IV 
116TH CONGRESS 
2D SESSION 
H. RES. 1082 
Expressing the sense of the House that the Department of Justice should 
defend the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (Public Law 
111–148; 124 Stat. 119) and halt its efforts to repeal, sabotage, or 
undermine health care protections for millions of people in the United 
States in the midst of the public health emergency relating to the 
Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID–19). 
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 
AUGUST 11, 2020 
Ms. SPANBERGER (for herself, Ms. UNDERWOOD, Ms. SCHRIER, Mr. ALLRED, 
Mrs. AXNE, Ms. BARRAGA´N, Mr. BISHOP of Georgia, Mrs. BUSTOS, Mr. 
CARSON of Indiana, Ms. JUDY CHU of California, Mr. CICILLINE, Mr. 
CISNEROS, Mr. COHEN, Mr. CONNOLLY, Mr. COOPER, Mr. COSTA, Mr. 
COX of California, Mr. CROW, Ms. DAVIDS of Kansas, Mr. DANNY K. 
DAVIS of Illinois, Mr. DEFAZIO, Ms. DEGETTE, Ms. DELAURO, Mr. 
DEUTCH, Ms. ESCOBAR, Mr. ESPAILLAT, Mr. EVANS, Ms. FINKENAUER, 
Mr. FOSTER, Mr. GARAMENDI, Ms. GARCIA of Texas, Mr. GARCI´A of Illi-
nois, Mr. GOLDEN, Mr. GOMEZ, Mr. GOTTHEIMER, Mr. GRIJALVA, Mrs. 
HAYES, Mr. HECK, Ms. KENDRA S. HORN of Oklahoma, Ms. HOULAHAN, 
Ms. JOHNSON of Texas, Mr. KILDEE, Mr. KILMER, Mrs. KIRKPATRICK, 
Ms. LEE of California, Ms. JACKSON LEE, Ms. LOFGREN, Mr. LYNCH, 
Mr. SEAN PATRICK MALONEY of New York, Mr. MCEACHIN, Mr. 
MCGOVERN, Mr. MEEKS, Ms. MUCARSEL-POWELL, Mr. NADLER, Ms. 
NORTON, Mr. O’HALLERAN, Mr. PAPPAS, Mr. PASCRELL, Ms. PORTER, 
Mr. RASKIN, Ms. BLUNT ROCHESTER, Mr. ROUDA, Ms. ROYBAL- 
ALLARD, Mr. RUSH, Ms. SCANLON, Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ, Mr. 
SERRANO, Ms. SEWELL of Alabama, Ms. SHALALA, Ms. SLOTKIN, Mr. 
SMITH of Washington, Ms. SPEIER, Ms. STEVENS, Ms. TITUS, Ms. 
TLAIB, Mr. TRONE, Ms. VELA´ZQUEZ, Mr. WELCH, Ms. WILD, Ms. WIL-
SON of Florida, Mrs. DINGELL, Mr. BRENDAN F. BOYLE of Pennsyl-
vania, Mr. DAVID SCOTT of Georgia, Mr. KENNEDY, and Miss RICE of 
New York) submitted the following resolution; which was referred to the 
Committee on the Judiciary 
VerDate Sep 11 2014 
01:57 Aug 12, 2020
Jkt 099200
PO 00000
Frm 00001
Fmt 6652
Sfmt 6652
E:\BILLS\HR1082.IH
HR1082
pamtmann on DSKBC07HB2PROD with BILLS
•HRES 1082 IH 
RESOLUTION 
Expressing the sense of the House that the Department 
of Justice should defend the Patient Protection and Af-
fordable Care Act (Public Law 111–148; 124 Stat. 119) 
and halt its efforts to repeal, sabotage, or undermine 
health care protections for millions of people in the 
United States in the midst of the public health emer-
gency relating to the Coronavirus Disease 2019 
(COVID–19). 
