has been implemented and will continue to be, more and more people understand how important it is to their lives and the lives of their -- of their children, but the election, i believe, will continue to hinge on what we do about jobs and putting people back to work. >> last question for you. the majority leader has a job for it and it will be a vote on repeal on july 11th, just a short time from now. do you see that effort from repeal having any traction? >> well, look, i sit on the appropriations committee and the senior democrat on labor health and human services and it's a little bit like groundhog day that continually want to repeal the bill. i think the speaker says, his view i believe that the court was going overturn the individual mandate and then he said that they would go back and try to repeal the rest of it.

so i would hope that they would be more temp everied and come to a conclusion and the court ruled and it was taken to the court and it's over. let's move forward and let's implement the bill and let's sit together and decide how it best meets the needs of the american people. >> representative delauro. >> thank you. i appreciate it. >> let's go back to twitter. he was glad that potus, there's been so much information drowning out the truth on this issue. we're taking your calls and reading your tweets on the air here. coming up shortly will be two press conferences, one by the speaker of the house john boehner and the other by the democratic leader nancy pelosi and we'll bring you live coverage of both of those as they occur this afternoon. next up is deerborne, michigan.

go ahead, please. >> i know being uninsured i'll now have to pay a penalty of 2.5% in taxes on my income. i can't afford the insurance and i know that the 2.5% penalty isn't going to buy the insurance. the other question i have is i understand under obamacare that starting in 2014 every home sale will be taxed 3.8% of its value to support obamacare, and i want to know if that's absolutely accurate. >> patricia, we'll have to let that stand. tomorrow morning on the washington journal we'll have two guests who have had time to read the legislation. we'll have two hours 7:00 to 9:00 to dig into it and talk to more members of congress by phone so we'll come back with your question tomorrow with apologies in not being able to

give you details right now. walnut, california. jenny is up next. you're on. >> i am not for the party and i am in favor for the constitution to uphold the health care law, but that i am a professional and i was an official invited to the white house, and the initiative of the united states strategy and i'm very proud, and i do believe that the difficulty of this administration under the managing, both chambers. >> jenny, with apologies, you take both chambers and in fact, we have the representative of the democrats of the house nancy pelosi at the podium. >> when we passed the affordable care act and the president signed it into law, since then tens of millions of people in our country are already benefiting from the legislation. as you know, as the president said sowell kwently, children

can no longer be denied coverage due to pre-existing condition, young people, students and young people can stay on their parents' policy until they're fix years old. seniors are paying less for prescription drug and have access to free wellness and preventive have saids and when the bill comes into effect. being a woman will no longer be a pre-existing medical condition and it's a victory for women. it's about wellness. it's about prevention and it's about the health of america, not just the health care. it's pretty exciting. earlier this morning i met with our caucus after the decision was announced. it was, as you know, no surprise to us. we knew that we thought we were on solid ground in terms of interstate commerce. solid grounds in terms of the constitution and just a question of what the vote would be and with that confidence, we happily embraced the decision that came

down. now we can move forward to the full implementation of the law and when that happens for the american people, the best is yet to come. i want to say a word about senator kennedy. i spoke to vicky kennedy this morning and to patrick kennedy before coming here thanking them for the important role that he played, a lifetime of commitment to make health care a right and not a privilege in the country. he called it the unfinished business of our country and our society. >> i knew that when he left us he'd go to heaven and help pass the bill, and now i know he's busily at work until this decision came down, inspiring one way or another and now he can rest in peace. his dream for america's families has become a reality. i would be pleased to take any

questions. >> one man said himself on numerous occasions that the individual mandate is not attacked. do you think the individual mandate and health care law needs attacks. >> the court has upheld the legislation. i think, and i have to see the specific language that they identified with how we wrote the bill in the house as part of the documentation for the decision. call it what you will. it is a step forward for america's families, and you know what? take yes for an answer. this is a very good thing for the american people. what you're talking about here is washington talk. what is happening out there is children, families with a child with a pre-existing medical condition which means for a lifetime they will be discriminated against in terms of insurance, not anymore. same thing with when it was

