this exact law that his attacking it now is goingly n c and so i believe if governor romney is the nominee this issue will be effectively taken off the table when heup. i suppose a lot of people will hold up etch-a-sketches. >> are any of you surprised at the force and persistence negative sentiment, or did you pretty much expect that two years ago? >> well, i don't republicans in the senate said at the time when we were passing the health care reform bill that they had to defeat it and make this obama's e minority leader

senate, senator mcconnell, actually said that he wanted -- his number one priority was to make obama a one-term president. so that's why i say this has all gotten caught up into the politics of the moment. i think what we have to keep in mind is if they are successful, if the republicans are successful in repealing this, think about the millions of americans already, many millions of americans, whose young people are on their parent's policy until age 26. they will take that away from them. think about all the young people today who are covered with insurance even though they had a pre-existing condition. the republicans want to take that away from the american people. think about all the elderly getting benefits from closing the doughnut hole and they are getting rebates. i think the average in iowa last year was $600, every senior in iowa. they are going to take that away from them, the american people. elderly people are now getting

prostateancreenings and colonoscopies without any deductibles. millions of americans are taking advantage of that, yet the republicans want to take all of that away from them. that's what's at staying right icans whether or not we're epu take away from the american people all of these hard-earned, hard won gains in this system. >> the republicans seem to have a strategy should the court real against the individual mandate. are you talking a strategy -- >> what's the strategy? >> repeal, what senator harkin said. >> right. >> they may not be successful obviously. they have a strategy. >> they want to repeal it regardless of what the supreme court does. >> they are ready to pounce and use the momentum. do you have a post-court strategy, is there anything you will do if the court results against your wishes? >> i expect the court will uphold it. >> right.

>> and our strategy, of course, was to pass the bill in the first place, and if they -- if they don't uphold it, then we'll see where the -- i suspect there will be a major, major issue in the elections, congressional and presidential this fall. you're not going to see -- if r c july or whatever, you're not going to see then the ability to do a whole year's debate in the congress. the debate will be with the american people this fall. >> but are you -- >> are you discussing the what ifs? are you discussing how to give these people the protections come july 1st? >> that's why i say, maybe i'm just one person saying this, but the more the republicans and the candidates they have for president are out there talking about repealing our health care bill, i say give them more rope. maybe i should buy their ads for them. you know, let them go out and talk about it because the american people now are seeing the benefits of this health care

bill that we passed, and they don't want it taken away from them, so i say the republicans make our day. go out there and continue to campaign against this health care bill, and i'll tell you the american people will answer you this november. >> sorry -- one more time. are you discussing a strategy should the court not rule your way? >> well, "a.i i agree with pat . i believe the court will uphold this. the precedence is there. the legality is there. i don't think the court is going to pay attention to the political theser. >> there's a lot more to saying repeal, repeal, repeal. that's easy to say. but it's easy for them to say it, but i don't see a single one of these people saying repeal, repeal, repeal and go on the floor and say let's do it piece meal. let's do away with having your college-aged kid on your insurance policy. let's do away with the pre-existing. i mean, repeal, repeal is a bumper scklicy. thank you. >> thank you, everybody.

>> well, good afternoon, everyone. i happen to have been a plaintiff in case at the supreme court ten years ago, and we all thought it was a really big case because they gave us two hours of oral argument instead of one. three days of oral argument. i asked my staff to take a look at the recent past, and we believe you have to go all the way back to brown versus board of education to find a case in

which the court has granted so much oral argument. so we all understand this is a very significant lawsuit. these attorney generals, some of whom behind us were key in bringing this litigation. i think we all believed if a federal government can order you to buy a product. there's not much left of the commerce law. it struck me the four more liberal judges were mainly peppering the plaintiff's council. and the other five were largely, although not exclusively peppering council for the government. we know the suspense will be over in june. regardless of how the supreme court rules on the

