IV 
114TH CONGRESS 
1ST SESSION 
H. RES. 392 
Expressing the sense of the House of Representatives that the enactment 
of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act of 2009, Public 
Law 111–148, violated article I, section 7 of the United States Constitu-
tion because it was a bill for raising revenue that did not originate 
in the House of Representatives. 
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 
JULY 29, 2015 
Mr. FRANKS of Arizona (for himself, Mr. DUNCAN of South Carolina, Mr. 
PITTENGER, Mr. GOSAR, Mr. OLSON, Mr. GARRETT, Mr. BROOKS of Ala-
bama, Mr. SALMON, Mr. GOHMERT, Mr. KING of Iowa, Mrs. BLACK-
BURN, Mr. ROKITA, Mr. JORDAN, and Mr. NEWHOUSE) 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 enactment of the Patient Protection and Affordable 
Care Act of 2009, Public Law 111–148, violated article 
I, section 7 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 of the United States Constitution 
provides that ‘‘[a]ll Bills for raising Revenue shall origi-
nate in the House of Representatives, but the Senate 
may propose or concur with Amendments as on other 
Bills’’; 
VerDate Sep 11 2014 
05:23 Jul 30, 2015
Jkt 049200
PO 00000
Frm 00001
Fmt 6652
Sfmt 6300
E:\BILLS\HR392.IH
HR392
smartinez on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with BILLS
•HRES 392 IH 
Whereas this constitutional requirement that revenue-raising 
bills originate in the House of Representatives applies 
whenever an ‘‘act . . . by any of its provisions’’ has a 
‘‘purpose . . . to raise revenue to be applied in meeting 
the expenses or obligations of the government’’, but not 
when the raising of revenue is ‘‘incidental’’ and there is 
‘‘no [such] purpose’’; 
Whereas the constitutional allowance for Senate-initiated rev-
enue-raising amendments applies when an ‘‘amendment 
[is] germane to the subject-matter of [a House revenue- 
raising bill] and not beyond the power of the Senate to 
propose’’; 
Whereas the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act of 
2009 was introduced in the United States Senate on No-
vember 19, 2009, by its sponsors as the ‘‘Senate health 
care bill’’ through Senate Amendment No. 2786, a pro-
posed amendment in the nature of a substitute to H.R. 
3590, which had passed the House of Representatives by 
a vote of 416–0 as the ‘‘Service Members Home Owner-
ship Tax Act of 2009’’ on October 8, 2009; 
Whereas the Senate passed Senate Amendment No. 2786 on 
November 21, 2009, by a party-line vote of 60–39, there-
by striking the entire six-page House bill after its enact-
ing clause and inserting in its place the 2,000-plus page 
Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act of 2009; 
Whereas the sponsors of the Patient Protection and Afford-
able Care Act of 2009 not only contemplated the possi-
bility of substantial excess revenues, but also explicitly 
announced on introducing Senate Amendment No. 2786 
that ‘‘[t]his bill will cut the deficit by $130 billion’’; 
VerDate Sep 11 2014 
05:23 Jul 30, 2015
Jkt 049200
PO 00000
Frm 00002
Fmt 6652
Sfmt 6300
E:\BILLS\HR392.IH
HR392
smartinez on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with BILLS
•HRES 392 IH 
Whereas section 1563 of the Patient Protection and Afford-
able Care Act of 2009 specifically finds that ‘‘this Act 
will reduce the Federal deficit between 2010 and 2019’’ 
and ‘‘this Act will continue to reduce budget deficits after 
2019’’; 
Whereas title IX of the Senate-initiated Patient Protection 
and Affordable Care Act of 2009 contains 17 numbered 
‘‘Revenue Provisions’’ to generate tax revenue to the gen-
eral account in the United States Treasury; 
Whereas title IX of the substitute bill inserted into H.R. 
