[Congressional Record Volume 160, Number 62 (Tuesday, April 29, 2014)]
[House]
[Pages H3261-H3266]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 4414, EXPATRIATE HEALTH COVERAGE
CLARIFICATION ACT OF 2014
Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I
call up House Resolution 555 and ask for its immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:
H. Res. 555
Resolved, That upon adoption of this resolution it shall be
in order to consider in the House the bill (H.R. 4414) to
clarify the treatment under the Patient Protection and
Affordable Care Act of health plans in which expatriates are
the primary enrollees, and for other purposes. All points of
order against consideration of the bill are waived. The
amendment printed in the report of the Committee on Rules
accompanying this resolution shall be considered as adopted.
The bill, as amended, shall be considered as read. All points
of order against provisions in the bill, as amended, are
waived. The previous question shall be considered as ordered
on the bill, as amended, and on any amendment thereto to
final passage without intervening motion except: (1) one hour
of debate equally divided and controlled by the chair and
ranking minority member of the Committee on Ways and Means;
and (2) one motion to recommit with or without instructions.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Texas is recognized for 1
hour.
Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the
customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr.
McGovern), pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume.
During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the
purpose of debate only.
General Leave
Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members
may have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks on the
resolution.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Texas?
There was no objection.
Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 555 provides for the
consideration to fix yet another flaw that has to be corrected in the
Affordable Care Act due to the rushed process by which the bill was
passed in March of 2010.
As a direct result of the hasty legislation, experts have estimated
that over 1,000 Americans will lose their jobs unless Congress takes
immediate action to correct and clarify the Affordable Care Act's
impact on expatriate health care plans.
This bill before us today will do just that, putting Americans above
partisan politics and helping yet another subset of people in our
country who currently are being harmed by the President's takeover of
our health care system.
The rule before us today provides for one full hour of debate equally
divided and controlled by the chair and the ranking minority member on
the Committee on Ways and Means. Further, the rule provides for the
adoption of an amendment by the bill's authors, Representatives Nunes
from California and Carney from Delaware, which addresses a number of
concerns the minority expressed during debate of this legislation
several weeks ago.
True to the Speaker's commitment of letting the House work its will,
Republicans listened to those concerns and crafted a bipartisan
amendment to improve the legislation. In addition, the rule provides
the minority the standard motion to recommit.
H.R. 4414, the Expatriate Health Coverage Clarification Act of 2014,
addresses the problem caused by the Affordable Care Act, which could
result in those Americans who live abroad for a substantial portion of
the year, those individuals referred to as expatriates, that could
cause them to lose their health care coverage because of the one-size-
fits-all approach to our health care system, which was employed by the
wizards who wrote the Affordable Care Act.
Expatriate health care providers have traditionally offered tailored,
specialized insurance plans to meet the needs of Americans who spend
their time overseas. These citizens simply cannot rely on a local
general practitioner or neighborhood clinic because, so often, they are
far away from home.
However, the Affordable Care Act does not provide an avenue by which
these plans can continue to be offered. Instead, Senator Reid, Kathleen
Sebelius, and Barack Obama decided it was up to them to decide how
Americans' health insurance plans should be structured.
The legislation before us today is a clear example of why a top-down
Federal approach to health care does not work. Consumers should be in
the driver's seat deciding what works best for them, what works best
for themselves and their families, not someone sitting in Washington,
D.C.
Because of the regulations in the Affordable Care Act, insurers have
announced that they will have to shift their expatriate operations
overseas in order to be in compliance with the law, and with those
operations will go those jobs. All Americans know that it was shown to
be an empty promise when someone said, if you like your health care
plan, you can keep it.
Well, Mr. Speaker, it is a darn good thing the President never
promised, if you like your job, you can keep it. Over a thousand jobs
tied to expatriate health care operations will now be shipped overseas.
Americans who rely on these health plans, which until now have worked
well for them and their families, are going to have to scramble and
scramble fast to find alternative coverage.
Some examples of those Americans who will potentially lose their
health care coverage due to the unyielding regulations of the
Affordable Care Act include businessmen and businesswomen, pilots,
foreign aid workers, ship operators, and tour guides.
The President has already acknowledged that his law will hurt these
Americans, announcing that the Department of Health and Human Services
would, yet again, ignore the law and provide a temporary waiver from
complying with the law's requirements; but this is not how you fix
flawed legislation.
