[Congressional Bills 115th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. Res. 734 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

<DOC>






115th CONGRESS
  2d Session
S. RES. 734

 Authorizing the Senate Legal Counsel to represent the Senate in Texas 
           v. United States, No. 4:18-cv-00167-O (N.D. Tex.).


_______________________________________________________________________


                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                           December 19, 2018

  Mr. Manchin (for himself, Mr. Schumer, Mrs. Murray, Mr. Wyden, Mr. 
 Jones, Mr. Carper, Ms. Baldwin, Mr. Brown, Mr. Kaine, Mr. Udall, Mr. 
   Durbin, Mr. Reed, Mr. Van Hollen, Mr. Sanders, Mr. Heinrich, Mr. 
   Bennet, Ms. Klobuchar, Ms. Smith, Mr. Tester, Mrs. McCaskill, Ms. 
  Hirono, Ms. Warren, Mr. Donnelly, Mr. Casey, Mr. Murphy, Ms. Cortez 
Masto, Mr. King, Mr. Leahy, Ms. Duckworth, Mr. Whitehouse, Mr. Markey, 
Mr. Blumenthal, Mrs. Shaheen, Mr. Cardin, Mr. Menendez, Mr. Booker, Ms. 
    Hassan, Ms. Harris, Ms. Stabenow, Mr. Peters, and Mr. Merkley) 
submitted the following resolution; which was referred to the Committee 
                      on Rules and Administration

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION


 
 Authorizing the Senate Legal Counsel to represent the Senate in Texas 
           v. United States, No. 4:18-cv-00167-O (N.D. Tex.).

Whereas Texas, Wisconsin, Alabama, Arkansas, Arizona, Florida, Georgia, Indiana, 
        Kansas, Louisiana, Paul LePage (Governor of Maine), Mississippi (by and 
        through Governor Phil Bryant), Missouri, Nebraska, North Dakota, South 
        Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Utah, and West Virginia have filed 
        suit in the United States District Court for the Northern District of 
        Texas, arguing that the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act 
        (Public Law 111-148; 124 Stat. 119), is unconstitutional and should be 
        enjoined, by asserting that the Act's requirement to maintain minimum 
        essential coverage (commonly known as the ``individual responsibility 
        provision'') in section 5000A(a) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, 
        is unconstitutional following the amendment of that provision by the Act 
        to provide for reconciliation pursuant to titles II and V of the 
        concurrent resolution on the budget for fiscal year 2018 (Public Law 
        115-97) (commonly known as the ``Tax Cuts and Jobs Act'');
Whereas these State and individual plaintiffs also seek to strike down the 
        entire Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act as not severable from 
        the individual responsibility provision;
Whereas, on June 7, 2018, the Department of Justice refused to defend the 
        constitutionality of the amended individual responsibility provision, 
        despite the well-established duty of the Department to defend Federal 
        statutes where reasonable arguments can be made in their defense;
Whereas the Department of Justice not only refused to defend the amended 
        individual responsibility provision, but it affirmatively argued that 
        this provision is unconstitutional and that the provisions of the 
        Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act guaranteeing issuance of 
        insurance coverage regardless of health status or pre-existing 
        conditions (commonly known as the ``guaranteed issue provision''), 
        sections 2702, 2704, and 2705(a) of the Public Health Service Act (42 
        U.S.C. 300gg-1, 300gg-3, 300gg-4(a)), and prohibiting discriminatory 
        premium rates (commonly known as the ``community rating provision''), 
        sections 2701 and 2705(b) of the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 
        300gg(a)(1), 300gg-4(b)) must now be struck down as not severable from 
        the individual responsibility provision; and
Whereas the district court in Texas v. United States, No. 4:18-cv-00167-O (N.D. 
        Tex.) issued an order on December 14, 2018 declaring that the individual 
        responsibility provision in section 5000A(a) of the Internal Revenue 
        Code of 1986 is unconstitutional and that all the provisions of the 
        Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act are not severable and 
        therefore are invalid: Now, therefore, be it
    Resolved, That the Senate Legal Counsel is authorized to represent 
the Senate in Texas v. United States, No. 4:18-cv-00167-O (N.D. Tex.), 
including seeking to--
            (1) intervene as a party in the matter and related 
        proceedings; and
            (2) defend all provisions of the Patient Protection and 
        Affordable Care Act, the amendments made by that Act to other 
        provisions of law, and any amendments to such provisions, 
        including the provisions ensuring affordable health coverage 
        for those with pre-existing conditions.
                                 <all>