protect americans' access to the care they need from the doctor they choose at a lower cost. and republicans stand ready to work with a president who will listen to the american people and not repeat the mistakes that gave our country this harmful law. listen, health care coverage has become too expensive for too many people in our country. the number-one concern for families and small business people is the costf health insurance. and the republican health care reforms will, in fact, lower health care costs. as cathy pointed out, women make about 80% of the health care decisions for their families in our country. republican health care reforms will ensure that families and doctors make health care decisions and not bureaucrats here in washington. >> good afternoon. if nothing else, today's health care decision underscores the

importance of this election. the people of america are going to have a choice to make in november. and clearly, it's a choice that will bear upon the direction of this country as far as health care is concerned. the decision today really indicates, we have entered an age in which the government, washington, will be controlling health care. unless something changes. most americans, i believe, still -- still like the health care they have, and the president has continued to say that his law will allow folks to keep the health care they like. but what we have seen is that's just not the case. obamacare will preclude people from having the health care that they like. we have seen this law increase costs, and we are committed to changing that. we are committed to making sure that we can return to patient-based health care in

this country. where we can keep costs low. and we can increase access. and that's why when we return the week of july 9th, i've scheduled a vote for total repeal of the obamacare bill to occur on wednesday, july 11th. and in that way, we can clear the way towards trying to, again, focus on accomplishing a health care future that is premised upon patient-centered care, lowering costs and affording better access. >> today's decision by the supreme court did nothing to he said end the debate in america on health care. it only enhanced it. the decision raises the question, to be very clear, is the patient going to have the decision-making process or are you going to have a form of a government-run health care? it's a debate that will drive this house, drive this nation. but the debate of health care goes much deeper than just the ability for the access and the

cost. in a time when america has faced 40 months of unemployment above 8%, unfortunately, i'm very fearful of the discussions i've had with small business owners with the decision today is going to determine decisions they make in jobs. the economy won't be turning around, because this health care bill actually harms the economy. but our own studies by administration shows it will take people off their current health care plans they have. it will raise the cost. so the debate has not ended. the debate has only begun. you see a group of individuals behind us who won't be the only ones, but i believe across this nation, it's going to be a healthy debate, one that's on policy. and we look forward to working with those individuals, and also listening to the nation to solve health care that actually empowers the patient to make their own decisions.

>> today was not a good day for freedom. it was in the a good day for struggling american families who wish to keep the health care they have. i respect the ruling of the supreme court, and i respectfully and vehemently disagree with it. for those who have concluded, though, that it is constitutional, i remind them, a constitutional law does not make for a wise law. the trillion-dollar deficits of the obama administration are clearly constitutional. they are not wise. so the fight will continue. we believe the president's health care law still fundamentally is hurting our economy and hurting jobs. every day, i hear from some small businessman in the fifth district of texas that i represent. one tells me they'll never hire more than 50 people. another tells me they've already spent $350,000 in compliance

costs and had to lay off six workers. the law weighs in at almost $2 trillion. $800 billion of taxes. family of four premiums up $2200. the affordable care act has not proven so affordable for struggling families for, for taxpayers, much less a dwindling federal treasury. but most importantly, americans want to be able to choose their own doctor. they want quality health care. they want the access to health care, they want portable health care at a cost they can afford. the president's health care threatens that. so the supreme court was heard today, and we respect them. but as the republican leader said, the second week of july, the people's house will be heard from, and ultimately, the people in america will be heard from.

>> this decision today by the supreme court was clearly a troubling decision. we behind us and within our conference clearly disagree with that decision. but as chief justice roberts said, it's not the role of the court to protect the people from their political decisions. and the people clearly chose in 2008 and we are now as a nation living under the consequences of that political choice. but as a physician, i can tell you that the doctors and the patients of this land are very troubled. because this law, just like yesterday, it hasn't changed today, violates every single principle we hold dear as a nation in health care. whether it's accessibility or affordability, or high-quality care or choices for patients, this law violates all of those things and makes them more difficult. which is why each one of us has said in one way or another, we will work together with our conference and with the american people to make certain that this law is repealed, and that we move forward in a logical, rational, deliberate way with patient-centered health care,

which means patients and families and doctors making medical decisions, not government. >> speaker boehner? >> if you would like to ask a question, all you have to do is raise your hand. no, not -- anybody wants to yell, ensure i don't call on you. chad. >> my hand was up first. >> can you explain how something is -- [ inaudible ] constitutional. all of you have sworn to uphold the constitution. you don't agree with the policy, but isn't this inconsistency there? you don't like the policy. but you're saying you respect the decision of the court. are you saying -- >> well, no, the court makes a decision about whether this law is constitutional. it doesn't mean that the law is wise. it doesn't mean that the law is good for the country. i give you an example. you look through the decision today, and the chief justice in

