[Congressional Record Volume 165, Number 8 (Tuesday, January 15, 2019)]
[Senate]
[Pages S226-S227]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                         SUBMITTED RESOLUTIONS

                                 ______
                                 

SENATE RESOLUTION 18--AUTHORIZING THE SENATE LEGAL COUNSEL TO REPRESENT 
  THE SENATE IN TEXAS V. UNITED STATES NO. 4:18-CV-00167-O (N.D. TEX.)

  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:

                               S. Res. 18

       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

[[Page S227]]

     the provisions ensuring affordable health coverage for those 
     with pre-existing conditions.

                          ____________________