U.S. Merchant Marine Academy Board of Visitors Enhancement Act

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I shall consume.

There is no doubt about where Democrats stand. We have taken the lead to make sure there is no offshoring, and there has been a good faith effort here, up to a point. Surely, that has been true of Mr. Carney in all of his efforts, working with Mr. Nunes.

But the problem is that there remain some serious shortcomings in this bill, and unfortunately, we cannot try to remedy it through an amendment, so the notion there is an open process here isn't correct.

The definition of expatriate has been tightened. I think there remain some issues, at least one regarding it; but the major problem relates to the language and how it would impact, potentially, health insurance for an estimated 13 million legal permanent residents and others who are lawfully present foreign workers in the U.S.

Let me just give you examples of where the standards remain weak. For example, under this legislation, expat plans would have dispensation to be weaker than other employer plans in this country.

They could, for example, impose cost sharing on preventive benefits. They could impose annual and lifetime limits on coverage. They could impose unduly long waiting periods.

Indeed, the only ACA provision that would clearly remain in effect would be that they would have to offer coverage to young adults under 26.

So the bottom line is, unfortunately, that the legislation, in its present form, could substantially undermine health security for foreign workers, as well as American dependents who remain in this country.

Also, what it does is provide unprecedented special treatment for these plans in terms of exempting them from financing mechanisms.

Let me say further, as we found out from the Joint Tax Committee and CBO, they confirm this bill would cause some employers who would offer ACA-compliant plans under present law to offer less generous expatriate plans that are no longer subject to the ACA. This is the reason the administration issued, I think just today, a Statement of Administration Policy, and they say they do not support H.R. 4414.

The ACA gives people, it continues, greater control over their health care; and what they say is that this is not true sufficiently in this case.

It says, because of the ACA, Americans who have previously been denied coverage due to a preexisting medical condition now have access to coverage, and that may well not continue.

So the administration concludes it remains willing to work with Congress to improve H.R. 4414 to address those issues and to maintain basic consumer protections for all workers. There are straightforward changes to the legislation, which we have shared with the Congress, that would satisfy these goals, and the Congress should pursue a solution.

Unfortunately, because of this rule, we cannot propose an amendment which would essentially implement these proposals from the administration that they have shared with the Congress. That is why I, unfortunately, have no choice but to suggest a ``no'' vote on the floor of this House.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Delaware (Mr. Carney), a colleague and friend who is a sponsor of this legislation.

I yield the gentleman an additional minute.

It is now my pleasure to yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Waxman), the ranking member of the Committee on Energy and Commerce.

I now yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Vermont (Mr. Welch).

I now yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Becerra), a member of our committee and also the chair of our Caucus.

I yield the gentleman from California an additional 1 minute.

I now yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Costa).

I now yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Kind), another member of our committee.

Can I ask my colleague, are you ready to close?

So I will do the same.

I would like to place in the Record a letter of opposition to this bill as presently formulated from the AFL-CIO, the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees, the American Federation of Teachers, Farmworker Justice, the UAW, the National Council of La Raza, the National Education Association, the National Immigration Law Center, the Service Employees International Union, the UNITE HERE, the United Farm Workers, and the United Food and Commercial Workers International Union.

April 28, 2014.

Dear Representative: We write today regarding the

Expatriate Health Coverage Clarification Act (H.R. 4414),

scheduled for floor debate on Tuesday. Although negotiations

are apparently occurring behind closed doors on a final

version of the bill, it is our understanding that these

discussions are unlikely to address major shortcomings of the

bill. Barring substantial revisions to the bill, we urge you

to oppose it.

As you know, the bill is intended to accommodate health

plans providing coverage for workers that work in multiple

countries, and it is reasonable to grant these plans some

flexibility to pursue this role. We understand that these

``expatriate'' health care plans currently cover fewer than

300,000 workers. However, the current draft of the bill could

impact a much wider population, resulting in a lower standard

of health care coverage for 13 million lawful permanent

residents (LPRs or green card holders), as well as

individuals with visas for more highly skilled work and

people in dozens of other nonimmigrant categories.