fully implemented.means to the people is what it does to them. [ inaudible question ] >> i think we all have to step back and say why are we here. we are here to do a job for the american people. we are here to act upon our beliefs and a belief that many of us shared is that health care is a right, not a privilege in our country. we believe that health care bill needed to be passed so that families would not be -- because they had a diagnosis or an accident to keep health care costs on them. we believe it's about life,

liberty and the pursuit of happiness that people can pursue their aspirations and depending on their talents and again their aspirations without being job locked because a child has a pre-existing condition and the fear of a diagnosis. they can be a writer, they can start a business and they can be self-employed, they can change jobs. this is about a responsibility to reduce the deficit. if there was no other reason to pass the health care reform act than the cost of individuals, cost of families and cost to businesses large and small, cost to our economy and in terms of it being a competitiveness issue and cost to federal, state and local budgets then we would have had to do this. so the politics be damned. this is about what we came to do and any time we want to waste

time saying through a prism of what does this mean in terms of the election, we undermine our purpose in coming here and acting upon our beliefs. we're very, very excited about this day. it's historic, it ranks right up there when they pass social security and medicare and now being upheld by five justices of the supreme court. yes? >> chief justice john roberts on the medicare expansion calling it a gun to the head to the states and they have to comply unless or -- or face losing all of their medicaid funding and why was it designed that way? >> i'm not -- with all due respect here with your characterization of it and his, here's what it does, and we wrote this very carefully because, again, we wanted to have balance in the legislation. we wanted it to have legitimacy

and be well received and what it does is it says for three years states will receive 100% of their medicaid funding for this bill without any matching funds. i don't think that's a gun to the head. i think that it is -- again, further to that point i think the house language has more clarity that we wrote in our original bill and addresses that, but 100% of the funds and medicaid has matching elements to it, but not as far as the expansion of medicaid in this bill. i think we're not bothered at all by the decision in regard to medicaid and we think that most governors will probably accept 100% funding without matching funds. >> yes, sir?

>> do you believe in walking out of the house chambers today? >> thank you for bringing up the contempt of congress. i do have some things to say about that. it would be mischievou mischiev mischievous of me -- what am i trying to say? you would think it was a matter of mischief that i said i don't think there's any coincidence that this was taken up on the same day that the supreme court decision came down. i just -- it's just too much of a coincidence especially when you think that the motion of contempt only was passed on the committee one week ago. what the republicans are doing with this motion on the floor

today is contemptible, even for them it's contemptible. the constitution tells the branches of government that they should work together and try to resolve differences without gaining an upper hand or showing strength, words to that effect and so there was an obligation on the part of the congress and the house of representatives if they wanted to go forward with such a motion to try to resolve it. try to resolve that it's not sending a bill to the floor of the house based on a false premise. this is not the truth that is on the floor today. a false premise in asking for a vote, tying it to guns so they'll make it and politicize it. you may recall that four and a half years ago we had a motion of contempt for two employees at the white house. josh bolden and harriet meyers.

because josh was the keeper of the president's helpers, for over 200 years -- excuse me, 200 days we tried to get information from the white house. they stone called it, nothing. month in and month out, the chairman of the committee, mr. congress denying the leadership said keep trying, keep trying so they won't have to bring contempt to the floor because we want to exhaust every remedy. that's not what is being done here. this is something that is -- that makes a witchhunt look like a day at the beach and it is a railroading of a resolution and unsubstantiated by the facts, as a said, based on a false premise coming to the floor of the house and in a manner of less than two weeks and we spent 200 days

trying to get word one from the bush administration and these people have gotten thousands and thousands of pages of documentation. that documentation is exculpatory of the attorney general and they can't face that fact. and there's there's an attitude and the process that is coming to the floor. i, myself, intend to stay long enough to vote no, and many in our caucus think that they should do a complete walkoff, and i want to be there long enough to make sure that the record is straight on what is going there. now we are very honored by the work of elija cummings and i