Whereas more than 4,700,000 people in the United States 
have tested positive for the Coronavirus Disease 2019 
(referred to in this preamble as ‘‘COVID–19’’), with 
many requiring costly health care; 
Whereas, prior to 2010, a diagnosis of COVID–19 likely 
would have been considered a pre-existing medical condi-
tion; 
Whereas, in 2010, Congress passed and President Barack 
Obama signed the Patient Protection and Affordable 
Care Act (Public Law 111–148; 124 Stat. 119) (referred 
to in this preamble as the ‘‘ACA’’); 
Whereas, prior to the enactment of the ACA, more than 
133,000,000 nonelderly people in the United States with 
a pre-existing medical condition were consistently charged 
unaffordable premiums for health insurance coverage, 
were subject to exorbitant out-of-pocket costs for care, 
faced annual and lifetime limits on coverage, or were de-
nied health care coverage altogether; 
Whereas, prior to the enactment of the ACA, millions of sen-
iors with Medicare coverage encountered steep out-of- 
pocket prescription drug costs once those seniors hit a 
threshold known as the Medicare ‘‘donut hole’’, and since 
VerDate Sep 11 2014 
01:57 Aug 12, 2020
Jkt 099200
PO 00000
Frm 00002
Fmt 6652
Sfmt 6300
E:\BILLS\HR1082.IH
HR1082
pamtmann on DSKBC07HB2PROD with BILLS
•HRES 1082 IH 
the donut hole began closing in 2010, millions of Medi-
care beneficiaries have saved billions of dollars on pre-
scription drug costs; 
Whereas, on March 11, 2020, the World Health Organization 
declared the outbreak of COVID-19 a pandemic; 
Whereas, as of August 4, 2020, more than 4,700,000 people 
in the United States have been diagnosed with COVID- 
19; 
Whereas, during the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic, millions 
of people in the United States have relied on the ACA 
for coverage, health care access, and diagnoses; 
Whereas, as of the week ending July 11, 2020, more than 
30,000,000 people in the United States are claiming un-
employment benefits; 
Whereas, on February 26, 2018, 18 State attorneys general 
and 2 Governors filed a lawsuit in the United States Dis-
trict Court for the Northern District of Texas, Texas v. 
United States, No. 4:18–cv–00167–O (N.D. Tex.) (re-
ferred to in this preamble as ‘‘Texas v. United States’’), 
arguing that the requirement of the ACA to maintain 
minimum essential coverage is unconstitutional; 
Whereas the State and individual plaintiffs in Texas v. 
United States also seek to strike down the entire ACA as 
not severable from the requirement to maintain minimum 
essential coverage; 
Whereas, despite the well-established duty of the Department 
of Justice to defend Federal statutes where reasonable 
arguments can be made in their defense, Attorney Gen-
eral Jefferson Sessions announced in a letter to Congress 
on June 7, 2018, that the Department of Justice would 
VerDate Sep 11 2014 
01:57 Aug 12, 2020
Jkt 099200
PO 00000
Frm 00003
Fmt 6652
Sfmt 6300
E:\BILLS\HR1082.IH
HR1082
pamtmann on DSKBC07HB2PROD with BILLS
•HRES 1082 IH 
Whereas the Supreme Court of the United States granted, on 
Monday, March 2, 2020, a petition for a writ of certio-
rari filed by 21 State attorneys general and will review, 
in California v. Texas, No. 19–804 (U.S.) and Texas v. 
California, No. 19–19109 (U.S.), the decisions of the 
United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit in 
Texas v. United States, 945 F.3d 355 (5th Cir. 2019); 
Whereas, if the ruling of the United States District Court for 
the Northern District of Texas in Texas v. United States 
is upheld by the Supreme Court of the United States, 
seniors enrolled in Medicare would face the reopening of 
the Medicare donut hole and be subject to billions of dol-
lars in new prescription drug costs; 
Whereas, as of August 5, 2020, 38 States and the District 
of Columbia have expanded or voted to expand Medicaid 
to individuals with incomes below 138 percent of the Fed-
eral 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 in Texas v. United States 
is upheld by the Supreme Court of the United States, the 
millions of individuals and families who receive coverage 
from Medicaid could lose access to health care coverage 
altogether; 
Whereas, as of April 2020, more than 7,200,000 consumers 
who purchase individual health insurance are eligible for 
tax credits to subsidize the cost of premiums and assist-
ance to minimize out-of-pocket health care 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; 
VerDate Sep 11 2014 
01:57 Aug 12, 2020
Jkt 099200
PO 00000
Frm 00005
Fmt 6652
