Authorizing the Speaker, on behalf of the House of Representatives, to intervene, otherwise appear, or take any other steps in the case of Texas v. United States, and in any appellate proceedings arising from such case, and for other purposes.

[Congressional Bills 116th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 14 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>






116th CONGRESS
  1st Session
H. RES. 14

Authorizing the Speaker, on behalf of the House of Representatives, to 
  intervene, otherwise appear, or take any other steps in the case of 
 Texas v. United States, and in any appellate proceedings arising from 
                   such case, and for other purposes.


_______________________________________________________________________


                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            January 3, 2019

Mr. Allred (for himself, Mr. Pallone, Mr. Neal, Mr. Scott of Virginia, 
   Mr. Nadler, Mr. Hoyer, Mr. Clyburn, Mr. McGovern, and Ms. Pelosi) 
submitted the following resolution; which was referred to the Committee 
on Rules, and in addition to the Committee on House Administration, for 
a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for 
consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the 
                          committee concerned

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION


 
Authorizing the Speaker, on behalf of the House of Representatives, to 
  intervene, otherwise appear, or take any other steps in the case of 
 Texas v. United States, and in any appellate proceedings arising from 
                   such case, and for other purposes.

Whereas Texas, Wisconsin, Alabama, Arkansas, Arizona, Florida, Georgia, Indiana, 
        Kansas, Louisiana, Governor Paul LePage 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 affirmatively argued that this 
        provision is unconstitutional and that the provisions of the Patient 
        Protection and Affordable Care Act guaranteeing issuance of health 
        insurance coverage regardless of health status or preexisting conditions 
        (commonly known as the ``guaranteed issue provision'') found in sections 
        2702, 2704, and 2705(a) of the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 
        300gg-1, 300gg-3, 300gg-4(a)) and prohibitions on discriminatory premium 
        rates (commonly known as the ``community rating provision'') found in 
        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;
Whereas the district court recently held that the individual responsibility 
        provision is unconstitutional and that all of the remaining provisions 
        of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care act are inseverable and 
        therefore invalid;
Whereas up to 133 million nonelderly Americans have some type of preexisting 
        health condition, such as, but not limited to, diabetes, high 
        cholesterol, cancer, arthritis, and asthma, that could affect their 
        insurance;
Whereas prior to the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act and the 
        enactment of protections such as guaranteed issue and community rating, 
        millions of Americans were denied health insurance coverage, were unable 
        to obtain coverage of necessary medical services, or were priced out of 
        the individual market due to preexisting conditions;
Whereas without such protections for preexisting conditions, millions of 
        Americans could once again lose access to affordable, comprehensive 
        health insurance;
Whereas more than 13 million Americans who gained coverage in States that 
        expanded Medicaid eligibility under the Patient Protection and 
        Affordable Care Act could lose coverage if the Act were struck down in 
        its entirety;
Whereas more than 2 million young adults who gained coverage under a provision 
        of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act allowing individuals 
        under the age of 26 to stay on their parents' insurance could lose 
        coverage if the Act were struck down in its entirety;
Whereas more than 8.9 million low and middle-income Americans who received tax 
        credits averaging $520 per month to help pay for health insurance in the 
        individual market under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act 
        could lose coverage if the Act were struck down in its entirety;
Whereas an estimated 105 million Americans who now enjoy coverage without 
        lifetime limits due to the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act 
        could once again face lifetime limits on their benefits if the Act were 
        struck down in its entirety; and
Whereas nearly 12 million Medicare beneficiaries who received an average of 
        $2,200 in savings on prescription drugs due to the closing of the 
        Medicare prescription drug donut hole under the Patient Protection and 
        Affordable Care Act would face rising drug costs if the Act were struck 
        down in its entirety: Now, therefore, be it
    Resolved,

SECTION 1. AUTHORIZING LEGAL ACTION BY HOUSE.

    (a) Authorization.--The Speaker, on behalf of the House of 
Representatives, is authorized to intervene, otherwise appear, or take 
any other steps in the case of Texas v. United States, No. 4:18-cv-
00167-O (N.D. Tex.) and in any appellate proceedings arising from such 
case. The Speaker, in consultation with the Bipartisan Legal Advisory 
Group, is also authorized to intervene, otherwise appear, or take any 
other steps in any other cases involving the Patient Protection and 
Affordable Care Act to protect the institutional interests of the House 
and to defend such Act, the amendments made by such Act to other 
provisions of law, and any amendments to such provisions, including the 
provisions ensuring affordable health coverage for those with 
preexisting conditions.
    (b) Role of General Counsel.--The Office of General Counsel of the 
House of Representatives, at the direction of the Speaker, shall 
represent the House in any litigation pursuant to this title. The 
Office of General Counsel may employ the services of outside counsel, 
including pro bono counsel, or other experts for this purpose.
    (c) Reports on Amounts Expended.--The chair of the Committee on 
House Administration shall cause to be printed in the Congressional 
Record a statement setting forth the aggregate amounts expended by the 
Office of General Counsel on outside counsel and other experts pursuant 
to this title on a quarterly basis, and such statement shall be 
submitted for printing not more than 30 days after the expiration of 
each such quarter.
                                 <all>