,,iii  #aafth ,,congress  #b;d ,session 
,s4 ,,res4 #fch  ,,in ,,the ,,senate    
,,of ,,the ,,united ,,states  ,june #cj1
 #bjbj,mr4 ,tester 7for himself1 ,mr4   
,schumer1 ,mrs4 ,shaheen1 ,mr4 ,manchin1
 ,mr4 ,kaine1 ,mr4 ,warner1 ,mr4 ,jones1
 ,ms4 ,smith1 ,ms4 ,hirono1 ,mr4 ,reed1 
,mr4 ,van ,hollen1 ,ms4 ,cortez ,masto1 
,ms4 ,baldwin1 ,mr4 ,brown1 ,mr4        
,bennet1 ,mr4 ,carper1 ,mr4 ,blumenthal1
 ,mr4 ,markey1 ,mr4 ,durbin1 ,ms4       
,harris1 ,mr4 ,cardin1 ,mrs4 ,murray1   
,ms4 ,rosen1 ,ms4 ,stabenow1 ,mr4       
,murphy1 ,mr4 ,wyden1 ,ms4 ,hassan1 ,mr4
 ,peters1 ,ms4 ,klobuchar1 ,mr4         
,heinrich1 ,ms4 ,warren1 ,ms4 ,sinema1  
,mr4 ,king1 ,mr4 ,udall1 ,mr4           
,whitehouse1 ,mr4 ,menendez1 ,mrs4      
,feinstein1 ,mr4 ,schatz1 ,mr4 ,coons1  
,mr4 ,leahy1 ,mr4 ,sanders1 ,mr4        
,booker1 ,mrs4 ,gillibrand1 ,mr4        
,merkley1 ,ms4 ,cantwell1 ,mr4 ,casey1  
and ,ms4 ,duckworth7 submitted the      
following resolution2 which was referred
 to the ,committee on the ,judiciary    

,,resolution  ,expressing the sense of  
the ,senate that the ,department of     
,justice should defend the ,patient     
,protection and ,affordable ,care ,act  
7,public ,law #aaa-adh2 #abd ,stat4     
#aai7 and halt its efforts to repeal1   
sabotage1 or undermine health care      
protections for millions of people in   
the ,united ,states in the midst of the 
public health emergency relating to the 
,coronavirus ,disease #bjai             
7,,covid-#ai74  ,whereas more than      
#b1ejj1jjj people in the ,united ,states
 have tested positive for the           
,coronavirus ,disease #bjai 7referred to
 in this preamble as ,,covid-#ai71 with 
many requiring costly health care2      
,whereas1 prior to #bjaj1 a diagnosis of
 ,,covid-#ai likely would have been     
considered a pre-existing medical       
condition2 ,whereas1 in #bjaj1 ,congress
 passed and ,president ,barack ,obama   
signed the ,patient ,protection and     
,affordable ,care ,act 7,public ,law    
#aaa-adh2 #abd ,stat4 #aai7 7referred to

 in this preamble as the ,,aca72        
,whereas1 prior to the enactment of the 
,,aca1 more than #acc1jjj1jjj nonelderly
 people in the ,united ,states with a   
pre-existing medical condition were     
consistently charged unaffordable       
premiums for health insurance coverage1 
were subject to exorbitant out-of-pocket
 costs for care1 faced annual and       
lifetime limits on coverage1 or were    
denied health care coverage altogether2 
,whereas1 prior to the enactment of the 
,,aca1 millions of seniors with         
,medicare coverage encountered steep    
out-of-pocket prescription drug costs   
once those seniors hit a 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 drug costs2 ,whereas1 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 7referred to in this     
preamble as ,texas v4 ,united ,states71 
arguing that the requirement of the     
,,aca to maintain minimum essential     
coverage is unconstitutional2 ,whereas  
the ,state and individual plaintiffs in 
,texas v4 ,united ,states also seek to  
strike down the entire ,,aca as not     
severable from the requirement to       
maintain minimum essential coverage2    
,whereas1 despite the well-established  
duty of the ,department of ,justice to  
defend ,federal statutes where          
reasonable arguments can be made in     
their defense1 ,attorney ,general       
,jefferson ,sessions announced in a     
letter to ,congress on ,june #g1 #bjah1 
that the ,department of ,justice would  
not defend the constitutionality of the 
minimum essential coverage provision2   
,whereas1 in the ,june #g1 #bjah1 letter
 to ,congress1 then ,attorney ,general  
,jefferson ,sessions announced that the 

