[Congressional Bills 113th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 153 Introduced in House (IH)]

113th CONGRESS
  1st Session
H. RES. 153

 Expressing the sense of the House of Representatives that the Patient 
Protection and Affordable Care Act of 2009 violates article I, section 
 7, clause 1 of the United States Constitution because it was a ``Bill 
     for raising Revenue'' that did not originate in the House of 
                            Representatives.


_______________________________________________________________________


                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             April 12, 2013

   Mr. Franks of Arizona (for himself, Mr. Gohmert, Mr. Salmon, Mr. 
    Stockman, Mr. Bonner, Mr. Coble, Mr. Pitts, Mr. McClintock, Mr. 
Shimkus, Mr. Campbell, Mr. Fleming, Mr. Westmoreland, Mr. Smith of New 
 Jersey, Mr. Williams, Mrs. Bachmann, Mr. Garrett, Mr. Carter, Mr. Sam 
Johnson of Texas, Mr. Schweikert, and Mr. Issa) submitted the following 
   resolution; which was referred to the Committee on Ways and Means

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION


 
 Expressing the sense of the House of Representatives that the Patient 
Protection and Affordable Care Act of 2009 violates article I, section 
 7, clause 1 of the United States Constitution because it was a ``Bill 
     for raising Revenue'' that did not originate in the House of 
                            Representatives.

Whereas article I, section 7, clause 1 of the United States Constitution 
        provides that, ``All Bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the 
        House of Representatives'';
Whereas, on June 28, 2012, a majority of the United States Supreme Court held 
        that the individual mandate provision of the Patient Protection and 
        Affordable Care Act of 2009 ``cannot be upheld as an exercise of 
        Congress's power under the Commerce Clause'' but ``was within Congress's 
        power to tax'';
Whereas the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act of 2009 was originally 
        introduced in the United States Congress by its sponsor as the ``Senate 
        health care bill'' in the form of a Senate Amendment to H.R. 3590, which 
        had passed the House of Representatives by a vote of 416-0 as the 
        ``Service Members Home Ownership Tax Act of 2009'';
Whereas there is ample evidence that the sponsors of the ``Senate health care 
        bill'' not only contemplated the possibility of substantial excess 
        revenues, but explicitly announced on its Senate introduction that, 
        ``This bill will cut the deficit by $130 billion'';
Whereas section 1563 of the Senate amended H.R. 3590 explicitly stated that it 
        was the ``Sense of the Senate [that] this Act will reduce the Federal 
        deficit between 2010 and 2019'', and ``this Act will continue to reduce 
        budget deficits after 2019.''; and
Whereas the ``Senate health care bill'' that the President ultimately signed as 
        H.R. 3590 contains 17 numbered ``Revenue Provisions'', none of which are 
        germane to the subject matter of the original H.R. 3590, and nothing 
        else in the ``Senate health care bill'' was germane to the subject 
        matter of H.R. 3590: Now, therefore, be it
    Resolved, That it is the sense of the House of Representatives 
that--
            (1) the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act of 2009 
        was a ``Bill for raising Revenue'' as those words were intended 
        to be understood in article I, section 7, clause 1 of the 
        United States Constitution; and
            (2) the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act of 2009 
        did not originate in the House of Representatives.
                                 <all>