IV 

113TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. RES. 153 

Expressing the sense of the House of Representatives that the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act of 2009 violates article I, section 7, clause 

1 of the United States Constitution because it was a ‘‘Bill for raising 

Revenue’’ that did not originate in the House of Representatives. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

APRIL 12, 2013 

Mr. FRANKS of Arizona (for himself, Mr. GOHMERT, Mr. SALMON, Mr. 

STOCKMAN, Mr. BONNER, Mr. COBLE, Mr. PITTS, Mr. MCCLINTOCK, Mr. 

SHIMKUS, Mr. CAMPBELL, Mr. FLEMING, Mr. WESTMORELAND, Mr. 

SMITH of New Jersey, Mr. WILLIAMS, Mrs. BACHMANN, Mr. GARRETT, 

Mr. CARTER, Mr. SAM JOHNSON of Texas, Mr. SCHWEIKERT, and Mr. 

ISSA) submitted the following resolution; which was referred to the Committee on Ways and Means 

RESOLUTION 

Expressing the sense of the House of Representatives that 

the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act of 2009 

violates article I, section 7, clause 1 of the United States 

Constitution because it was a ‘‘Bill for raising Revenue’’ 

that did not originate in the House of Representatives. 

Whereas article I, section 7, clause 1 of the United States 

Constitution provides that, ‘‘All Bills for raising Revenue 

shall originate in the House of Representatives’’; 

Whereas, on June 28, 2012, a majority of the United States 

Supreme Court held that the individual mandate proviVerDate Mar 15 2010 22:45 Apr 12, 2013 Jkt 029200 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6300 E:\BILLS\HR153.IH HR153

sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HRES 153 IH 

sion of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act 

of 2009 ‘‘cannot be upheld as an exercise of Congress’s 

power under the Commerce Clause’’ but ‘‘was within 

Congress’s power to tax’’; 

Whereas the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act of 

2009 was originally introduced in the United States Congress by its sponsor as the ‘‘Senate health care bill’’ in 

the form of a Senate Amendment to H.R. 3590, which 

had passed the House of Representatives by a vote of 

416–0 as the ‘‘Service Members Home Ownership Tax 

Act of 2009’’; 

Whereas there is ample evidence that the sponsors of the 

‘‘Senate health care bill’’ not only contemplated the possibility of substantial excess revenues, but explicitly announced on its Senate introduction that, ‘‘This bill will 

cut the deficit by $130 billion’’; 

Whereas section 1563 of the Senate amended H.R. 3590 explicitly stated that it was the ‘‘Sense of the Senate [that] 

this Act will reduce the Federal deficit between 2010 and 

2019’’, and ‘‘this Act will continue to reduce budget deficits after 2019.’’; and 

Whereas the ‘‘Senate health care bill’’ that the President ultimately signed as H.R. 3590 contains 17 numbered ‘‘Revenue Provisions’’, none of which are germane to the subject matter of the original H.R. 3590, and nothing else 

in the ‘‘Senate health care bill’’ was germane to the subject matter of H.R. 3590: Now, therefore, be it 

1 Resolved, That it is the sense of the House of Rep2 resentatives that— 

3 (1) the Patient Protection and Affordable Care 

4 Act of 2009 was a ‘‘Bill for raising Revenue’’ as 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
3 

•HRES 153 IH 

1 those words were intended to be understood in arti2 cle I, section 7, clause 1 of the United States Con3 stitution; and 

4 (2) the Patient Protection and Affordable Care 

5 Act of 2009 did not originate in the House of Rep6 resentatives. 

Æ 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with BILLS