[Congressional Bills 116th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. Res. 18 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

<DOC>






116th CONGRESS
  1st Session
S. RES. 18

 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

                            January 15, 2019

Mr. Manchin (for himself, Ms. Rosen, Mr. Casey, Mr. Tester, Mr. Brown, 
    Ms. Cortez Masto, Mr. Warner, Mr. Van Hollen, Ms. Baldwin, Ms. 
    Cantwell, Mr. Whitehouse, Mr. Reed, Ms. Harris, Ms. Hirono, Ms. 
 Duckworth, Mr. Wyden, Ms. Hassan, Mr. King, Mr. Markey, Mr. Schumer, 
 Mr. Leahy, Mrs. Murray, Mr. Udall, Mr. Durbin, Ms. Smith, Mr. Booker, 
 Mr. Blumenthal, Mr. Bennet, Ms. Klobuchar, Mr. Coons, Mr. Schatz, Mr. 
   Menendez, Mr. Jones, Mr. Heinrich, Ms. Stabenow, Ms. Warren, Mr. 
  Murphy, Mr. Kaine, Mr. Sanders, Mrs. Gillibrand, Mrs. Shaheen, Mr. 
 Merkley, Mr. Peters, Mr. Cardin, Mrs. Feinstein, Ms. Sinema, and Mr. 
 Carper) 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, West Virginia, and individual 
        plaintiffs 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) and the Health 
        Care and Education Reconciliation Act of 2010 (Public Law 111-152; 124 
        Stat. 1029) are unconstitutional and should be enjoined, by asserting 
        that the requirement under those Acts to maintain minimum essential 
        coverage (commonly known as the ``individual responsibility provision'') 
        in section 5000A 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; 131 
        Stat. 2054) (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 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 any appellate or 
        related proceedings; and
            (2) defend all provisions of the Patient Protection and 
        Affordable Care Act and the Health Care and Education 
        Reconciliation Act of 2010, the amendments made by those Acts 
        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>