[[Page H3262]]
You involve the legislative branch. You come to Congress, and you ask
that you legislate and fix the problem in the law.
Now, the White House, where there is a so-called constitutional
scholar, the President seems to have only read article II of the
Constitution, skipping entirely over the first and longest article,
article I, where the Founders make the case that Congress is the body
where laws are passed, the body where laws are written, the body where
laws are amended. As a result of the President making this change
unilaterally, the relief is only temporary.
The bill before us today provides the long-term security, the
security that is required to give these affected Americans and their
families the certainty they need to make decisions for their futures.
These expatriate plans are not barebone plans that some in this body
have criticized.
This is not lousy insurance. They typically are robust plans. They
are comprehensive plans, which simply cater to the special needs of
Americans who travel and are gone for a good portion of the year.
{time} 1330
The amendment by Representatives Nunes and Carney, which is adopted
in the rule before us, takes a thoughtful piece of legislation and
improves it even further. It clarifies that any future plans offered to
expatriates must still comply with the actuarial requirements in the
Affordable Care Act, as well as any pre-Affordable Care Act laws,
including the Employee Retirement Income and Security Act, known as
ERISA, and the Public Health Service Act. Moreover, it narrowly tailors
this relief to those Americans who spend more than 180 days outside the
country. These were concerns that Democrats expressed during the
previous debate on this legislation, and they are fully addressed in
the legislation before us today.
This is a carefully crafted fix. It was necessary because the
underlying law was so poorly crafted. It is needed to help Americans
who are being directly harmed by the President's health care law.
I encourage my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on the rule and ``yes'' on
the underlying bill, and I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from Texas
(Mr. Burgess) for yielding me the customary 30 minutes.
Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
(Mr. McGOVERN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. McGOVERN. I voted for the Affordable Care Act, I support the
Affordable Care Act, and I believe in the Affordable Care Act. I
believe every person in this country ought to have health care. I don't
think that is a radical idea, but my friends on the other side of the
aisle apparently do. I think everybody in this country is entitled to
good, quality health insurance. I think when they get sick they ought
to know they will be taken care of and not have to worry about whether
they are going to get covered or not because of preexisting conditions
or whether they are going to meet some sort of lifetime cap and be
excluded from coverage.
That is what the Affordable Care Act is all about. That is what this
big controversy that my friends on the other side of the aisle have
decided to make on this issue is all about. So I am making sure that
everybody in this country has health care. Boy, what a radical idea,
what a radical idea.
I will also say that having supported the Affordable Care Act, it is
not a perfect piece of legislation. I have never seen a perfect piece
of legislation ever come out of Congress. Legislation, especially
legislation that covers a subject as wide as this, at times will be
tweaked. There will be unintended consequences that we will come and we
will try to fix. That is what legislation is supposed to do: to try to
fix the problems.
Democrats have said that from the beginning, that we want to make
this bill work, work as well as it possibly can. We said we would be
willing to work with Republicans and the administration to address the
problems that have come about as a result of the implementation of this
law. By no means does that mean that we should repeal the Affordable
Care Act, which is something my Republican friends are obsessed with.
To the contrary, we need to do everything we can to fix any challenges
that this law may have to make sure that every American gets the
benefit of the Affordable Care Act.
H.R. 4414, the Expatriate Health Coverage Clarification Act, is
trying to fix one problem with the law. My friend from Delaware (Mr.
Carney) and others are attempting to try to fix a provision in the law
that causes some problems with the ways that expatriates are treated
under the ACA.
This is one example of how we--Democrats and Republicans--should be
able to work together. This is one example of how we--supporters and
opponents of the ACA--should be able to lay those differences aside as
we try to find solutions and move our country forward.
It is my understanding, Mr. Speaker, that House and Senate Democrats
and Republicans have been working with the White House to come up with
a solution that can pass both Houses of Congress and be signed by the
President. It is also my understanding that discussions were ongoing as
late as yesterday afternoon when the House majority decided to go with
the version before us today instead of waiting to continue negotiations
in a bipartisan, bicameral way so that we can get a bill moved
expeditiously through both Houses and signed into law by the President
of the United States.
I am more than a little disappointed, Mr. Speaker, because I want to
work with the majority to fix this problem. I am concerned that this
bill, the bill before us that we are talking about right now, creates
other problems, namely excluding green card holders and nonimmigrant
workers from most of the coverage protections provided by the ACA. I am
disappointed that this process was closed down even though negotiations
were still ongoing.