want to be able to speak firsthand about what is said on the floor. as i said before, this isn't about anything other than we're trying to undermine the chief, legal officer of our country, the attorney general. it's the first time in the history of america that the cabinet officer has had a contempt of congress resolution on the floor against him or against her. i believe as i said from the start it is their attempt to tight hans of the attorney general and to undermine his effectiveness and that of his department to address issues of voter suppression that are going in our country. they have many other complaints that don't like the fact that he did not -- he is not moving forward to defend the doma act, the constitutionality of the doma act which i believe is

constitutional. again, it's about a lot of things and that's why i say it's contemptible because it mixes misrepresentations. in some circles, they call them -- i don't like to use word like that. misreasoning m misrepresentations, politics and a an abuse of power on the subject. i will vote no as many times as i possibly can today on what they are doing and i will make my decisions about one way or another, but i support the walkoff whether my role is, but i add more on the floor or on the walkoff. i'll make a judgement when that time comes. >> what is your message to republican house members who are scheduling a vote to repeal to go forward with the repealing of the healthcare bill with the july 4th break?

>> they have hearings on this legislation that they're going to come back a few days after. no, really, they're going to have a vote to say if you're a child and have a pre-existing medical condition and no longer can be discriminated against, we're going to overturn that. if you're a senior and you're paying less for your prescription drugs and getting free preventive check-ups and the rest, we're going to overturn that. if you're 26 years old and under and you're on your parents' policy, pull the plug on that, as well. they make their own decisions. i think that it clearly points out that even with the decision by the supreme court and the law passed by the congress of the united states, passed by the president and the supreme court have always been and will continue to be the special interests of our country and they take a loyalty oath to not bring in revenue rather than

honor their protect and defend the constitution. they fight for the health insurance industry over and over again at the cost to the taxpayer, and so -- and consumers. so this is just more of the same. no surprise about it, and it will be interesting to hear their argument, but if it's anything like what mitt romney said this morning, you can't have it both ways. he gets up there and says we won't be able to discriminate against the pre-existing condition. he's for overturning the bill as the supreme court dissent did, for and dissent did for overturning the entire bill who said he supports that and, yet, i don't know, maybe he'll pay for it out of his own pocket, but he'll cover the pre-existing conditions cost of people who have pre-existing conditions. and you cannot have it both ways and i think this offers us an

opportunity for clarity as to what the bill is actually about, instead of being at the mercy of it. the $200 million negative cam camp of misrepresentations and some may call them other things that they put out there that created such a screen of confusion that ooh very hard to talk about what the bill does, but now that we have a decision and they're talking about overturning it, we can say with clarity, this is what the bill does and this is what they want to take away from you. this is how they want to increase your cost and let the public decide. thank you all very much. thank you. >> democratic leader nancy pelosi talking to reporters up on capitol hill and miss pelosi

also wearing the same shoes she wore on the day the health care legislation passed as a personal talisman, i guess you'd call it. next up, in less than half an hour at 1:15 eastern time we're expecting the speaker of the house john of the house john boehner to answer questions from capitol hill. until then we'll continue taking your phone calls and reading your tweets. you can tweet us cspan and include the #aca to include your tweets on our screen in coverage. let's take a call from chris in missouri. an independent there. >> caller: i just watched the minority leader on the house and i wonder if she's been drinking too much today.

i'm a 100% disabled veteran. i pay for my own health care through tricare. i was medically retired from the army and my costs have gone up. my wife and i completely agree. we have a daughter finishing school and we believe in keeping your kids -- she had a procedure done. talking us even more, i can't even get a break on property taxes which have increased every year but with very little pay increase. i make less than the average american makes. i pay all my bills and pay for my health care and my dental for my family. i have even in the military we

still have to pay for tricare. but why are they going to tax me to pay for somebody else's stuff? there are things we ought to do to bring down our medication cost and tort reform. >> thanks. next up is brian, a democratic who's watching us. >> caller: thanks for taking my call. i just wanted to voice my opinion with all the rhetoric over this issue for a long time, you can see how well constructed people can make this or or against. i have been envisions throughout the debate that the scenario if tens of millions of americans had been denied access to public education because they didn't have education insurance and to be health care is important a social benefit or social modity as education and yet somehow or