It is important that these workers, who live and work

beside other U.S. workers, enjoy the same coverage

protections provided by the Affordable Care Act (ACA). It

would simply be unfair to provide them a lower level of

protection, and it would exert downward pressure on the

benefits offered to all other workers.

We do believe it is possible to accommodate the needs of

expatriate health plans while avoiding this impact on

millions of workers. First, the Department of Health and

Human Services (HHS) can continue its work developing

regulatory approaches to easing the administrative burdens

faced by these plans. Second, more work can be done on a

legislative approach that appropriately reduces the burden

faced by legitimate expatriate health plans, without creating

a loophole that could be exploited by plans seeking to skirt

the coverage standards of the ACA.

The bill has been improved in some ways since it was first

considered on the House floor. U.S. citizens may only be

included in the plans if they travel out of the country for

more than 180 days a year, and a benchmark has been added to

encourage employers to offer coverage with an actuarial value

of 60 percent or higher.

It remains imperative, however, to ensure that LPRs and

individuals in nonimmigrant visa categories are not exposed

to a gap in ACA coverage protections. More must be done to

exclude these groups from the populations covered by this

bill. Additional employer reporting and enforcement

provisions would help ensure that employers would not stretch

the definition of expatriate employees to offer substandard

coverage to workers.

We welcome the opportunity to help improve this legislation

to address the concerns of the expatriate health plans

without having a negative impact on workers who live and work

in the U.S. It is unlikely that H.R. 4414 will be amended to

meet these goals before the scheduled floor vote, however,

and we urge you to vote against the bill.

Sincerely,

Also, I submit for the Record a letter in opposition to this bill as presently formed from the National Immigration Law Center.

National Immigration Law Center,

Los Angeles, CA, April 30, 2014.

Dear Speaker Boehner and Democratic Leader Pelosi: As the

House of Representatives considers the Expatriate Health

Coverage Clarification Act (H.R. 4414) again today, we urge

you to oppose it. Already defeated in the House on April 9,

2014, this bill, absent key changes, will lead to an erosion

of Affordable Care Act (ACA) standards and lower quality

health coverage for immigrants who are unreasonably and

mistakenly classified as expatriates under the legislation.

Supporters of the bill claim that the problems contained in

the original bill have been adequately addressed. This is

simply not true. While some positive changes have been made,

the most egregious provisions remain firmly in place,

including those with broad implications for low-income

immigrants living and working in the U.S. These remaining

problems leave the bill vulnerable to legal challenges.

H.R. 4414 would eliminate the ACA's group plan consumer

protections for ``expatriate health insurance plans,''

including for U.S.-regulated issuers, provided to individuals

who travel ``abroad.'' This blanket exemption alone should be

cause for concern. However, what is far more troubling is

that the bill uses a broad definition for ``expatriate'' that

includes many immigrants who live in the U.S. permanently and

do not travel abroad for work. This definition extends far

beyond the purported objectives of the legislation and must

be fixed.

Specifically, the definition of ``expatriate'' in H.R. 4414

includes lawful permanent residents (LPRs or green card

holders), most of whom spend the vast majority of their time

in the United States. These individuals reside in the U.S.,

are on a path to citizenship, and have built their lives in

the U.S. Simply put, they should not be defined as

``expatriates'' if they do not travel outside of the United

States for work for extended periods. Instead, their health

insurance plans should have the same consumer protections

codified by the ACA as others who live and work in the U.S.

This bill would create a loophole that could lead to inferior

coverage for these individuals.

H.R. 4414 would have an unintentional, disastrous impact on

LPRs and other low-wage immigrant workers. We urge you to

oppose the bill, and we look forward to working with members

of Congress to close its loopholes and find workable

solutions.

Sincerely,

Marielena Hincapiee,

Executive Director.