Quite frankly, Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from Texas literally took
my breath away when he talked about that this represents the Speaker's
pledge to let the House work its will. This issue first came up under a
suspension, which was totally closed, and it is coming to the floor
today under a closed rule. Those of us who have some ideas on how we
might be able to make this more palatable to address some of the
concerns that we have will not have that opportunity. They have closed
the process down. I hardly think that that can be described as an open
process or as a transparent process. This is yet another closed rule,
another closed rule.
Mr. Speaker, this process was flawed and this process could have been
better. There are many of us on my side of the aisle who believe that
we need to fix this flaw that the gentleman from Delaware (Mr. Carney)
has brought to our attention, but we need to do it in the right way,
and this is not the right way to do it.
I think what is going to happen here is--my friends on the other side
of the aisle control most of the votes here so they will probably pass
this bill--but what will happen then is that the Senate will then have
negotiations with the White House and try to figure out how to fix this
problem. They will pass it, then it will have to come back to the House
again, and then we will have to deal with it separately.
I regret very much that my friends have decided to go this way. If
they had waited a few more days we probably could have gotten a
solution to this that could have received unanimous support. Instead,
we are back at the same old-same old, where it is attack the ACA,
attack the ACA, and pretend to try to fix it by addressing a legitimate
concern, but adding to that a whole bunch of extraneous stuff that
creates other problems.
I would urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the rule and to vote
``no'' on the bill. Let's wait until the Senate gets it right with the
White House and we can revisit this issue.
With that, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute.
This bill was brought to the floor under suspension of the rules
prior to the Easter recess. So it has been available for consideration,
for staff work to occur, for some period of time. The fact of the
matter is that it is an imminent problem facing people who are working
[[Page H3263]]
outside of the country, and for that reason it was important to get it
solved.
If the gentleman feels that more work should have been done prior to
that time, perhaps they should have worked with the majority prior to
it being brought up under suspension. I don't know the answer to that.
But I do know where we are today is that this is a problem that needs
to be fixed, and the Republican majority is seeing to it that it is
fixed, bringing it to the floor under a rule. The minority will have an
opportunity to amend during a motion to recommit, and I certainly look
forward to a lively discussion during that time.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
What we are considering right now before the full House is very
clear.
One, a closed rule. What a closed rule means is that you can't offer
any amendments. So some of the concerns that have been raised about the
underlying bill we can't fix. For the life of me, I don't understand
why, if the gentleman claims that the Republican majority is committed
to an open, transparent process where the House can work its will, I
don't understand why you would approve a closed rule on this.
Let's be honest about this. It is not like my friends on the other
side of the aisle are doing anything else. We have had multiple repeals
of the Affordable Care Act before us. We have had lots of message
issues that their pollsters say poll well, but the Republican majority
hasn't really done very much to help the American people in any way,
shape, or form. So it is not like the time doesn't exist to maybe have
a little bit more debate on an issue like this and be able to perfect
this bill. This is a closed rule. This is a closed rule, this is a
closed process, and this has become a closed House.
Again, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this closed rule,
reject this closed process, reject the underlying bill, and I reserve
the balance of my time.
Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute.
This, this was brought to the House floor as a closed rule in March
of 2010. This coercive, partisan piece of legislation which is going to
affect health care in this country for every man, woman, and child for
the next three generations, this was brought under a closed rule.
We are trying to fix one very narrow problem contained within these
pages. It seems to me that there has been ample discussion. A bill was
debated under suspension. It did not receive the required two-thirds
vote, so it is being brought back today under a rule, and the minority
will have an opportunity to offer an amendment during the motion to
recommit. This was a closed rule which was very damaging to the
country. Today's closed rule is simply to fix one of the many problems
contained herein.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I remind the gentleman that the Speaker of the House said when the
Republicans won the majority that they were going to conduct
proceedings here in the most open way possible--this will be the most
open and transparent House ever. And it has become the most closed
House ever.
Because the gentleman brought up the Affordable Care Act, I want to
make sure he understands the facts. While the bill we are talking about
right now received 20 minutes of debate under suspension, let me read
you the facts about the Affordable Care Act, in case my friend forgot.
