,h4 ,,res4 #bga ,in the ,house of ,representatives1 ,u4 ,s41 ,april #c1 #bjai ,,resolution ,whereas on ,february #bf1 #bjah1 #ah ,state attorneys general and #b ,governors filed a lawsuit in the ,united ,states ,district ,court for the ,northern ,district of ,texas1 ,texas v4 ,united ,states1 ,no4 #d3ah-;cv-#jjafg-,o 7,n4,d4 ,tex47 7in this preamble referred to as ,texas v4 ,united ,states71 arguing that the requirement of the ,patient ,protection and ,affordable ,care ,act 7,public ,law #aaa-adh2 #abd ,stat4 #aai7 7in this preamble referred to as the ,,aca7 to maintain minimum essential coverage is unconstitutional and1 as a result1 the court should invalidate the entire law2 ,whereas in a ,june #g1 #bjah1 letter to ,congress1 then ,attorney ,general ,jefferson ,sessions announced that the ,department of ,justice-- 7#a7 would not defend the constitutionality of the minimum essential coverage provision2 and 7#b7 would argue that provisions protecting individuals with pre-existing conditions 7specifically the provisions commonly known as community rating and guaranteed issue7 are inseverable from the minimum essential coverage provision and should be invalidated2 ,whereas in the ,june #g1 #bjah1 letter to ,congress1 ,attorney ,general ,sessions also advised ,congress that the ,department will continue to argue that ,section #ejjj;,a7a7 is severable from the remaining provisions of the ,,aca1 indicating a difference from the plaintiffs' position in ,texas v4 ,united ,states2 ,whereas on ,december #ad1 #bjah1 the ,united ,states ,district ,court for the ,northern ,district of ,texas issued an order that declared the requirement to maintain minimum essential coverage unconstitutional and struck down the ,,aca in its entirety1 including protections for individuals with pre-existing conditions2 ,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 ,circuit2 ,whereas on ,march #be1 #bjai1 the ,department of ,justice1 in a letter to the ,united ,states ,court of ,appeals for the ,fifth ,circuit1 changed its position and announced that the entire ruling of the ,united ,states ,district ,court for the ,northern ,district of ,texas should be upheld and the entire ,,aca should be declared unconstitutional2 ,whereas prior to #bjad1 individuals with pre-existing conditions were routinely denied health insurance coverage1 subject to coverage exclusions1 charged unaffordable premium rates1 exposed to unaffordable out-of-pocket costs1 and subject to lifetime and annual limits on health insurance coverage2 ,whereas as many as #acc million nonelderly people in the ,united ,states-- 7#a7 have a pre-existing condition and could have been denied coverage1 only offered coverage at an exorbitant price had they needed individual market health insurance prior to #bjad1 or had coverage for their pre-existing condition excluded prior to #bjad2 and 7#b7 will lose protections for pre-existing conditions if the ruling of the ,united ,states ,district ,court for the ,northern ,district of ,texas is upheld in ,texas v4 ,united ,states2 ,whereas contrary to ,president ,trump's public claims that he supports protections for people with pre-existing conditions1 he has ordered his ,department of ,justice to actively pursue the destruction of these protections in ,federal court2 ,whereas employer-provided health plans cannot place lifetime or annual limits on health coverage1 and if the ,trump ,administration succeeds in its argument before the court1 more than #ajj million people in the ,united ,states who receive health insurance through their employer could once again face lifetime or annual coverage limits2 ,whereas if the ,trump ,administration succeeds in its argument before the court1 insurers would be allowed to impose an unlimited age tax on the health insurance premiums of older ,americans2 ,whereas prior to #bjaj1 ,medicare enrollees faced massive out-of-pocket prescription drug costs once they reached a certain threshold known as the ,medicare donut hole1 and since the donut hole began closing in #bjaj1 millions of ,medicare beneficiaries have saved billions of dollars on prescription drugs2 ,whereas at a time when #c in #aj adults report not taking prescribed medicines because of the cost1 if the ,trump ,administration succeeds in its argument before the court1 seniors enrolled in ,medicare would face billions of dollars in new prescription drug costs2 ,whereas as of ,march #bjai1 #cg ,states1 including the ,district of ,columbia1 have expanded or are in the process of expanding ,medicaid to individuals with incomes up to #ach percent of the ,federal poverty level1 providing health coverage to more than #ab million newly eligible people2 ,whereas if the ,trump ,administration succeeds in its argument before the court1 the millions of individuals and families who receive coverage from ,medicaid could lose eligibility and no longer have access to health care2 ,whereas as of ,march #bjai1 many people who buy individual health insurance are provided tax credits to reduce the cost of premiums and assistance to reduce out-of-pocket costs such as copays and deductibles1 which has made individual health insurance coverage affordable for millions of people in the ,united ,states for the first time2 ,whereas if the ,trump ,administration succeeds in its argument before the court1 the health insurance individual exchanges would be eliminated and millions of people in the ,united ,states who buy health insurance on the individual marketplaces could lose coverage and would see premium expenses for individual health insurance increase exorbitantly2 ,whereas if the ,trump ,administration succeeds in its argument before the court1 people in the ,united ,states would lose numerous consumer protections in their coverage1 including the requirements that-- 7#a7 plans offer preventive care without cost-sharing2 7#b7 young adults have the option to remain on a parent's insurance plan until age #bf2 and 7#c7 many health insurance plans offer a comprehensive set of essential health benefits such as maternity care1 addiction treatment1 and prescription drug coverage2 ,whereas pursuant to section #eaf of title #bh1 ,united ,states ,code1 the conduct of litigation in which the ,united ,states is a party is reserved to the ,department of ,justice2 ,whereas public reports suggest that the ,president and his political advisors directed this course of action in direct contravention of the ,department of ,justice's longstanding policy to defend ,acts of ,congress and duty to advance reasonable analysis of legal questions1 for example-- 7#a7 when the ,department of ,justice changed its litigating position on ,june #g1 #bjah1 in the ,texas v4 ,united ,states case to ask the court to strike down the ,,aca's guaranteed issue and community rating requirements1 thereby eliminating protections for people with pre-existing conditions and reinstating legal discrimination based on health status1 that position was found to be so legally indefensible that three of the four career attorneys representing the ,government refused to sign the relevant briefs and removed themselves from the case2 and 7#b7 when the ,department of ,justice again changed its litigating position on ,march #be1 #bjai1 in the appeal of ,texas v4 ,united ,states to seek the invalidation of every provision of the ,,aca1 it was reported that decision was made over the objections of both the ,department of ,justice as well as the ,department of ,health and ,human ,services2 and ,whereas the ,trump ,administration has proceeded in the ,texas v4 ,united ,states lawsuit with total disregard for the consequences of its actions for the lives of millions of ,americans3 ,now1 therefore1 be it ,that it is the sense of the ,house of ,representatives that-- 7#a7 the actions taken by the ,trump ,administration seeking the invalidation of the ,,aca's protections for people with pre-existing conditions1 and later the invalidation of the entire ,,aca1 are an unacceptable assault on the health care of the ,american people2 and 7#b7 the ,department of ,justice should-- 7,a7 protect individuals with pre-existing conditions1 seniors struggling with high prescription drug costs1 and the millions of people in the ,united ,states who newly gained health insurance coverage since #bjad2 7,b7 cease any and all efforts to destroy ,americans' access to affordable health care2 and 7,c7 reverse its position in ,texas v4 ,united ,states1 ,no4 #ai-ajjaa 7#eth ,cir474 ,clerk4