Finally, I submit into the Record the Statement of Administration Policy from the Obama administration.

Statement of Administration Policy

H.R. 4414--Expatriate Health Coverage Clarification Act

(Rep. Carney, D-Delaware, and 24 cosponsors)

The Administration does not support House passage of H.R.

4414, the Expatriate Health Coverage Clarification Act, in

its current form, because it would reduce consumer

protections and create even more loopholes in the tax code.

The Affordable Care Act gives people greater control over

their own health care. Since October 1, eight million have

signed up for private insurance and millions more have been

enrolled in Medicaid. Because of the Affordable Care Act,

Americans who have previously been denied coverage due to a

pre-existing medical condition now have access to coverage.

Additionally, the law helps millions of Americans stay on

their parents' plans until age 26, and helps provide access

to free preventive care like cancer screenings that catch

illness early on.

The Administration remains willing to work with the

Congress to improve H.R. 4144 to address these issues and to

maintain basic consumer protections for all workers. There

are straightforward changes to the legislation, which we have

shared with the Congress, that would satisfy these goals, and

the Congress should pursue a solution.

So let me close, and I yield myself such time as I may consume.

I think it is regrettable that we are here in this predicament when we don't need to be. I think we do need to fix the expat issue, but not by unfixing health care reform for millions of people. This is more than about 300,000 people. We are talking about the health care protections and provisions applicable to 13 million people in this country who are here legally.

It has been said, and I very much respect this, it has taken 3 years to try to fix this problem, and Mr. Carney and others have truly been working, and Mr. Nunes, and there have been bipartisan discussions.

But here is the problem: If we are really going to continue effectively to work together when there is an outstanding issue, when there has been this aura of good faith, the majority should have let the minority place on the floor an amendment to the bill and let us debate it.

In fact, it only works against bipartisanship in this kind of circumstance to say it is essentially a closed rule. What is there to fear? The only thing to fear is that we would have discussion that

might make this a still more bipartisan bill. So instead of getting a likely minority of members on the Democratic side, we would have, I think, an overwhelming majority on both sides determined to keep jobs here, but not at a price of undoing necessary protections in terms of the health of millions and millions of Americans.

So that is where we are here and essentially so for so many of us placed in a situation where we say we must do better, we shouldn't simply leave it to the other body, we have the abilities within this House with true bipartisanship to continue working, and after 3 years, it might take another week or 2, that would be worth it in terms of trying to restore the reality of bipartisanship that really works.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 555, I call up 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, and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and to include extraneous material on H.R. 4414.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, the bill before the House today comes down to one simple question: Will we allow American companies to offer expatriate plans or will we force the offshoring of these plans? Will we support employment in America or stimulate employment overseas?

Mr. Carney and I have worked carefully and in good faith on a bipartisan basis to craft a bill that is limited in scope while at the same time remaining true to our commitment to save American jobs.

There have been a few changes to the bill since a bipartisan majority of the House supported it a few weeks ago. We clarified that an expatriate plan must be a comprehensive health care health plan and not a mini-med or other substandard plan.

We tightened the definition of an expatriate. The bill says that an expatriate must be abroad for at least 6 months. This is a much tougher standard, and it will guard against potential abuse.

The bill now also requires an expatriate plan to offer reimbursements in more than two currencies. Plans meet this requirement today, but the addition of this provision protects against the possible abuse of the expatriate exemption in the future.

Finally, Mr. Speaker, the bill now makes explicit that the expatriate plans must continue to comply with relevant laws enacted prior to ACA, specifically ERISA and the Public Health Service Act.

Mr. Speaker, this bill is a good bill. It is a bipartisan bill, and I urge the support of the House.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, at this time, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Renacci), a member of the Ways and Means Committee.

Mr. Speaker, at this time, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Dent).

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 14 seconds.

Mr. Speaker, we have waited for 4 years. For 4 years, we have been trying to fix this problem. Four years, time is up. We have got to pass this bill and send it to the Senate so that it can be signed into law.

