```

[Congressional Bills 116th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. Res. 94 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

<DOC>

116th CONGRESS
  1st Session
S. RES. 94

   Expressing the sense of the Senate that the Department of Justice 
  should protect individuals with pre-existing medical conditions by 
 defending the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (Public Law 
111-148; 124 Stat. 119) in Texas v. United States, No. 4:18-cv-00167-O 
(N.D. Tex.), in which the plaintiffs seek to invalidate protections for 
           individuals with pre-existing medical conditions.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             March 5, 2019

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

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 
   Expressing the sense of the Senate that the Department of Justice 
  should protect individuals with pre-existing medical conditions by 
 defending the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (Public Law 
111-148; 124 Stat. 119) in Texas v. United States, No. 4:18-cv-00167-O 
(N.D. Tex.), in which the plaintiffs seek to invalidate protections for 
           individuals with pre-existing medical conditions.

Whereas, in 2010, Congress passed and President Barack Obama signed the Patient 
        Protection and Affordable Care Act (Public Law 111-148; 124 Stat. 119) 
        (in this preamble referred to as the ``ACA'');
Whereas, prior to the enactment of the ACA, individuals with pre-existing 
        medical conditions were routinely denied health insurance coverage, 
        charged exorbitant rates for health insurance coverage, exposed to 
        unreasonable out-of-pocket costs for health care, or subject to lifetime 
        limits on health insurance coverage;
Whereas the ACA instituted comprehensive protections for individuals with pre-
        existing medical conditions, including--

    (1) the protection commonly known as ``guaranteed issue'', which 
requires health insurance companies to issue a health plan to any applicant 
regardless of health status or other factors, under section 2702 of the 
Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 300gg-1);

    (2) the protection commonly known as ``community rating'', which 
prohibits health insurance companies from varying premiums within a 
geographical area based on gender or health status and limits the ability 
of health insurance companies to vary premiums based on age, under section 
2701 of the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 300gg); and

    (3) the prohibition on discrimination based on health status, which 
prohibits excluding from a health plan benefits for pre-existing medical 
conditions or establishing eligibility rules based on pre-existing medical 
conditions, under sections 2704 and 2705(a) of the Public Health Service 
Act (42 U.S.C. 300gg-3, 300gg-4(a));

Whereas, on June 7, 2018, pursuant to section 530D of title 28, United States 
        Code, then Attorney General Jefferson Sessions, under the direction of 
        the President, notified Congress that the Department of Justice--

    (1) would not defend the constitutionality of the requirement to 
maintain minimum essential coverage under section 5000A of the Internal 
Revenue Code of 1986, as added by the ACA; and

    (2) would argue that certain provisions of the ACA, including the 
provisions protecting an estimated 133,000,000 individuals in the United 
States with pre-existing medical conditions, are inseverable from the 
requirement to maintain minimum essential coverage;

Whereas the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas--

    (1) issued an order declaring that--

    G    (A) the requirement to maintain minimum essential coverage is 
unconstitutional; and

    G    (B) the remaining provisions of the ACA, including protections for 
individuals with pre-existing medical conditions, are inseverable from that 
requirement; and

    (2) invalidated the remaining provisions of the ACA;

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 the refusal of the Department of Justice to defend the ACA, as even then 
        Attorney General Sessions acknowledged in his notice to Congress, 
        contravened the Executive Branch's ``longstanding tradition of defending 
        the constitutionality of duly enacted statutes if reasonable arguments 
        can be made in their defense'';
Whereas reasonable arguments can be made in defense of the ACA, as evidenced by 
        an amicus brief filed by legal experts, including experts who supported 
        other legal challenges to the ACA; and
Whereas, by arguing that the guaranteed issue, community rating, and other 
        protections prohibiting discrimination are inseverable from the 
        remaining provisions of the ACA and therefore the remaining provisions 
        of the ACA are invalid, the Department of Justice is risking vital 
        protections for the estimated 133,000,000 individuals in the United 
        States with pre-existing medical conditions: Now, therefore, be it
    Resolved, That it is the sense of the Senate that the Department of 
Justice should protect individuals with pre-existing medical 
conditions, including by reversing its position and defending the 
critically important provisions of the Patient Protection and 
Affordable Care Act (Public Law 111-148; 124 Stat. 119) in Texas v. 
United States, No. 4:18-cv-00167-O (N.D. Tex.).
                                 <all>
```