IV 112th CONGRESS 1st Session H. RES. 76 IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES February 8, 2011 Mr. Lance (for himself and Mr. Burton of Indiana) submitted the following resolution; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary RESOLUTION Urging the Federal courts to expedite disposition of actions challenging the constitutionality of provisions of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (Public Law 111–148).

(a)

Findings

Congress finds that— (1)on March 23, 2010, President Obama signed the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (Public Law 111–148; 124 Stat. 119) into law, overhauling the healthcare system of the United States; (2)26 States have filed lawsuits challenging all or parts of the Act in United States district courts and dozens of other similar lawsuits have been filed as well; (3)the lawsuits are focused largely on the constitutionality of the so-called individual mandate, the requirement that all Americans purchase healthcare coverage or pay a fine, that is included in the Act; (4)thus far four courts have rendered contradictory decisions with U.S. District Courts in Detroit, MI, and Lynchburg, VA, ruling in favor of the individual mandate, and U.S. District Courts in Richmond, VA, and Pensacola, FL, ruling the individual mandate is unconstitutional; (5)these contradictory decisions are causing significant uncertainty in not only the healthcare marketplace but the general business marketplace in the United States as well; (6)the decisions have been appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, and the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit; and (7)adding to the confusion on January 19, 2011, the House of Representatives voted 245–189 to repeal the Act and on February 2, 2011, the Senate voted 51–47 against repealing the Act. (b)

Sense of Congress

It is the sense of Congress that— (1)the constitutionality of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (Public Law 111–148; 124 Stat. 119) is of imperative public importance; and (2)on petition, the Supreme Court of the United States should grant a writ of certiorari under rule 11 of the Rules of the Supreme Court of the United States regarding the constitutionality of that Act before judgment in the matter is entered in a United States court of appeals.