The House held nearly 100 hours of hearings and 83 hours of committee
markups. The House heard from 181 witnesses, both Democrats and
Republicans. 239 amendments were considered in the three committees of
jurisdiction, 121 of which were adopted. The bill was available for 72
hours before Members were asked to vote on it on the floor.
The process was just as open in the Senate. The Senate Finance
Committee held more than 53 hearings. The Finance Committee also spent
8 days marking up the legislation, the longest markup in 22 years for
the committee. The Senate Health Committee held 47 bipartisan hearings,
roundtables, and walk-throughs on health care reform. The Patient
Protection and Affordable Care Act may have started out with a
different bill number, but the fact remains hundreds of hours of
hearings on the Affordable Care Act, hundreds of witnesses, hundreds of
amendments considered in the committee, and countless hours of townhall
meetings.
My friend on the other side of the aisle likes to say, well, there
was a different bill number when we voted here on the floor, but as he
knows, the process of using a different bill number is very common
around here. In fact, the Republican majority has done it several times
in the past 3 years. But regardless of the bill number, the work that
went into forming this legislation was one of the most open processes
in the history of Congress.
That is the facts on that.
But let me also make one other point. The problem my friends on the
other side of the aisle have with the Affordable Care Act is not with
the process. It is just they don't believe that people ought to have
affordable health care in this country. They have spent countless hours
on this floor trying to repeal a bill that eliminates preexisting
conditions as a way to deny people insurance.
They have been fighting against a bill that helps senior citizens get
free preventive care coverage, that helps close that doughnut hole in
the Medicare prescription drug bill. They are fighting against a bill
that has brought millions and millions and millions of more people into
a process where they can afford health care. So they have been against
this from the very beginning.
I think the American people have a very different view. Their view is
that they want this bill to work. My friends on the other side of the
aisle have just spent countless hours, countless days, countless weeks,
countless months just trying to repeal it. It is just Johnny One Note:
repeal, repeal, repeal.
This idea that everybody should have affordable health care is such a
controversy in the Republican Congress, I can't quite understand why.
Why is it such a bad idea that everybody in this Congress has access to
good quality health care? Why is that an idea that causes such
resentment on the other side of the aisle? I don't get it.
We ought to make sure that this law gets implemented properly, and we
ought to do this the right way. My friends don't want to do it the
right way, so we are going to have to wait for the Senate to work it
out with the administration and then send it back to us. There really
should be a better way to do this.
With that, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. McGOVERN. Does the gentleman have any other speakers?
Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds.
As much as I would like to continue this lively back-and-forth, we
both know each other's positions on this extremely well.
No, I have no other speakers.
I reserve the balance of my time.
{time} 1345
Mr. McGOVERN. I yield myself the balance of my time.
Mr. Speaker, I am going to urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the
previous question.
If we defeat the previous question, I will offer an amendment to the
rule that would allow the House to consider the Fair Minimum Wage Act.
This week, the Senate will vote to raise the minimum wage to $10.10 an
hour. Now is the time for the House to act and to honor our commitment
to the middle class by giving hard-working Americans fair pay.
Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of the
amendment in the Record, along with extraneous material, immediately
prior to the vote on the previous question.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Massachusetts?
There was no objection.
Mr. McGOVERN. Again, I would urge my colleagues on the other side of
the aisle, who like to talk about how the Republican majority is
committed to allowing the House to work its will and is committed to an
open and transparent process, to vote with us on this.
[[Page H3264]]
We have been trying to get the minimum wage bill to the floor
forever, and we can't even get it up for a vote so that every Member
has an opportunity to vote up or down. This is that opportunity so that
we can have that vote, a vote to help lift people out of poverty and to
help give people an opportunity to live better lives.
There are millions of workers in this country who are working full
time--who are working hard at minimum wage jobs--and they are still
stuck in poverty. There are millions and millions of people in this
country who work hard full time at minimum wage jobs, but who earn so
little that they still qualify for SNAP, and they rely on that program
to put food on their tables because their paychecks don't provide
enough.
This is an important issue, and I hope that my colleagues will
support me on this. I urge all of my colleagues to vote ``no'' and
defeat the previous question, and I urge a ``no'' vote on the rule.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. BURGESS. I yield myself the balance of my time.
Mr. Speaker, today's rule provides for the consideration of a
critical bill to ensure Americans who are being hurt by the Affordable
Care Act can have some relief.
