[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.

                          ____________________