I will continue to reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 21 seconds.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to submit for the Record three letters: one from the Council for Affordable Health Coverage in support of our bill, the other from the National Association of Health Underwriters in support of our bill, and the last one from the Business Roundtable in support of our bill.

Council for Affordable

Health Coverage,

April 29, 2014.

Hon. John Carney,

Longworth House Office Building,

Washington, DC.

Hon. Devin Nunes,

Longworth House Office Building,

Washington, DC.

Dear Congressmen Carney and Nunes: We write to endorse H.R.

4414, the Expatriate Health Coverage Clarification Act of

2014. We strongly support this modification of the Affordable

Care Act (ACA) because it will prevent Americans workers

abroad and American companies providing health coverage

internationally from being disadvantaged compared to their

foreign counterparts.

Employers are not alone in their concerns about the

application of the ACA to expatriates. The Department of

Labor in a Frequently Asked Questions document stated, ``The

Departments recognize that expatriate health plans may face

special challenges in complying with certain provisions of

the Affordable Care Act. In particular, challenges in

reconciling and coordinating the multiple regulatory regimes

that apply to expatriate health plans might make it

impossible or impracticable to comply with all the relevant

rules at least in the near term.'' The Center Consumer

Information and Insurance Oversight (CCIIO) concurred with

the Department of Labor by posting the same document on their

website.

It is clear that the ACA never envisioned the impact of the

law on expatriate plans. For example, CCIIO and the

Department of Labor used the following example to illustrate

the impracticality of applying the ACA to expatriate plans.

``For example, independent review organizations may not exist

abroad, and it may be difficult for certain preventive

services to be provided, or even be identified as preventive,

when such services are provided outside the United States by

clinical providers that use different code sets

and medical terminology to identify services.''

Because of the challenges and impracticalities associated

with this aspect of the Affordable Care Act, we urge you to

quickly pass this legislation to protect American workers

abroad and American insurers selling insurance on the

international market.

Sincerely,

Communicating for America;

Council for Affordable Health Coverage;

National Association of Health Underwriters;

National Retail Federation;

Retail Industry Leaders Association;

Small Business & Entrepreneurship Council; and

U.S Chamber of Commerce.

Mr. Speaker, before I yield to my friend from Pennsylvania again, I just want to say that as someone who used to work in the fields, I would much prefer an expatriate plan over ObamaCare.

At this time, I will yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Dent).

Mr. Speaker, at this time, I yield myself 15 seconds.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to submit a letter from the American Benefits Council, a letter from the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, and also a letter from CHCC, Corporate Health Care Coalition.

American Benefits Council,

Washington, DC, April 8, 2014.

Re Support for H.R. 4414--Expatriate Health Coverage

Clarification Act.

Hon. John Boehner,

Speaker, House of Representatives,

Washington, DC.

Hon. Nancy Pelosi,

Minority Leader, House of Representatives,

Washington, DC.

Dear Speaker Boehner and Leader Pelosi: I write on behalf

of the American Benefits Council (``Council'') to express

support for H.R. 4414, the Expatriate Health Coverage

Clarification Act of 2014 (``Act''). The Act provides

important clarification regarding application of the

Affordable Care Act (ACA) to health coverage that is provided

to globally mobile employees. These are issues of significant

concern to multinational employers, their employees and

families.

The Council is a public policy organization representing

principally Fortune 500 companies and other organizations

that assist employers of all sizes in providing employee

benefits. Collectively, our members either sponsor directly

or provide services to health and retirement plans that cover

more than 100 million Americans both within the United States

and abroad.

Most of our member companies sponsor health coverage for a

workforce that includes globally mobile employees. Council

members rely on expatriate health plans to provide benefits

that meet the unique needs of this employee population and

their families. Multinational employers value expatriate

health plans for many reasons, including the role they play

in recruiting and retaining a productive globally mobile

workforce by ensuring coverage of their employees' and

families' health care needs while abroad.