,department of ,justice would instead   
argue that provisions protecting        
individuals with pre-existing medical   
conditions 7specifically the provisions 
commonly known as community rating and  
guaranteed issue7 are not severable from
 the minimum essential coverage         
provision and ought to be invalidated2  
,whereas the ,united ,states ,district  
,court for the ,northern ,district of   
,texas issued an order on ,december #ad1
 #bjah1 that struck down the ,,aca in   
its entirety1 including protections for 
individuals with pre-existing           
conditions1 based on the ruling of that 
court that the requirement to maintain  
minimum essential coverage was          
unconstitutional2 ,whereas1 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 central holding of   
the ,united ,states ,district ,court for
 the ,northern ,district of ,texas      

should be upheld and the entire ,,aca   
should be declared inseverable from the 
minimum essential coverage provision and
 struck down2 ,whereas1 on ,december    
#ah1 #bjai1 the ,united ,states ,court  
of ,appeals for the ,fifth ,circuit in  
,texas v4 ,united ,states1 #ide ,f4#c;d 
#cee 7#eth ,cir4 #bjai71 upheld the     
decision of the ,united ,states         
,district ,court for the ,northern      
,district of ,texas striking down the   
minimum essential coverage provision1   
but vacated the decision on severability
 and remanded the case to the ,united   
,states ,district ,court for the        
,northern ,district of ,texas2 ,whereas 
the ,supreme ,court of the ,united      
,states granted1 on ,monday1 ,march #b1 
#bjbj1 a petition for a writ of         
certiorari filed by #ba ,state attorneys
 general and will review1 in ,california
 v4 ,texas1 ,no4 #ai-hjd 7,u4,s47 and   
,texas v4 ,california1 ,no4 #ai-aiaji   
7,u4,s471 the decisions of the ,united  
,states ,court of ,appeals for the      

,fifth ,circuit in ,texas v4 ,united    
,states1 #ide ,f4#c;d #cee 7#eth ,cir4  
#bjai72 ,whereas1 if the ruling of the  
,united ,states ,district ,court for the
 ,northern ,district of ,texas in ,texas
 v4 ,united ,states is upheld by the    
,supreme ,court of the ,united ,states1 
seniors enrolled in ,medicare would face
 the reopening of the ,medicare donut   
hole and be subject to billions of      
dollars in new prescription drug costs2 
,whereas1 as of ,june #bjbj1 #cg ,states
 and the ,district of ,columbia have    
expanded or voted to expand ,medicaid to
 individuals with incomes below #ach    
percent of the ,federal poverty level1  
providing health coverage to more than  
#ab1jjj1jjj newly eligible people2      
,whereas1 if the ruling of the ,united  
,states ,district ,court for the        
,northern ,district of ,texas in ,texas 
v4 ,united ,states is upheld by the     
,supreme ,court of the ,united ,states1 
the millions of individuals and families
 who receive coverage from ,medicaid    

could lose access to health care        
coverage altogether2 ,whereas1 as of    
,april #bjbj1 more than #g1bjj1jjj      
consumers who purchase individual health
 insurance are eligible for tax credits 
to subsidize the cost of premiums and   
assistance to minimize out-of-pocket    
health care 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 ,whereas1 if
 the ruling of the ,united ,states      
,district ,court for the ,northern      
,district of ,texas in ,texas v4 ,united
 ,states is upheld by the ,supreme      
,court of the ,united ,states-- 7#a7 the
 individual health insurance            
marketplaces established under the ,,aca
 would be eliminated2  7#b7 the millions
 of people in the ,united ,states who   
buy health insurance on those           
marketplaces could lose coverage2 and   
7#c7 the premium expenses for individual
 health insurance would increase        

