SENATE RESOLUTION 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...; Congressional Record Vol. 165, No. 39
(Senate - March 05, 2019)
Formatting necessary for an accurate reading of this text may be shown by tags (e.g., <DELETED> or <BOLD>) or may be missing from this TXT display. For complete and accurate display of this text, see the PDF.
[Pages S1661-S1662]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
SENATE RESOLUTION 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
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, Mr. Udall, and Mr. Warner) submitted the
following resolution; which was referred to the Committee on the
Judiciary:
S. Res. 94
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));
[[Page S1662]]
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--
(A) the requirement to maintain minimum essential coverage
is unconstitutional; and
(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.).
____________________