[Congressional Record Volume 165, Number 57 (Tuesday, April 2, 2019)]
[Senate]
[Pages S2192-S2193]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                         SUBMITTED RESOLUTIONS

                                 ______
                                 

  SENATE RESOLUTION 134--EXPRESSING THE SENSE OF THE SENATE THAT THE 
 DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE SHOULD REVERSE ITS POSITION IN TEXAS V. UNITED 
                STATES, NO. 4:18-CV-00167-O (N.D. TEX.)

  Mrs. SHAHEEN (for herself, Mr. Schumer, Mr. Wyden, Mrs. Murray, Mrs. 
Feinstein, Mr. Jones, Mr. Brown, Mr. Carper, Ms. Rosen, Mr. Durbin, Mr. 
Murphy, Mr. Booker, Mr. Reed, Mr. Tester, Ms. Hirono, Ms. Baldwin, Ms. 
Klobuchar, Mr. Sanders, Mr. Leahy, Mr. Van Hollen, Mr. Warner, Mr. 
Peters, Mr. Whitehouse, Ms. Hassan, Ms. Stabenow, Mr. Udall, Mr. 
Merkley, Mr. Manchin, Mr. Blumenthal, Mr. Menendez, Ms. Cortez Masto, 
Mr. Cardin, Ms. Sinema, Ms. Duckworth, Mr. Markey, Mrs. Gillibrand, Mr. 
Coons, Ms. Warren, Mr. Heinrich, Mr. Casey, Ms. Cantwell, Mr. Kaine, 
Mr. Schatz, Ms. Smith, Mr. Bennet, Mr. King, and Ms. Harris) submitted 
the following resolution; which was referred to the Committee on the 
Judiciary:

                              S. Res. 134

       Whereas, on February 26, 2018, 18 State attorneys general 
     and 2 Governors filed a lawsuit in the United States District 
     Court for the Northern District of Texas, Texas v. United 
     States, No. 4:18-cv-00167-O (N.D. Tex.) (in this preamble 
     referred to as ``Texas v. United States''), arguing that the 
     requirement of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act 
     (Public Law 111-148; 124 Stat. 119) (in this preamble 
     referred to as the ``ACA'') to maintain minimum essential 
     coverage is unconstitutional and, as a result, the court 
     should invalidate the entire law;
       Whereas, in a June 7, 2018, letter to Congress, then 
     Attorney General Jefferson Sessions announced that the 
     Department of Justice--
       (1) would not defend the constitutionality of the minimum 
     essential coverage provision; and
       (2) would argue that provisions protecting individuals with 
     pre-existing medical conditions (specifically the provisions 
     commonly known as ``community rating'' and ``guaranteed 
     issue'') are inseverable from the minimum essential coverage 
     provision and should be invalidated;
       Whereas, in the June 7, 2018, letter to Congress, Attorney 
     General Sessions also advised Congress that ``the Department 
     will continue to argue that Section 5000A(a) is severable 
     from the remaining provisions of the ACA'', indicating a 
     difference from the plaintiffs' position in Texas v. United 
     States;
       Whereas, on December 14, 2018, the United States District 
     Court for the Northern District of Texas issued an order that 
     declared the requirement to maintain minimum essential 
     coverage unconstitutional and struck down the ACA in its 
     entirety, including protections for individuals with pre-
     existing medical conditions;
       Whereas the decision of the United States District Court 
     for the Northern District of Texas was stayed and is pending 
     appeal before the United States Court of Appeals for the 
     Fifth Circuit;
       Whereas, on March 25, 2019, the Department of Justice, in a 
     letter to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth 
     Circuit, changed its position and announced that the entire 
     ruling of the United States District Court for the Northern 
     District of Texas should be upheld and the entire ACA should 
     be declared unconstitutional;
       Whereas, prior to 2014, individuals with pre-existing 
     medical conditions were routinely denied health insurance 
     coverage, subject to coverage exclusions, charged 
     unaffordable premium rates, exposed to unaffordable out-of-
     pocket costs, and subject to lifetime and annual limits on 
     health insurance coverage;
       Whereas as many as 133,000,000 nonelderly people in the 
     United States--
       (1) have a pre-existing condition and could have been 
     denied coverage or only offered coverage at an exorbitant 
     price had they needed individual market health insurance 
     prior to 2014; and

[[Page S2193]]

       (2) will lose protections for pre-existing conditions if 
     the ruling of the United States District Court for the 
     Northern District of Texas is upheld in Texas v. United 
     States;
       Whereas, as of March 2019, employers cannot place lifetime 
     or annual limits on health coverage for their employees, and 
     if the ruling of the United States District Court for the 
     Northern District of Texas is upheld, more than 100,000,000 
     people in the United States who receive health insurance 
     through their employer could once again face lifetime or 
     annual coverage limits;
       Whereas, prior to 2010, Medicare enrollees faced massive 
     out-of-pocket prescription drug costs once they reached a 
     certain threshold known as the Medicare ``donut hole'', and 
     since the donut hole began closing in 2010, millions of 
     Medicare beneficiaries have saved billions of dollars on 
     prescription drugs;
       Whereas, at a time when 3 in 10 adults report not taking 
     prescribed medicines because of the cost, if the ruling of 
     the United States District Court for the Northern District of 
     Texas is upheld, seniors enrolled in Medicare would face 
     billions of dollars in new prescription drug costs;
       Whereas, as of March 2019, 37 States and the District of 
     Columbia have expanded or voted to expand Medicaid to 
     individuals with incomes below 138 percent of the Federal 
     poverty level, providing health coverage to more than 
     12,000,000 newly eligible people;
       Whereas, if the ruling of the United States District Court 
     for the Northern District of Texas is upheld, the millions of 
     individuals and families who receive coverage from Medicaid 
     could lose eligibility and no longer have access to health 
     care;
       Whereas, as of March 2019, many people who buy individual 
     health insurance are provided tax credits to reduce the cost 
     of premiums and assistance to reduce out-of-pocket costs such 
     as copays and deductibles, which has made individual health 
     insurance coverage affordable for millions of people in the 
     United States for the first time;
       Whereas, if the ruling of the United States District Court 
     for the Northern District of Texas is upheld, the health 
     insurance individual exchanges would be eliminated and 
     millions of people in the United States who buy health 
     insurance on the individual marketplaces could lose coverage 
     and would see premium expenses for individual health 
     insurance increase exorbitantly; and
       Whereas, if the ruling of the United States District Court 
     for the Northern District of Texas is upheld, people in the 
     United States would lose numerous consumer protections, 
     including the requirements that--
       (1) plans offer preventive care without cost-sharing;
       (2) young adults can remain on their parents' insurance 
     plan until age 26; and
       (3) many health insurance plans offer a comprehensive set 
     of essential health benefits such as maternity care, 
     addiction treatment, and prescription drug coverage: Now, 
     therefore, be it
       Resolved, That it is the sense of the Senate that the 
     Department of Justice should--
       (1) protect individuals with pre-existing conditions, 
     seniors struggling with high prescription drug costs, and the 
     millions of people in the United States who newly gained 
     health insurance coverage since 2014; and
       (2) reverse its position in Texas v. United States, No. 
     4:18-cv-00167-O (N.D. Tex.).

                          ____________________