exorbitantly2 ,whereas1 if the ruling of
 the ,united ,states ,district ,court   
for the ,northern ,district of ,texas in
 ,texas v4 ,united ,states is upheld by 
the ,supreme ,court of the ,united      
,states1 the permanent reauthorization  
of the ,indian ,health ,care            
,improvement ,act 7#be ,u4,s4,c4 #afja  
et seq47 would also be repealed and     
millions of ,american ,indians and      
,alaska ,natives would have less access 
to health services1 less options for    
care1 and worsened health disparities2  
,whereas1 if the ruling of the ,united  
,states ,district ,court for the        
,northern ,district of ,texas in ,texas 
v4 ,united ,states is upheld by the     
,supreme ,court of the ,united ,states1 
the nearly #ejj1jjj veterans who have   
gained health insurance coverage1       
including the nearly #a in #aj veterans 
that have gained coverage through       
,medicaid expansion1 would lose access  
to care2 ,whereas1 if the ruling of the 
,united ,states ,district ,court for the

 ,northern ,district of ,texas in ,texas
 v4 ,united ,states is upheld by the    
,supreme ,court of the ,united ,states1 
people in the ,united ,states would lose
 numerous consumer protections1         
including the requirements that-- 7#a7  
plans offer preventive care without     
cost-sharing2  7#b7 young adults can    
remain on their parents' insurance plan 
until age #bf2  7#c7 many health        
insurance plans offer a comprehensive   
set of essential health benefits such as
 maternity care1 addiction treatment1   
and prescription drug coverage2  7#d7   
individuals cannot be denied coverage   
due to1 and coverage cannot be medically
 underwritten to reflect1 gender2 and   
7#e7 individuals cannot be denied       
coverage due to1 and coverage cannot be 
medically underwritten to reflect1 a    
pre-existing medical condition2         
,whereas1 on ,march #aa1 #bjbj1 the     
,world ,health ,organization declared   
the outbreak of ,,covid-#ai a pandemic2 
,whereas1 as of ,june #cj1 #bjbj1 more  

than #b1ede1jjj people in the ,united   
,states have been diagnosed with        
,,covid-#ai2 ,whereas1 during the       
ongoing ,,covid-#ai pandemic1 millions  
of people in the ,united ,states have   
relied on the ,,aca for coverage1 health
 care access1 and diagnoses2 ,whereas1  
as of ,june #be1 #bjbj1 more than       
#cj1jjj1jjj people in the ,united       
,states have filed for unemployment     
benefits2 ,whereas a ruling by the      
,supreme ,court of the ,united ,states  
that the ,,aca must be struck down would
 cost the ,united ,states an estimated  
#c1jjj1jjj jobs at a time when national 
unemployment as a result of the global  
pandemic exceeds #ac percent2 ,whereas1 
in the midst of a global pandemic1 the  
,department of ,justice is continuing to
 pursue a strategy to have the ruling of
 the ,united ,states ,district ,court   
for the ,northern ,district of ,texas in
 ,texas v4 ,united ,states upheld by the
 ,supreme ,court of the ,united ,states1
 which would result in health care      

coverage being torn away from millions  
of people in the ,united ,states2       
,whereas people in the ,united ,states  
who are facing the economic and physical
 risks of a global pandemic cannot also 
face an ongoing threat that a ruling by 
the ,supreme ,court of the ,united      
,states could invalidate their health   
care coverage2 and ,whereas dismantling 
the health care system in the ,united   
,states in the midst of a global        
pandemic1 when millions of people in the
 ,united ,states have lost work and the 
,,aca provides an alternative to        
employer-based health insurance1 would  
trigger chaos3 ,now1 therefore1 be it   
,that it is the sense of the ,senate    
that the ,department of ,justice        
should-- 7#a7 defend the ,patient       
,protection and ,affordable ,care ,act  
7,public ,law #aaa-adh2 #abd ,stat4     
#aai7 rather than doubling down on its  
position with respect to the decision of
 the ,united ,states ,district ,court   
for the ,northern ,district of ,texas in

 ,texas v4 ,united ,states1 ,no4        
#d3ah-;cv-#jjafg-,o 7,n4,d4 ,tex472 and 
7#b7 protect the millions of people in  
the ,united ,states who newly gained    
health insurance coverage since #bjad   
and rely on that coverage in the midst  
of the public health emergency relating 
to the ,coronavirus ,disease #bjai      
7,,covid-#ai74