,,iii #aaeth ,,congress #b;d ,session ,s4 ,,res4 #eha ,,in ,,the ,,senate ,,of ,,the ,,united ,,states ,july #ai1 #bjah,mr4 ,manchin 7for himself1 ,mr4 ,casey1 ,ms4 ,heitkamp1 ,mr4 ,brown1 ,mr4 ,donnelly1 ,mrs4 ,mc,caskill1 ,mr4 ,tester1 ,ms4 ,cortez ,masto1 ,mr4 ,carper1 ,ms4 ,baldwin1 ,mr4 ,leahy1 ,mr4 ,udall1 ,mr4 ,jones1 ,mr4 ,wyden1 ,mr4 ,nelson1 ,mr4 ,reed1 ,mr4 ,blumenthal1 ,ms4 ,cantwell1 ,mr4 ,menendez1 ,mr4 ,sanders1 ,ms4 ,harris1 ,ms4 ,hirono1 ,mr4 ,van ,hollen1 ,mr4 ,cardin1 ,mr4 ,booker1 ,ms4 ,hassan1 ,mr4 ,durbin1 ,mrs4 ,gillibrand1 ,mrs4 ,shaheen1 ,mr4 ,markey1 ,mr4 ,heinrich1 ,ms4 ,warren1 ,mr4 ,peters1 ,mr4 ,kaine1 ,mr4 ,coons1 ,mr4 ,warner1 ,mr4 ,murphy1 ,ms4 ,duckworth1 ,mrs4 ,feinstein1 ,mr4 ,merkley1 ,mr4 ,schatz1 ,mr4 ,schumer1 ,ms4 ,smith1 ,ms4 ,stabenow1 ,mr4 ,whitehouse1 ,ms4 ,klobuchar1 ,mrs4 ,murray1 ,mr4 ,king1 and ,mr4 ,bennet7 submitted the following resolution2 which was referred to the ,committee on ,rules and ,administration ,,resolution ,authorizing the ,senate ,legal ,counsel to represent the ,senate in ,texas v4 ,united ,states1 ,no4 #d3ah-;cv-#jjafg-,o 7,n4,d4 ,tex474 ,whereas ,texas1 ,wisconsin1 ,alabama1 ,arkansas1 ,arizona1 ,florida1 ,georgia1 ,indiana1 ,kansas1 ,louisiana1 ,paul ,le,page 7,governor of ,maine71 ,mississippi 7by and through ,governor ,phil ,bryant71 ,missouri1 ,nebraska1 ,north ,dakota1 ,south ,carolina1 ,south ,dakota1 ,tennessee1 ,utah1 and ,west ,virginia have filed suit in the ,united ,states ,district ,court for the ,northern ,district of ,texas1 arguing that the ,patient ,protection and ,affordable ,care ,act 7,public ,law #aaa-adh2 #abd ,stat4 #aai71 is unconstitutional and should be enjoined1 by asserting that the ,act's requirement to maintain minimum essential coverage 7commonly known as the individual responsibility provision7 in section #ejjj;,a7a7 of the ,internal ,revenue ,code of #aihf1 is unconstitutional following the amendment of that provision by the ,act to provide for reconciliation pursuant to titles ,,ii and ,v of the concurrent resolution on the budget for fiscal year #bjah 7,public ,law #aae-ig7 7commonly known as the ,tax ,cuts and ,jobs ,act72 ,whereas these ,state and individual plaintiffs also seek to strike down the entire ,patient ,protection and ,affordable ,care ,act as not severable from the individual responsibility provision2 ,whereas1 on ,june #g1 #bjah1 the ,department of ,justice refused to defend the constitutionality of the amended individual responsibility provision1 despite the well-established duty of the ,department to defend ,federal statutes where reasonable arguments can be made in their defense2 and ,whereas the ,department of ,justice not only refused to defend the amended individual responsibility provision1 but it affirmatively argued that this provision is unconstitutional and that the provisions of the ,patient ,protection and ,affordable ,care ,act guaranteeing issuance of insurance coverage regardless of health status or pre-existing conditions 7commonly known as the guaranteed issue provision71 sections #bgjb1 #bgjd1 and #bgje7;a7 of the ,public ,health ,service ,act 7#db ,u4,s4,c4 #cjj;gg-#a1 #cjj;gg-#c1 #cjj;gg-#d7;a771 and prohibiting discriminatory premium rates 7commonly known as the community rating provision71 sections #bgja and #bgje7;b7 of the ,public ,health ,service ,act 7#db ,u4,s4,c4 #cjj;gg7a77#a71 #cjj;gg-#d7;b77 must now be struck down as not severable from the individual responsibility provision3 ,now1 therefore1 be it ,that the ,senate ,legal ,counsel is authorized to represent the ,senate in ,texas v4 ,united ,states1 ,no4 #d3ah-;cv-#jjafg-,o 7,n4,d4 ,tex471 including seeking to-- 7#a7 intervene as a party in the matter2 and 7#b7 defend all provisions of the ,patient ,protection and ,affordable ,care ,act1 the amendments made by that ,act to other provisions of law1 and any amendments to such provisions1 including the provisions ensuring affordable health coverage for those with pre-existing conditions4