Americans and their families who live abroad for part of the year
face losing this specialized health insurance coverage on which they
have come to rely. In addition, the men and women who operate on these
health care plans face having their jobs outsourced overseas in order
for companies to comply with regulations from the Department of Health
and Human Services.
I certainly want to thank Mr. Nunes and Mr. Carney for their
thoughtful legislation. For that reason, I urge my colleagues to
support both the rule and the underlying bill.
The material previously referred to by Mr. McGovern is as follows:
An Amendment to H. Res. 555 Offered by Mr. McGovern of Massachusetts
At the end of the resolution, add the following new
sections:
Sec. 2. Immediately upon adoption of this resolution the
Speaker shall, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule XVIII, declare
the House resolved into the Committee of the Whole House on
the state of the Union for consideration of the bill (H.R.
1010) to provide for an increase in the Federal minimum wage.
The first reading of the bill shall be dispensed with. All
points of order against consideration of the bill are waived.
General debate shall be confined to the bill and shall not
exceed one hour equally divided and controlled by the chair
and ranking minority member of the Committee on Education and
the Workforce. After general debate the bill shall be
considered for amendment under the five-minute rule. All
points of order against provisions in the bill are waived. At
the conclusion of consideration of the bill for amendment the
Committee shall rise and report the bill to the House with
such amendments as may have been adopted. The previous
question shall be considered as ordered on the bill and
amendments thereto to final passage without intervening
motion except one motion to recommit with or without
instructions. If the Committee of the Whole rises and reports
that it has come to no resolution on the bill, then on the
next legislative day the House shall, immediately after the
third daily order of business under clause 1 of rule XIV,
resolve into the Committee of the Whole for further
consideration of the bill.
Sec. 3. Clause 1(c) of rule XIX shall not apply to the
consideration of H.R. 1010.
THE VOTE ON THE PREVIOUS QUESTION: WHAT IT REALLY MEANS
This vote, the vote on whether to order the previous
question on a special rule, is not merely a procedural vote.
A vote against ordering the previous question is a vote
against the Republican majority agenda and a vote to allow
the Democratic minority to offer an alternative plan. It is a
vote about what the House should be debating.
Mr. Clarence Cannon's Precedents of the House of
Representatives (VI, 308-311), describes the vote on the
previous question on the rule as ``a motion to direct or
control the consideration of the subject before the House
being made by the Member in charge.'' To defeat the previous
question is to give the opposition a chance to decide the
subject before the House. Cannon cites the Speaker's ruling
of January 13, 1920, to the effect that ``the refusal of the
House to sustain the demand for the previous question passes
the control of the resolution to the opposition'' in order to
offer an amendment. On March 15, 1909, a member of the
majority party offered a rule resolution. The House defeated
the previous question and a member of the opposition rose to
a parliamentary inquiry, asking who was entitled to
recognition. Speaker Joseph G. Cannon (R-Illinois) said:
``The previous question having been refused, the gentleman
from New York, Mr. Fitzgerald, who had asked the gentleman to
yield to him for an amendment, is entitled to the first
recognition.''
The Republican majority may say ``the vote on the previous
question is simply a vote on whether to proceed to an
immediate vote on adopting the resolution . . . [and] has no
substantive legislative or policy implications whatsoever.''
But that is not what they have always said. Listen to the
Republican Leadership Manual on the Legislative Process in
the United States House of Representatives, (6th edition,
page 135). Here's how the Republicans describe the previous
question vote in their own manual: ``Although it is generally
not possible to amend the rule because the majority Member
controlling the time will not yield for the purpose of
offering an amendment, the same result may be achieved by
voting down the previous question on the rule . . . When the
motion for the previous question is defeated, control of the
time passes to the Member who led the opposition to ordering
the previous question. That Member, because he then controls
the time, may offer an amendment to the rule, or yield for
the purpose of amendment.''
In Deschler's Procedure in the U.S. House of
Representatives, the subchapter titled ``Amending Special
Rules'' states: ``a refusal to order the previous question on
such a rule [a special rule reported from the Committee on
Rules] opens the resolution to amendment and further
debate.'' (Chapter 21, section 21.2) Section 21.3 continues:
``Upon rejection of the motion for the previous question on a
resolution reported from the Committee on Rules, control
shifts to the Member leading the opposition to the previous
question, who may offer a proper amendment or motion and who
controls the time for debate thereon.''
Clearly, the vote on the previous question on a rule does
have substantive policy implications. It is one of the only
available tools for those who oppose the Republican
majority's agenda and allows those with alternative views the
opportunity to offer an alternative plan.
