,,iv  #aacth ,,congress  #ast ,session  
,h4 ,,res4 #aec  ,,in ,,the ,,house ,,of
 ,,representatives  ,april #ab1 #bjac   
,mr4 ,franks of ,arizona 7for himself1  
,mr4 ,gohmert1 ,mr4 ,salmon1 ,mr4       
,stockman1 ,mr4 ,bonner1 ,mr4 ,coble1   
,mr4 ,pitts1 ,mr4 ,mc,clintock1 ,mr4    
,shimkus1 ,mr4 ,campbell1 ,mr4 ,fleming1
 ,mr4 ,westmoreland1 ,mr4 ,smith of ,new
 ,jersey1 ,mr4 ,williams1 ,mrs4         
,bachmann1 ,mr4 ,garrett1 ,mr4 ,carter1 
,mr4 ,sam ,johnson of ,texas1 ,mr4      
,schweikert1 and ,mr4 ,issa7 submitted  
the following resolution2 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 #bjji violates
 article ,i1 section #g1 clause #a of   
the ,united ,states ,constitution       
because it was a ,bill for raising      
,revenue that did not originate in the  
,house of ,representatives4  ,whereas   
article ,i1 section #g1 clause #a of the

 ,united ,states ,constitution provides 
that1 ,all ,bills for raising ,revenue  
shall originate in the ,house of        
,representatives2 ,whereas1 on ,june    
#bh1 #bjab1 a majority of the ,united   
,states ,supreme ,court held that the   
individual mandate provision of the     
,patient ,protection and ,affordable    
,care ,act of #bjji cannot be upheld as 
an exercise of ,congress's power under  
the ,commerce ,clause but was within    
,congress's power to tax2 ,whereas the  
,patient ,protection and ,affordable    
,care ,act of #bjji 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 ,h4,r4 #ceij1     
which had passed the ,house of          
,representatives by a vote of #daf-j as 
the ,service ,members ,home ,ownership  
,tax ,act of #bjji2 ,whereas there is   
ample evidence that the sponsors of the 
,senate health care bill not only       
contemplated the possibility of         

substantial excess revenues1 but        
explicitly announced on its ,senate     
introduction that1 ,this bill will cut  
the deficit by #acj billion2 ,whereas   
section #aefc of the ,senate amended    
,h4,r4 #ceij explicitly stated that it  
was the ,sense of the ,senate that this 
,act will reduce the ,federal deficit   
between #bjaj and #bjai1 and this ,act  
will continue to reduce budget deficits 
after #bjai42 and ,whereas the ,senate  
health care bill that the ,president    
ultimately signed as ,h4,r4 #ceij       
contains #ag numbered ,revenue          
,provisions1 none of which are germane  
to the subject matter of the original   
,h4,r4 #ceij1 and nothing else in the   
,senate health care bill was germane to 
the subject matter of ,h4,r4 #ceij3     
,now1 therefore1 be it  ,that it is the 
sense of the ,house of ,representatives 
that--  7#a7 the ,patient ,protection   
and ,affordable ,care ,act of #bjji was 
a ,bill for raising ,revenue as those   
words were intended to be understood in 

article ,i1 section #g1 clause #a of the
 ,united ,states ,constitution2 and     
7#b7 the ,patient ,protection and       
,affordable ,care ,act of #bjji did not 
originate in the ,house of              
,representatives4