3590 by Senate Amendment No. 2786 unquestionably 
raises revenue within the meaning of article I, section 7 
of the United States Constitution, including without limi-
tation an excise tax on medical devices that has no con-
ceivable purpose other than the raising of revenue to sup-
port the operation of the Federal Government, regardless 
of how the Federal courts resolve the question of whether 
the ‘‘shared responsibility payment’’ added by section 
1501(b) of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care 
Act of 2009 raises revenue within the meaning of article 
I, section 7 of the United States Constitution; 
Whereas, as it passed the House of Representatives on Octo-
ber 8, 2009, H.R. 3590 consisted of six sections, name-
ly— 
(1) the bill’s short title (section 1); 
(2) 3 sections (sections 2 through 4) that eliminated 
certain tax streams as applied to military, intelligence, 
and foreign service personnel; 
(3) a section (section 5) that increased by $21 the 
penalty for failing to file returns for partnerships and S 
corporations under sections 6698(b)(1) and 6699(b)(1) of 
the Internal Revenue Code of 1986; and 
VerDate Sep 11 2014 
05:23 Jul 30, 2015
Jkt 049200
PO 00000
Frm 00003
Fmt 6652
Sfmt 6300
E:\BILLS\HR392.IH
HR392
smartinez on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with BILLS
•HRES 392 IH 
(4) a section (section 6) that shifted 0.5 percent of 
certain corporations’ estimated tax payments from the 
4th calendar quarter to the 3rd calendar quarter, with an 
equal and offsetting reduction to 4th quarter payments; 
Whereas, regardless of how the Federal courts resolve the 
question of whether the phrase ‘‘raising revenue’’ under 
article I, section 7 of the United States Constitution 
means ‘‘increasing revenue’’ or merely ‘‘levying revenue’’, 
the House and Senate since 1872 have interpreted provi-
sions, such as sections 2 through 4 of H.R. 3590 as 
passed by the House on October 8, 2009, that eliminate 
revenue streams as not raising revenue within the mean-
ing of article I, section 7 of the United States Constitu-
tion; 
Whereas section 5 of H.R. 3590 as it passed the House on 
October 8, 2009, would have increased penalties as a reg-
ulatory measure to encourage timely filing of returns, 
with no revenue-raising purpose and no more than inci-
dental revenue; 
Whereas section 6 of H.R. 3590 as it passed the House on 
October 8, 2009, would have merely accomplished a 3- 
month temporal shift in estimated tax payments, without 
altering the total amount of such estimated tax pay-
ments; and 
Whereas nothing in the Senate-initiated Patient Protection 
and Affordable Care Act of 2009 was germane to the 
subject matter of H.R. 3590 as it passed the House on 
October 8, 2009: Now, therefore, be it 
Resolved, That it is the sense of the House of Rep-
resentatives that— 
VerDate Sep 11 2014 
05:23 Jul 30, 2015
Jkt 049200
PO 00000
Frm 00004
Fmt 6652
Sfmt 6201
E:\BILLS\HR392.IH
HR392
smartinez on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with BILLS
•HRES 392 IH 
(1) as passed by the House on October 8, 2009, 
H.R. 3590, the Service Members Home Ownership 
Tax Act of 2009, was not a ‘‘Bill for raising rev-
enue’’ within the meaning of article I, section 7 of 
the United States Constitution; 
(2) as passed by the Senate on December 24, 
2009, H.R. 3590, the Patient Protection and Af-
fordable Care Act of 2009, was a ‘‘Bill for raising 
revenue’’ within the meaning of article I, section 7 
of the United States Constitution; and 
(3) the Senate-initiated Patient Protection and 
Affordable Care Act of 2009 that the Senate passed 
on December 24, 2009, the House passed on March 
21, 2010, and the President signed on March 23, 
2010, was not within the power of the Senate to 
‘‘propose or concur with Amendments as on other 
Bills’’ within the meaning of article I, section 7, 
clause 2 of the United States Constitution. 
Æ 
VerDate Sep 11 2014 
05:23 Jul 30, 2015
Jkt 049200
PO 00000
Frm 00005
Fmt 6652
Sfmt 6301
E:\BILLS\HR392.IH
HR392
smartinez on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with BILLS