his opinion outlines the fact that the commerce clause -- trying to expand on the commerce clause is not constitutional, but because it's a tax, that it can proceed, because congress has the ability to impose taxes. so we could -- the government could decide that we're going to tax you if you don't eat broccoli on tuesday. apparently that's now constitutional. but i don't think it's a very wise law. >> speaker boehner -- >> no. i said -- no. all you have to do is raise your hand. no words required. >> the house has already voted to repeal one of the first votes you guys took. the senate was unable to pass a repeal themselves in this 51-47 over there. what makes it necessary to go forward and go through this fight again, because none of the dynamics will be changed. >> i think the real outcome of

today's decision is to strengthen our resolve, to make sure that this law is, in fact, repealed. we're going to work every single day between now and election day, and the american people then will get an opportunity to make their decision. on election day. because elections have consequences. and the election 2008 clearly had a consequence that most americans disagree with. >> were you surprised at chief justice roberts became the swing vote as one of the more liberal members of court in today's health care decision? >> i'm blessed that i'm not a lawyer. and so i'm -- it's not for me to decide. the court --el well, i'm disappointed in their decision, they came to a decision, i respect it. >> speaker boehner, democrats say the fact that you're having a vote to repeal, this is a sign

that republicans are sore losers, and there are plenty of laws that republicans have passed over the years that they're not holding votes constantly to repeal. >> resolve. there's a lot of resolve amongst our colleagues. and amongst the american people to stop a law that's hurting our economy, driving up the cost of health care, and making it more difficult for employers to hire new workers. the american people want this bill, they want it repealed. what they really want are common sense steps that will empower them and their families to choose the doctor they want at lower cost. >> how do you think this is going to cut politicly in the fall, and does governor romney's -- >> we'll let the american people make -- the american people will make that evident on election day. >> you're a politician. do you think it's going to help motivate your core supporters? >> what i'm concerned about is a law that's driving up the cost of health care, and making it harder for employers to hire

people. that's what i'm concerned about. >> given the bill in the house, and this ruling that the penalty for not having insurance is -- [ inaudible ] would the house look at trying to repeal that penalty or future republican houses not put in a penalty for failing to pay that? >> we believe that repeelialing this entire law is the right thing to do. it will help our economy, it will help bring down health care costs. it will save medicare from being cut by $500 billion, and instead we can put in place common sense steps that really will help the american people have better access to the quality care that they want. thanks, everybody. just before the house republicans' news conference, democratic leader nancy pelosi

spoke to reporters in the house and radio tv studio. she called the supreme court ruling a victory for american families. she also answered a question about the house vote to hold attorney general eric holder in contempt of congress. that vote expected to happen in half an hour or so. you can see it live on c-span. >> pretty exciting day. the decision that was announced by the supreme court is a victory for america's families. it was a victory for america's families 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 benefitting from the legislation. as you know, as the president said so eloquently, children can no longer be denied coverage due to preexisting condition. young people, children and students and young people can stay on their parents' policy until they're 26 years old. seniors are paying less for --

prescription drugs and have access to free wellness and preventative visits. when the bill comes into effect, being a woman will no longer be a preexisting medical condition. it's a victory for women. it's about wellness, it's about prevention, it's about the health of america. not just the health care. the -- it's pretty exciting. earlier this morning, i met with our caucus after the decision was announced. it was a -- as you know, no surprise to us. we knew that -- we thought that we were on solid grounds in terms of interstate commerce, solid grounds in terms of the constitution. it was 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 vicki kennedy this morning and patrick kennedy before coming here. thanking them for the important role that he played, a lifetime of commitment to making health care a right, not a privilege in our country. he called it the great unfinished business of our country, of our society. i knew that when he left us, he would 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. >> madam, what -- the president has said himself on numerous occasions the individual mandate is not a tax. do you think the individual mandate and health care law is a tax?