Mr. BURGESS. I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the
previous question on the resolution.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on ordering the previous
question.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 9 of rule XX, this 15-
minute vote on ordering the previous question will be followed by a 5-
minute vote on adopting House Resolution 555, if ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 226,
nays 189, not voting 16, as follows:
[Roll No. 180]
YEAS--226
Aderholt
Amash
Amodei
Bachmann
Bachus
Barletta
Barr
Barton
Benishek
Bentivolio
Bilirakis
Bishop (UT)
Black
Blackburn
Boustany
Brady (TX)
Bridenstine
Brooks (AL)
Brooks (IN)
Broun (GA)
Buchanan
Bucshon
Burgess
Byrne
Calvert
Camp
Cantor
Capito
Carter
Cassidy
Chabot
Chaffetz
Coble
Coffman
Cole
Collins (GA)
Collins (NY)
Conaway
Cook
Cooper
Costa
Cotton
Cramer
Crawford
Crenshaw
Culberson
Daines
Denham
Dent
DeSantis
DesJarlais
Diaz-Balart
Duffy
Duncan (SC)
Duncan (TN)
Ellmers
Farenthold
Fincher
Fitzpatrick
Fleischmann
Fleming
Flores
Forbes
Fortenberry
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gardner
Garrett
Gerlach
Gibbs
Gibson
Gingrey (GA)
Gohmert
Goodlatte
Gosar
Gowdy
Granger
Graves (GA)
Graves (MO)
Griffith (VA)
Grimm
Guthrie
Hall
Hanna
Harper
Harris
Hartzler
Hastings (WA)
Heck (NV)
Hensarling
Herrera Beutler
Holding
Hudson
Huelskamp
Huizenga (MI)
Hultgren
Hunter
Hurt
Issa
Jenkins
Johnson (OH)
Johnson, Sam
Jolly
Jones
Jordan
Joyce
Kelly (PA)
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kinzinger (IL)
Kline
Labrador
LaMalfa
Lamborn
Lance
Lankford
Latham
Latta
LoBiondo
Long
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Lummis
Marchant
Marino
Massie
McAllister
McCarthy (CA)
McCaul
McClintock
McHenry
McKinley
McMorris Rodgers
Meadows
Meehan
Messer
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Mullin
Mulvaney
Neugebauer
Noem
Nugent
Nunes
Nunnelee
Olson
Palazzo
Paulsen
Pearce
Perry
Petri
Pittenger
Pitts
Poe (TX)
Pompeo
Posey
Price (GA)
Reed
Reichert
Renacci
Ribble
Rice (SC)
Rigell
Roby
Roe (TN)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Rokita
Rooney
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Ross
Rothfus
Royce
Runyan
Ryan (WI)
Salmon
Sanford
Scalise
Schock
Schweikert
Scott, Austin
Sensenbrenner
[[Page H3265]]
Sessions
Shimkus
Shuster
Simpson
Smith (MO)
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Southerland
Stewart
Stivers
Stockman
Stutzman
Terry
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Tiberi
Tipton
Turner
Upton
Valadao
Wagner
Walberg
Walden
Walorski
Weber (TX)
Webster (FL)
Wenstrup
Westmoreland
Williams
Wittman
Wolf
Womack
Woodall
Yoder
Yoho
Young (AK)
Young (IN)
NAYS--189
Barber
Barrow (GA)
Bass
Beatty
Becerra
Bera (CA)
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Bonamici
Brady (PA)
Braley (IA)
Brownley (CA)
Bustos
Butterfield
Capps
Capuano
Caardenas
Carney
Carson (IN)
Cartwright
Castor (FL)
Castro (TX)
Chu
Cicilline
Clark (MA)
Clarke (NY)
Clay
Clyburn
Cohen
Connolly
Conyers
Courtney
Crowley
Cuellar
Cummings
Davis (CA)
Davis, Danny
DeFazio
DeGette
Delaney
DeLauro
DelBene
Deutch
Dingell
Doggett
Doyle
Duckworth
Edwards
Ellison
Engel
Enyart
Eshoo
Esty
Farr
Fattah
Foster
Frankel (FL)
Fudge
Gabbard
Gallego
Garamendi
Garcia
Grayson
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutieerrez
Hahn
Hanabusa
Hastings (FL)
Heck (WA)
Higgins
Himes
Hinojosa
Holt
Honda
Horsford
Hoyer
Huffman
Israel
Jackson Lee
Jeffries
Johnson (GA)
Johnson, E. B.