Sfmt 6300
E:\BILLS\HR1082.IH
HR1082
pamtmann on DSKBC07HB2PROD with BILLS
•HRES 1082 IH 
Whereas, if the ruling of the United States District Court for 
the Northern District of Texas in Texas v. United States 
is upheld by the Supreme Court of the United States— 
(1) the individual health insurance marketplaces es-
tablished under the ACA would be eliminated; 
(2) the millions of people in the United States who 
buy health insurance on those marketplaces could lose 
coverage; and 
(3) the premium expenses for individual health in-
surance would increase exorbitantly; 
Whereas, if the ruling of the United States District Court for 
the Northern District of Texas in Texas v. United States 
is upheld by the Supreme Court of the United States, the 
permanent reauthorization of the Indian Health Care Im-
provement Act (25 U.S.C. 1601 et seq.) would also be re-
pealed and millions of American Indians and Alaska Na-
tives would have less access to health services, less op-
tions for care, and worsened health disparities; 
Whereas, if the ruling of the United States District Court for 
the Northern District of Texas in Texas v. United States 
is upheld by the Supreme Court of the United States, the 
nearly 500,000 veterans who have gained health insur-
ance coverage, including the nearly 1 in 10 veterans that 
have gained coverage through Medicaid expansion, would 
lose access to care; 
Whereas, if the ruling of the United States District Court for 
the Northern District of Texas in Texas v. United States 
is upheld by the Supreme Court of the United States, 
people in the United States would lose numerous con-
sumer protections, including the requirements that— 
(1) plans offer preventive care without cost-sharing; 
VerDate Sep 11 2014 
01:57 Aug 12, 2020
Jkt 099200
PO 00000
Frm 00006
Fmt 6652
Sfmt 6300
E:\BILLS\HR1082.IH
HR1082
pamtmann on DSKBC07HB2PROD with BILLS
•HRES 1082 IH 
(2) young adults can remain on their parents’ insur-
ance plan until age 26; 
(3) many health insurance plans offer a comprehen-
sive set of essential health benefits such as maternity 
care, addiction treatment, and prescription drug cov-
erage; 
(4) individuals cannot be denied coverage due to, 
and coverage cannot be medically underwritten to reflect, 
gender; and 
(5) individuals cannot be denied coverage due to, 
and coverage cannot be medically underwritten to reflect, 
a pre-existing medical condition; 
Whereas a ruling by the Supreme Court of the United States 
that the ACA must be struck down would cost the United 
States an estimated 3,000,000 jobs at a time when na-
tional unemployment as a result of the global pandemic 
exceeds 11 percent; 
Whereas, in the midst of a global pandemic, the Department 
of Justice is continuing to pursue a strategy to have the 
ruling of the United States District Court for the North-
ern District of Texas in Texas v. United States upheld 
by the Supreme Court of the United States, which would 
result in health care coverage being torn away from mil-
lions of people in the United States; 
Whereas people in the United States who are facing the eco-
nomic and physical risks of a global pandemic cannot 
also face an ongoing threat that a ruling by the Supreme 
Court of the United States could invalidate their health 
care coverage; and 
Whereas dismantling the health care system in the United 
States in the midst of a global pandemic, when millions 
of people in the United States have lost work and the 
VerDate Sep 11 2014 
01:57 Aug 12, 2020
Jkt 099200
PO 00000
Frm 00007
Fmt 6652
Sfmt 6300
E:\BILLS\HR1082.IH
HR1082
pamtmann on DSKBC07HB2PROD with BILLS
•HRES 1082 IH 
ACA provides an alternative to employer-based health in-
surance, would trigger chaos: Now, therefore, be it 
Resolved, That it is the sense of the House that the 
Department of Justice should— 
(1) defend the Patient Protection and Afford-
able Care Act (Public Law 111–148; 124 Stat. 119) 
rather than doubling down on its position with re-
spect to the decision of the United States District 
Court for the Northern District of Texas in Texas 
v. United States, No. 4:18–cv–00167–O (N.D. 
Tex.); and 
(2) protect the millions of people in the United 
States who newly gained health insurance coverage 
since 2014 and rely on that coverage in the midst 
of the public health emergency relating to the 
Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19). 
Æ 
VerDate Sep 11 2014 
01:57 Aug 12, 2020
Jkt 099200
PO 00000
Frm 00008
Fmt 6652
Sfmt 6301
E:\BILLS\HR1082.IH
HR1082
pamtmann on DSKBC07HB2PROD with BILLS