[Congressional Bills 114th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 392 Introduced in House (IH)]

114th CONGRESS
  1st Session
H. RES. 392

Expressing the sense of the House of Representatives that the enactment 
 of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act of 2009, Public Law 
      111-148, violated article I, section 7 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

                             July 29, 2015

 Mr. Franks of Arizona (for himself, Mr. Duncan of South Carolina, Mr. 
 Pittenger, Mr. Gosar, Mr. Olson, Mr. Garrett, Mr. Brooks of Alabama, 
Mr. Salmon, Mr. Gohmert, Mr. King of Iowa, Mrs. Blackburn, Mr. Rokita, 
Mr. Jordan, and Mr. Newhouse) 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 enactment 
 of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act of 2009, Public Law 
      111-148, violated article I, section 7 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 of the United States Constitution provides that 
        ``[a]ll Bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the House of 
        Representatives, but the Senate may propose or concur with Amendments as 
        on other Bills'';
Whereas this constitutional requirement that revenue-raising bills originate in 
        the House of Representatives applies whenever an ``act . . . by any of 
        its provisions'' has a ``purpose . . . to raise revenue to be applied in 
        meeting the expenses or obligations of the government'', but not when 
        the raising of revenue is ``incidental'' and there is ``no [such] 
        purpose'';
Whereas the constitutional allowance for Senate-initiated revenue-raising 
        amendments applies when an ``amendment [is] germane to the subject-
        matter of [a House revenue-raising bill] and not beyond the power of the 
        Senate to propose'';
Whereas the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act of 2009 was introduced in 
        the United States Senate on November 19, 2009, by its sponsors as the 
        ``Senate health care bill'' through Senate Amendment No. 2786, a 
        proposed amendment in the nature of a substitute 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'' on October 8, 2009;
Whereas the Senate passed Senate Amendment No. 2786 on November 21, 2009, by a 
        party-line vote of 60-39, thereby striking the entire six-page House 
        bill after its enacting clause and inserting in its place the 2,000-plus 
        page Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act of 2009;
Whereas the sponsors of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act of 2009 
        not only contemplated the possibility of substantial excess revenues, 
        but also explicitly announced on introducing Senate Amendment No. 2786 
        that ``[t]his bill will cut the deficit by $130 billion'';
Whereas section 1563 of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act of 2009 
        specifically finds that ``this Act will reduce the Federal deficit 
        between 2010 and 2019'' and ``this Act will continue to reduce budget 
        deficits after 2019'';
Whereas title IX of the Senate-initiated Patient Protection and Affordable Care 
        Act of 2009 contains 17 numbered ``Revenue Provisions'' to generate tax 
        revenue to the general account in the United States Treasury;
Whereas title IX of the substitute bill inserted into H.R. 3590 by Senate 
        Amendment No. 2786 unquestionably raises revenue within the meaning of 
        article I, section 7 of the United States Constitution, including 
        without limitation an excise tax on medical devices that has no 
        conceivable purpose other than the raising of revenue to support the 
        operation of the Federal Government, regardless of how the Federal 
        courts resolve the question of whether the ``shared responsibility 
        payment'' added by section 1501(b) of the Patient Protection and 
        Affordable Care Act of 2009 raises revenue within the meaning of article 
        I, section 7 of the United States Constitution;
Whereas, as it passed the House of Representatives on October 8, 2009, H.R. 3590 
        consisted of six sections, namely--

    (1) the bill's short title (section 1);

    (2) 3 sections (sections 2 through 4) that eliminated certain tax 
streams as applied to military, intelligence, and foreign service 
personnel;

    (3) a section (section 5) that increased by $21 the penalty for failing 
to file returns for partnerships and S corporations under sections 
6698(b)(1) and 6699(b)(1) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986; and

    (4) a section (section 6) that shifted 0.5 percent of certain 
corporations' estimated tax payments from the 4th calendar quarter to the 
3rd calendar quarter, with an equal and offsetting reduction to 4th quarter 
payments;

Whereas, regardless of how the Federal courts resolve the question of whether 
        the phrase ``raising revenue'' under article I, section 7 of the United 
        States Constitution means ``increasing revenue'' or merely ``levying 
        revenue'', the House and Senate since 1872 have interpreted provisions, 
        such as sections 2 through 4 of H.R. 3590 as passed by the House on 
        October 8, 2009, that eliminate revenue streams as not raising revenue 
        within the meaning of article I, section 7 of the United States 
        Constitution;
Whereas section 5 of H.R. 3590 as it passed the House on October 8, 2009, would 
        have increased penalties as a regulatory measure to encourage timely 
        filing of returns, with no revenue-raising purpose and no more than 
        incidental revenue;
Whereas section 6 of H.R. 3590 as it passed the House on October 8, 2009, would 
        have merely accomplished a 3-month temporal shift in estimated tax 
        payments, without altering the total amount of such estimated tax 
        payments; and
Whereas nothing in the Senate-initiated Patient Protection and Affordable Care 
        Act of 2009 was germane to the subject matter of H.R. 3590 as it passed 
        the House on October 8, 2009: Now, therefore, be it
    Resolved, That it is the sense of the House of Representatives 
that--
            (1) as passed by the House on October 8, 2009, H.R. 3590, 
        the Service Members Home Ownership Tax Act of 2009, was not a 
        ``Bill for raising revenue'' within the meaning of article I, 
        section 7 of the United States Constitution;
            (2) as passed by the Senate on December 24, 2009, H.R. 
        3590, the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act of 2009, 
        was a ``Bill for raising revenue'' within the meaning of 
        article I, section 7 of the United States Constitution; and
            (3) the Senate-initiated Patient Protection and Affordable 
        Care Act of 2009 that the Senate passed on December 24, 2009, 
        the House passed on March 21, 2010, and the President signed on 
        March 23, 2010, was not within the power of the Senate to 
        ``propose or concur with Amendments as on other Bills'' within 
        the meaning of article I, section 7, clause 2 of the United 
        States Constitution.
                                 <all>