Kaptur
Keating
Kelly (IL)
Kennedy
Kildee
Kilmer
Kirkpatrick
Kuster
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lee (CA)
Levin
Lewis
Lipinski
Loebsack
Lofgren
Lowenthal
Lowey
Lujan Grisham (NM)
Lujaan, Ben Ray (NM)
Lynch
Maffei
Maloney, Carolyn
Maloney, Sean
Matheson
Matsui
McCollum
McDermott
McGovern
McIntyre
McNerney
Meeks
Meng
Michaud
Miller, George
Moore
Moran
Murphy (FL)
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Negrete McLeod
Nolan
O'Rourke
Owens
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor (AZ)
Payne
Pelosi
Perlmutter
Peters (CA)
Peters (MI)
Peterson
Pingree (ME)
Pocan
Polis
Price (NC)
Quigley
Rahall
Rangel
Roybal-Allard
Ruiz
Ruppersberger
Ryan (OH)
Saanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schneider
Schrader
Scott (VA)
Scott, David
Serrano
Sewell (AL)
Shea-Porter
Sherman
Sinema
Sires
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Speier
Swalwell (CA)
Takano
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Titus
Tonko
Tsongas
Van Hollen
Vargas
Veasey
Vela
Velaazquez
Visclosky
Walz
Waters
Waxman
Welch
Wilson (FL)
Yarmuth
NOT VOTING--16
Brown (FL)
Campbell
Cleaver
Davis, Rodney
Griffin (AR)
Kind
McCarthy (NY)
McKeon
Miller, Gary
Murphy (PA)
Richmond
Rush
Schwartz
Wasserman Schultz
Whitfield
Wilson (SC)
{time} 1418
Messrs. CARSON of Indiana and CASTRO of Texas, Ms. SINEMA, Messrs.
ISRAEL and CARNEY changed their vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
So the previous question was ordered.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Stated for:
Mr. RODNEY DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 180 I was
unavoidably detained and did not finish meeting with Chancellor Phylis
Wise in time to get to floor. Had I been present, I would have voted
``yes.''
Personal Explanation
Mr. KIND. Mr. Speaker, I was unable to have my votes recorded on the
House floor on Monday, April 28, 2014 and Tuesday April 29, 2014.
Severe weather in the Midwest cancelled my flight out of Minneapolis on
Monday afternoon, and again delayed me out of Chicago on Tuesday
morning. Had I been present, I would have voted in favor of H.R. 4192
(roll No. 178) and in favor of H.R. 4120 (roll No. 179) on Monday,
April 28, and against H. Res. 555 (roll No. 180) on Tuesday, April 29.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the resolution.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Recorded Vote
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. This will be a 5-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 238,
noes 181, not voting 12, as follows:
[Roll No. 181]
AYES--238
Aderholt
Amash
Amodei
Bachmann
Bachus
Barber
Barletta
Barr
Barton
Benishek
Bentivolio
Bilirakis
Bishop (UT)
Black
Blackburn
Boustany
Brady (TX)
Bridenstine
Brooks (AL)
Brooks (IN)
Broun (GA)
Buchanan
Bucshon
Burgess
Byrne
Calvert
Camp
Cantor
Capito
Carney
Carter
Cassidy
Chabot
Chaffetz
Coble
Coffman
Cole
Collins (GA)
Collins (NY)
Conaway
Cook
Cooper
Costa
Cotton
Cramer
Crawford
Crenshaw
Culberson
Daines
Davis, Rodney
Denham
Dent
DeSantis
DesJarlais
Diaz-Balart
Duffy
Duncan (SC)
Duncan (TN)
Ellmers
Farenthold
Fincher
Fitzpatrick
Fleischmann
Fleming
Flores
Forbes
Fortenberry
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gardner
Garrett
Gerlach
Gibbs
Gibson
Gingrey (GA)
Gohmert
Goodlatte
Gosar
Gowdy
Granger
Graves (GA)
Graves (MO)
Griffith (VA)
Grimm
Guthrie
Hall
Hanna
Harper
Harris
Hartzler
Hastings (WA)
Heck (NV)
Herrera Beutler
Holding
Hudson
Huelskamp
Huizenga (MI)
Hultgren
Hunter
Hurt
Issa
Jenkins
Johnson (OH)
Johnson, Sam
