WASHINGTON

Senior members of the Senate Judiciary Committee clashed overwhether the government can force individuals to buy healthinsurance, with Senate Democrats ultimately blocking a Republicaneffort to repeal the health care reform law enacted last year.

Debating the "mandate" issue, Sen. Patrick Leahy, D-Vt.,chairman of the committee, said that the authority of Congress toact is "well established" in the Constitution, by prior acts ofCongress and by long-standing court precedent.

"This act was neither novel norunprecedented, but rested on the foundation used over the lastcentury to build and secure the social safety net," he said.

He also said that the individual mandate was originally aRepublican proposal.

Rep. Charles Grassley, R-Iowa, ranking minority member of thepanel, fired back saying, "There are many constitutional questionsabout the individual mandate." He added, "What is clear is that ifthis law is constitutional, Congress can make Americans buyanything that Congress wants."

Mr. Grassley noted that "the individual mandate is the heart ofthe bill. As my friend, Senator Baucus, said at the markup: theabsence of a requirement of 'a shared responsibility forindividuals to buy health insurance guts health care reform.'"

He also warned, "If the Supreme Court should strike down theindividual mandate, it is not clear that the rest of the law cansurvive."

"The individual mandate is the reason that the new law barsinsurance companies from denying coverage based on pre-existingconditions and the sponsors made the mandate the basis for nearlyevery provision of the law," Mr. Grassley said.

The comments of Sen. Leahy, Rep. Grassley and Sen. RichardDurbin, D-Ill., a senior member of the committee and a member ofthe Senate Democratic leadership, were made at a hearing on theissue of the constitutionality of the law.

The hearing was in reaction to a Monday decision by Judge RogerVinson in federal district court in Pensacola that the law isunconstitutional because it imposes a mandate to buy insurance onpeople starting in 2014.

In a key part of his decision, he said the mandate is at theheart of the bill, and, therefore, the entire bill isunconstitutional.

In his decision, Judge Vinson compared the law to "a finelycrafted watch."

He opined that there were "too many moving parts" for him to"dissect out the proper from the improper and theable-to-stand-alone from the unable-to-stand-alone."

As a result, he issued a declaratory judgment against the entirelaw and suggested that the Obama administration view it as the"functional equivalent" of an injunction to suspend itsimplementation.

In his comments, Sen. Durbin sought to reassure the Americanpeople about the law, noting that Social Security, the Civil RightsAct of 1964 and the federal minimum wage ran into trouble in lowercourts before they were ultimately upheld by the Supreme Court.

"I believe the same will happen with the Affordable Care Act,"Sen. Durbin added.

He noted that 12 federal district court judges have dismissedchallenges to the law; two have found the law to be constitutional;and two have found the opposite.

"How is it possible that federal judges who not only study theConstitution but swear to uphold it can read its words and drawsuch different conclusions?" he asked.