,,iv #aafth ,,congress #ast ,session ,h4 ,,res4 #ad ,,in ,,the ,,house ,,of ,,representatives ,january #c1 #bjai,mr4 ,allred 7for himself1 ,mr4 ,pallone1 ,mr4 ,neal1 ,mr4 ,scott of ,virginia1 ,mr4 ,nadler1 ,mr4 ,hoyer1 ,mr4 ,clyburn1 ,mr4 ,mc,govern1 and ,ms4 ,pelosi7 submitted the following resolution2 which was referred to the ,committee on ,rules1 and in addition to the ,committee on ,house ,administration1 for a period to be subsequently determined by the ,speaker1 in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned ,,resolution ,authorizing the ,speaker1 on behalf of the ,house of ,representatives1 to intervene1 otherwise appear1 or take any other steps in the case of ,texas v4 ,united ,states1 and in any appellate proceedings arising from such case1 and for other purposes4 ,whereas ,texas1 ,wisconsin1 ,alabama1 ,arkansas1 ,arizona1 ,florida1 ,georgia1 ,indiana1 ,kansas1 ,louisiana1 ,governor ,paul ,le,page of ,maine1 ,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 #aai7 is unconstitutional and should be enjoined 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 ,whereas the ,department of ,justice not only refused to defend the amended individual responsibility provision1 but affirmatively argued that this provision is unconstitutional and that the provisions of the ,patient ,protection and ,affordable ,care ,act guaranteeing issuance of health insurance coverage regardless of health status or preexisting conditions 7commonly known as the guaranteed issue provision7 found in 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;a77 and prohibitions on discriminatory premium rates 7commonly known as the community rating provision7 found in 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 provision2 ,whereas the district court recently held that the individual responsibility provision is unconstitutional and that all of the remaining provisions of the ,patient ,protection and ,affordable ,care act are inseverable and therefore invalid2 ,whereas up to #acc million nonelderly ,americans have some type of preexisting health condition1 such as1 but not limited to1 diabetes1 high cholesterol1 cancer1 arthritis1 and asthma1 that could affect their insurance2 ,whereas prior to the ,patient ,protection and ,affordable ,care ,act and the enactment of protections such as guaranteed issue and community rating1 millions of ,americans were denied health insurance coverage1 were unable to obtain coverage of necessary medical services1 or were priced out of the individual market due to preexisting conditions2 ,whereas without such protections for preexisting conditions1 millions of ,americans could once again lose access to affordable1 comprehensive health insurance2 ,whereas more than #ac million ,americans who gained coverage in ,states that expanded ,medicaid eligibility under the ,patient ,protection and ,affordable ,care ,act could lose coverage if the ,act were struck down in its entirety2 ,whereas more than #b million young adults who gained coverage under a provision of the ,patient ,protection and ,affordable ,care ,act allowing individuals under the age of #bf to stay on their parents' insurance could lose coverage if the ,act were struck down in its entirety2 ,whereas more than #h4i million low and middle-income ,americans who received tax credits averaging #ebj per month to help pay for health insurance in the individual market under the ,patient ,protection and ,affordable ,care ,act could lose coverage if the ,act were struck down in its entirety2 ,whereas an estimated #aje million ,americans who now enjoy coverage without lifetime limits due to the ,patient ,protection and ,affordable ,care ,act could once again face lifetime limits on their benefits if the ,act were struck down in its entirety2 and ,whereas nearly #ab million ,medicare beneficiaries who received an average of #b1bjj in savings on prescription drugs due to the closing of the ,medicare prescription drug donut hole under the ,patient ,protection and ,affordable ,care ,act would face rising drug costs if the ,act were struck down in its entirety3 ,now1 therefore1 be it #a4 ,authorizing legal action by ,house 7a7 ,authorization ,the ,speaker1 on behalf of the ,house of ,representatives1 is authorized to intervene1 otherwise appear1 or take any other steps in the case of ,texas v4 ,united ,states1 ,no4 #d3ah-;cv-#jjafg-,o 7,n4,d4 ,tex47 and in any appellate proceedings arising from such case4 ,the ,speaker1 in consultation with the ,bipartisan ,legal ,advisory ,group1 is also authorized to intervene1 otherwise appear1 or take any other steps in any other cases involving the ,patient ,protection and ,affordable ,care ,act to protect the institutional interests of the ,house and to defend such ,act1 the amendments made by such ,act to other provisions of law1 and any amendments to such provisions1 including the provisions ensuring affordable health coverage for those with preexisting conditions4 7b7 ,role of ,general ,counsel ,the ,office of ,general ,counsel of the ,house of ,representatives1 at the direction of the ,speaker1 shall represent the ,house in any litigation pursuant to this title4 ,the ,office of ,general ,counsel may employ the services of outside counsel1 including pro bono counsel1 or other experts for this purpose4 7c7 ,reports on amounts expended ,the chair of the ,committee on ,house ,administration shall cause to be printed in the ,congressional ,record a statement setting forth the aggregate amounts expended by the ,office of ,general ,counsel on outside counsel and other experts pursuant to this title on a quarterly basis1 and such statement shall be submitted for printing not more than #cj days after the expiration of each such quarter4