IV 

111TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. RES. 1063 

Expressing the sense of the House of Representatives that a mandate imposed 

by the Federal Government requiring individuals to purchase health 

insurance is unconstitutional. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

FEBRUARY 3, 2010 

Mr. SULLIVAN (for himself, Mrs. BLACKBURN, Mr. ROONEY, Mr. LAMBORN, 

Mr. PRICE of Georgia, Mr. DUNCAN, Ms. JENKINS, Ms. FALLIN, Mr. 

AKIN, Mr. COLE, and Mr. WITTMAN) submitted the following resolution; 

which was referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce 

RESOLUTION 

Expressing the sense of the House of Representatives that 

a mandate imposed by the Federal Government requiring 

individuals to purchase health insurance is unconstitutional. 

Whereas in 1994, the Congressional Budget Office wrote that 

a mandate requiring all individuals to purchase health insurance would be an unprecedented form of Federal action; 

Whereas the Government has never required people to buy 

any good or service as a condition of lawful residence in 

the United States; 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with BILLS
2 

•HRES 1063 IH 

Whereas H.R. 3962 contains an individual health insurance 

mandate to purchase insurance or pay a tax as defined 

by the bureaucratic standards in the bill; 

Whereas the tax would constitute 2.5 percent of adjusted 

gross income, up to the amount of the national average 

premium through the Government-run health care exchange; 

Whereas the health care reform bills that have passed the 

House of Representatives and Senate require United 

States citizens to either secure or purchase health insurance approved by the Federal Government or face a financial penalty or even a possible prison sentence; 

Whereas nowhere in the Constitution is Congress given the 

power to mandate that an individual enter into a contract 

with a private party or purchase a good or service; 

Whereas the Supreme Court has never validated a Federal 

power as intrusive as forcing all United States citizens to 

purchase a service due to their very existence; 

Whereas to uphold the health insurance mandate contained 

in H.R. 3962, the Supreme Court would have to concede 

that the Commerce Clause of the Constitution has no 

limits, a proposition that it has always denied; 

Whereas the health insurance mandate does not purport to 

regulate or prohibit activity of any kind, whether economic or noneconomic; 

Whereas to the contrary, it purports to regulate inactivity; 

Whereas the principal sponsors of the current bills before 

Congress have stated that the individual mandate requiring United States citizens to buy inflated health insurance policies is an essential part of their plan to nationVerDate Nov 24 2008 01:36 Feb 04, 2010 Jkt 089200 PO 00000 Frm 00002 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6300 E:\BILLS\HR1063.IH HR1063

jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with BILLS
3 

•HRES 1063 IH 

alize and subsidize much of the health care system in the 

United States; 

Whereas section 255 of H.R. 3962 and other unconstitutional 

provisions of the legislation will render the rest of the 

legislation unworkable; and 

Whereas Members of Congress are bound by their oath to uphold the Constitution, and thus, are duty bound to oppose unconstitutional provisions of legislation: Now, 

therefore, be it 

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

3 (1) a mandate imposed by the Federal Govern4 ment requiring individuals to purchase health insur5 ance is unconstitutional; 

6 (2) the individual health insurance mandate 

7 should be removed from all pending national health 

8 care legislation in Congress; and 

9 (3) all States should pass legislation protesting 

10 any Federal health insurance mandate requiring in11 dividuals to purchase Government-approved health 

12 insurance or pay a tax penalty. 

Æ 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with BILLS