>> 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 decision. their 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 preexisting medical condition, which means for a lifetime, they will be discriminated against in terms of insurance. not anymore. same thing -- same thing with -- when the bill is fully implemented. that's what's really important to people. technical terms, that's for us here. but means something to the american people is what it does to them. yes. >> republicans have spoken --

they say this decision raises the stakes for the election and brings clarity. and even an opportunity for them. do you think that there are dangers for the democrats and the president -- the health care debate is reopened in this election, the second year? >> i think we all have to take a step back and say why are we here? we are here to do a job for the american people. we're here to act upon our beliefs. and a belief that we have many of us shared is that health care is a right, not a privilege. in our country. we believe that health care -- a health care bill needed to be passed, so that families would not be papa rised because they had a diagnosis. we believe it is about life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness that people can now pursue, their aspirations, depending on their talents, and, again, their aspirations, without being job-locked, because a child has a preexisting condition or fear of

a diagnosis. they can be a writer, they can start a business, they can be self-employed. they can change jobs. this is about a responsibility to reduce the deficit. if there were no other reason to pass the health care reform act than because of cost, cost of individuals, cost to families, cost to businesses, large and small, cost to our economy in terms of it being a competitive issue -- competitiveness issue. and costs 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 seeing it 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 are very, very excited about this day.

it's historic. it ranks right up there when they passed social security and medicare and now being upheld by five justices of the supreme court. >> chief justice john roberts on the medicaid expansion called it a gun to the head of states, given that states had to comply, unless -- unless -- or face losing all of their federal medicaid funding. why was it designed that way, and do you think that -- >> well, i'm not -- with all due respect to 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 -- 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 -- i think that, again, further to that point, i think the house language is -- has more clarity, that we wrote in our original bill. and it addresses that concern. but 100% of the money, without matching funds, and medicaid as a matching has -- has matching elements to it. but not as far as expansion of medicaid in this bill. i think that we're very -- we're not bothered at all by the decision in regard to medicaid. and we think that most governors would probably accept 100% funding without matching funds. >> are you going to -- will you be walking out on the house chamber today? >> the -- thank you for bringing up the contempt of congress. i do have some things to say about that.

it would be mischievous of me -- mischievous -- what am i trying to say? you would think it was a matter of mischief if i said i don't think there is any if i said bu 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. trying to resolve it is not sending a bill to the floor of the house, based on a follows premises. this is not the truth that is on the floor today. a false premise and 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 papers. for over 200 years -- excuse me, 200 days, we tried to get information from the white

house. >> they stonewalled it, nothing. month in and month out, the chairman of the committee, mr. conyers and our and our leadership said keep trying, keep trying so we don't have to bring the 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 witch hunt 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 when we spence over 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. >> will you be walking -- >> i'm just saying, there is an attitude in our caucus that we should not honor the process that is coming to the floor. i, myself, intend to stay long enough to vote no and i'll see what the will of many in our caucus think we should do a complete walk-off. you know, i honor the wish of my caucus. but i want to be there long enough to make sure that the record is straight on what is going on there. now, we are very honored by the work of elijah cummings and we want to be there to support him on the floor and i want to be able to speak firsthand about what is said on the floor. following up on this, 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 a 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, this is their attempt to tie the hands of the attorney general and to undermine his effectiveness and that of his department to address issues of voter suppression that are going on in our country. they have many other complaints that they don't like the fact that he did not -- that he is not moving forward to defend the doma act, the constitutionality of the doma act, which he doesn't 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 would call them lies, i don't like to use words like that,

misrepresentations, politics and an abuse of power on the a misuse, an abuse of the power of the majority in the house on this 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 walk-off whether my role is -- but i add more on the floor or on the walk-off, i'll make a judgment 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 health care bill the week after the july 4th break? what's your message to them? >> first of all, i haven't seen their hearings. have they had hearings on this legislation, that they're just 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. it is -- 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, signed by the president, upheld by the supreme court, they're still fighting a fight that we have always been and will continue to always be the hand madens of the special interests in our country, 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 you on a preexisting condition. he's for overturning the bill as the supreme court in dissent did, four in dissent said they would be for overturning the entire bill, he said he supports that, and yet, i don't know, maybe he's going to pay for it out of his own pocket, but he's going to cover the preexisting conditions cost of people -- children who have preexisting conditions. 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. $200 million negative campaign of misrepresentations, somewh

would call them others things, that they put out there that created such a screen of confusion that it's 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, 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. >> at just about 4:00 eastern, a recap of events of the day. about 10:15 a.m. eastern, the supreme court released its decision on the health care law. the final decision upheld the entire act with some limits on the medicaid portion of the bill.

chief justice john roberts was the crucial fifth vote of the majority opinion. we're bringing you full details on the health care decision with reaction from the white house, congress and a statement by presidential candidate mitt romney. you can view any of today's coverage on our website at c-span.org. with today's supreme court ruling upholding the health care law, we also want to get your comments and feedback. you can go to our facebook page to post your thoughts and share your opinion with others. the post will remain atop the page for the remainder of the day. now, back to some of the day's events with a statement from president obama. he spoke at the white house. good afternoon. earlier today, the supreme court upheld the constitutionality of the