another we look at it differently and look at it as government overreach. our public education system where we would be without that? to have a more expansive public health care situation can lead to a healthier nation. i'm just very happy that we'll be proceeding with this today. >> thanks for your comments, brian. in watching people on the plaza of the supreme court some very animated conversations going on there. let's listen a bit. >> 3/4 americans hate this individual mandate. >> now you're going to criticize me. >> noims and cbs are conservative outlets? >> listen to me. i'm trying to figure out what you're going to do if you get sick and don't have health care. you go to the doctor. >> i already told you what i

did. i didn't have insurance. i still got health care. >> y'all screaming. >> you've been screaming over us, too. >> we can't talk. >> you're saying to this oour health care system doesn't need fixing. >> it does need fixing. >> passionate arguments on the steps of the supreme court today. someone with experience in much recent arguments on the line, the former acting u.s. solicitor general. in that role argued all of the health care cases in the lower courts including the 11th circuit health care case that was before the supreme court. he joins us now by phone. nick, can you first of all, tell us what your reaction was when you heard of the decision? >> caller: i was sitting on the

courtroom and the chief started with a discussion about why the commerce clause, which is one of the arguments of the federal government had advanced to justify the legislation why that was wrong and would be an unprecedented expansion of federal power. i think many people in the room at that moment had thought that oh, the federal government's going to lose this. then he turned to the government's second argument, the tax power argument. it was very clear from just a couple seconds in that the government had won the case. and the entire mood in the audience had changed markedly. the chief justice's opinion i think is a quite interesting one. it says that the affordable care act's individual mandate provision, which requires americans to have a certain amount of insurance or pay a penalty, the chief said that functionally is a tax. he said, look, it looks like a tax. it smells like a tax. it is a tax. >> well, i want to get to policy

again and the law in just a second. i'm just curious about your own frame of mind just over those very short seconds, really. >> my frame of mind was a little different. the chief had done something very similar two years ago in the voting rights act case, which is a big case about the constitutionality and the voting rights act of 1965 that i had argued. i remember sitting in the courtroom and there was again about eight minutes of this is unprecedented. it turned out he read the statute in a way that allowed us to win. i was holding out hoop all through that the chief would come our way and it was nice to see him. >> have you had a chance to celebrate your success today? >> no.

not really. and throughout the federal government that have spent so long trying to defend the statute against a very respectable attack. i have a lot of respect for the people who brought this challenge. i think they were motivated not by politics or anything else. i think they were motivated by a vision of the constitution. i appreciate that vision. i just don't think that ultimately describes the american constitution. >> republican members of congress have called the chief je justice's interpretation very conservative. do you agree with that and if so, can you plain somewhere? >> i think that the chief justice's interpretation of the constitution here is one that does focus on tradition. i think that's what led him to reject the commerce clause argument. i'm not quite sure that was the right answer in the case.

with respect to the tax power, he said that the real issue is how something functions. this functions like a tax, he said for that reason it's constitutional. i don't know if you want to call that conservative or liberal or what. i prefer to call it being lawyerly. the chief justice among many of his great traits he's a darn good lawyer. >> in that note going into this, so many people said this was going to be a defining moment for the roberts' court. in making this decision, do you see it as such? >> it was a defining issue, no doubt. and it's a bit -- the decisions have been out for about two hours. it's probably way too early to speculate about what this means for the chief justice or for the supreme court more generally. it's obviously a decision that right now has the eyes of the american people upon it. time will tell whether this is going to mark a different era in the court or not.

>> would you help us understand the medicaid findings. >> sure this is a part in which is federal government lost. i do think it has potentially pretty serious implications for the federal government many the future, but not with respect to the federal care act as much. there's a provision in the law that said states you've got to expand medicaid to cover a bunch of people who are 133% of the poverty line. and if you don't do that, you're going to lose all of the federal funds we give you. it's so much money, the states have to expand medicaid. the federal government said it's a lot of money, but it's our money. it's a a gift to you. they also pointed out that since the inception of the act in 1965, the language in the act itself and the congressional