constitutionality of the single worst piece of legislation pased in the time i've been in congress is still a bad idea. and if senate republicans become the majority next year. the first item on the agenda of a new senate republican majority would be the repeal of obama care and the replacement of it with something that makes more sense and is targeted at the problems that we actually have in american health care. with that i would like to turn it over to my friend and colleag colleague. >> just a few impressions of what i observnts day. the leader's thoughts are on target. ives watching justice kennedy closely. i guess everybody was. and he came right now very

quickly and asked very fundamental questions. the first thing that he pointed out is that if this is really going further than any other case, which i believe both sides, all sides acknowledge that it is. the part of the government to justify the action. to find the authority in the institution to do what they're doing. that seems to be in the heart of what we are talking about today. the seconds on vags that i would point out also came from justice kennedy. he says this fundamentally changes the relationship between the people and the government. and that's one of the points that we have been making all along. this notion that somehow congress believes it has the power under the commerce clause

to force people into commerce, for whatever reason choose not to be in cheommerce is a stretc beyond anything. so you never know. these are only arguments. they're asking questions to try to figure out where they're going to this settle in here, in terms of deciding the case. but i would say today the government had a tough day. that would be my impression. with that, let me turn the microphones over to colleague, senator cornyn. >> thanks, mike. well, the reason this case is so important, as you all know, and as senator points out is because this legislation does grow the size and role of government in a way that is unprecedented in our history. as we all know as government grows, individual freedom shrinks. and that's what this case is basically about.

is whether we as individual citizens can choose our own health care options or whether the government is going impose a one-size fits all on all of us. and oh, by the way, taking money from medicare, already on a fiscally unsustainable path to create a new entitlement program and creating a new health care plan that costs will explode dramatically. so this legislation is not only unaffordable, it makes matters worse when it comes to current programs like medicare, which are already in bad shape. and it is going to result in a contraction or shrinking of individual freedom in making health care choices, and instead, a 15-member unelected board of bureaucrats are going to decide weather your medicare is worth it or if the federal

government will choose not to pay for it because in the cost benefit analysis it isn't working. i'll turn it over to senator hutchinson for this point. >> thank you. we've seen the early arguments today. especially. if it looks like a duck and walks like a duck and quacks like a duck. it's a duck. which means it's a mandate.

it's telling every business in america they have to subscribe to a government-run health care plan or they can't offer the premiums. it is a mandate unsustainable in the constitution. and we hope they will come to the right decision. there's no question that two-thirds of the american people believe this is an encroachment on their freedom, and i hope that we can change it some day by law. but i hope that we can start all over and have a good health plan for more access by americans to an insurance that they can afford and that they want? and now i'll turn it over to senator marco rubio from florida. >> thank you for the opportunity to talk to you for a few moments. first of all, i'm very proud the state of florida has taken the lead on challenging the constitutionality of this law.

we're hopeful they'll say it the way they do, in terms of this viling basic principles. we're hopeful it will turn out on the side of the constitution. but we know this about it, for sure, and that is that obama care has been an disaster for america and americans financially. there's no doubt our country has a health crisis that needs con fronted. this is the wrong way to con front it. this takes away the ability to grow and prosper. there are thousands upon thousands of small businesses in the country afraid to grow or hire new people. they have no idea how the law will impact them? we know for them it's a bad idea. other americans are beginning to lose their existing health care coverage, breaking a promise made by the advocates when they first passed the bill. there are others finding difficulty accessing an insurance plan that will take them as a result of the changes that have been made. the result is while we do not know how the case will turn out, we know ho obama care is turning out. that's a job killing initiative

that sets us back in the hopes of arriving at a solution to our insurance problem in the united states. so i hope that i can be a part of an effort to here to not to vote to repeal obama care, but to replace it with initiatives that embrace the private market, embrace free enterprise. embrace choice and allow us to address the public policy. [ speaking spanish ]

[ speaking spanish ] and now it's my honor to introduce your attorney general from florida who has done a financial job in leading the effort. >> thank you, senator. and we are so blessed to have senator rubio to support us in here and to stay here and continue this fight for us. we've been in the courtroom now for two days. we feel very confident. we feel very pleased with the questions the justices have been asking. as we have said from day one, this is t overreach like we have never seen before in our history. and we have got to s