Jolly
Jones
Jordan
Joyce
Kelly (PA)
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kinzinger (IL)
Kline
Labrador
LaMalfa
Lamborn
Lance
Lankford
Larson (CT)
Latham
Latta
LoBiondo
Long
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Lummis
Marchant
Marino
Massie
McAllister
McCarthy (CA)
McCaul
McClintock
McHenry
McIntyre
McKinley
McMorris Rodgers
Meadows
Meehan
Messer
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Mullin
Mulvaney
Murphy (FL)
Neugebauer
Noem
Nugent
Nunes
Nunnelee
Olson
Owens
Palazzo
Paulsen
Pearce
Perlmutter
Perry
Peters (CA)
Petri
Pittenger
Pitts
Poe (TX)
Pompeo
Posey
Price (GA)
Reed
Reichert
Renacci
Ribble
Rice (SC)
Rigell
Roby
Roe (TN)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Rokita
Rooney
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Ross
Rothfus
Royce
Runyan
Ryan (WI)
Salmon
Sanford
Scalise
Schneider
Schock
Schweikert
Scott, Austin
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shimkus
Shuster
Simpson
Sinema
Smith (MO)
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Southerland
Stewart
Stivers
Stockman
Stutzman
Terry
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Tiberi
Tipton
Turner
Upton
Valadao
Wagner
Walberg
Walden
Walorski
Weber (TX)
Webster (FL)
Wenstrup
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Williams
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Wolf
Womack
Woodall
Yoder
Yoho
Young (AK)
Young (IN)
NOES--181
Barrow (GA)
Bass
Beatty
Becerra
Bera (CA)
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Bonamici
Brady (PA)
Braley (IA)
Brownley (CA)
Bustos
Butterfield
Capps
Capuano
Caardenas
Carson (IN)
Cartwright
Castor (FL)
Castro (TX)
Chu
Cicilline
Clark (MA)
Clarke (NY)
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Connolly
Conyers
Courtney
Crowley
Cuellar
Cummings
Davis (CA)
Davis, Danny
DeFazio
DeGette
Delaney
DeLauro
DelBene
Deutch
Dingell
Doggett
Doyle
Duckworth
Edwards
Ellison
Engel
Enyart
Eshoo
Esty
Farr
Fattah
Foster
Frankel (FL)
Fudge
Gabbard
Gallego
Garamendi
Garcia
Grayson
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutieerrez
Hahn
Hanabusa
Hastings (FL)
Heck (WA)
Higgins
Himes
Hinojosa
Holt
Honda
Horsford
Hoyer
Huffman
Israel
Jackson Lee
Jeffries
Johnson (GA)
Johnson, E. B.
Kaptur
Keating
Kelly (IL)
Kennedy
Kildee
Kilmer
Kind
Kirkpatrick
Kuster
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Lee (CA)
Levin
Lewis
Lipinski
Loebsack
Lofgren
Lowenthal
Lowey
Lujan Grisham (NM)
Lujaan, Ben Ray (NM)
Lynch
Maffei
Maloney, Carolyn
Maloney, Sean
Matheson
Matsui
McCollum
McDermott
McGovern
McNerney
Meeks
Meng
Michaud
Miller, George
Moore
Moran
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Negrete McLeod
Nolan
O'Rourke
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor (AZ)
Payne
Pelosi
Peters (MI)
Peterson
Pingree (ME)
Pocan
Polis
Price (NC)
Quigley
Rahall
Rangel
Roybal-Allard
Ruiz
Ruppersberger
Ryan (OH)
Saanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schrader
Scott (VA)
Scott, David
Serrano
Sewell (AL)
Shea-Porter
Sherman
Sires
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Speier
Swalwell (CA)
Takano
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Titus
Tonko
Tsongas
Van Hollen
Vargas
Veasey
Vela
Velaazquez
Visclosky
Walz
Waters
Waxman
Welch
Wilson (FL)
Yarmuth
NOT VOTING--12
Brown (FL)
Campbell
Griffin (AR)
Hensarling
McCarthy (NY)
McKeon
Miller, Gary
Murphy (PA)
Richmond
Rush
Schwartz
Wasserman Schultz
[[Page H3266]]
{time} 1425
So the resolution was agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
____________________