The ACA was intended to reform the U.S. health care system.

Its application to expatriate health plans and to the

employer sponsors and people covered by such plans, has

created compliance uncertainty with respect to the law's

individual and employer mandates and certain other health

plan requirements. Although some of these matters have been

addressed in transition guidance issued by the agencies, the

guidance is temporary and does not fully address the

outstanding concerns.

H.R. 4414 provides needed statutory clarification with

respect to the application of the ACA to expatriate health

plans and the employers, employees and family members that

rely on such plans to meet the health benefits needs of a

globally mobile workforce.

We appreciate your consideration of these important issues.

Sincerely,

James A. Klein,

President.

I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I will continue to reserve the balance of my time.

Yes, I am ready to close.

Mr. Speaker, I will close, and I yield myself such time as I may consume.

The need for this bill wasn't conceived by opponents of the Affordable Care Act or ObamaCare. The Obama administration and the army of regulators acknowledged there is a problem and have come to the Congress to fix it. Treasury, HHS, and Labor have all accepted the fact that expat plans should not be regulated the same way domestic plans are regulated.

After 4 years of examining this issue, as I said earlier, the administration issued limited and temporary regulatory relief for expat plans. This bill is necessary because despite the administration's limited and temporary fixes, thousands of jobs are on the chopping block. American businesses can't compete based on the promise of limited and temporary relief.

Mr. Speaker, I want to also remind my colleagues that Mr. Carney and I have worked on this for many years, and we have worked not only in a bipartisan way in the House of Representatives, we have also worked with our Senate counterparts where we have bipartisan support in the United States Senate.

So, the Obama administration has said they have concerns, but we don't know what the concerns are and they did not issue a veto threat. So I think that more level heads will prevail. This bill will pass today. It will go to the Senate, it will pass, and I would urge, then, President Obama to sign it into law so that we can save these jobs.

With that, Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

I thank the gentleman for yielding me the time.

Mr. Speaker, let me say in advance that I appreciate the work that has been done by any number of Members with regard to this legislation. Many people have engaged in a good faith effort to try to find an acceptable solution that resolves issues which are legitimate and have raised a concern for a lot of us with regard to how we move forward with the Affordable Care Act and make sure that not only Americans are covered, but that our companies can continue to offer insurance coverage for those Americans that are not only affordable but have high quality.

And many of us have recognized that in the case of Americans who are out of the country for more time than they are in the country in a year, that we may have to make some exceptions for them so that the company that is offering them health insurance can offer a policy that is competitive. We don't want to price out our American companies that offer health insurance coverage simply because they are trying to meet domestic care standards for health care that are required as a result of the Affordable Care Act but that may not work as well abroad.

So you take a look at the name of this bill, the Expatriate Health Coverage Clarification Act of 2014. You think, okay, that is what we are trying to do. We are trying to help expatriates, Americans who work abroad more time than they are here at home. But when you take a close look at the bill, that is not what it does.

We are told by the Congressional Research Service that there are probably about 285,000 Americans who have expatriate health care coverage. This bill wouldn't impact just those 285,000 Americans. This bill impacts millions because it impacts U.S. citizens who are here in the country, not abroad for more than half of the time, and it could have an impact on every single legal immigrant who is in this country.

So I think all of us agree. We want to make sure that the Affordable Care Act and its patient protections work, and if we could tweak things to make it work better, we should. But this is not a bill for expatriates. This is a bill that goes way beyond.

So let's not fool ourselves. We have to take care of trying to deal with the narrow exception that we are looking at for expatriates, not create a giant loophole by which we can now remove the protection against discrimination for preexisting conditions that right now all Americans and legal immigrants can now know that they have.

We want to make sure that all of those people who now have protection from the plans that don't provide coverage after a certain amount of money, where all of a sudden, boom, you go bankrupt because you didn't know that your insurance company would only

cover $50,000 of your health care costs, that protection might be gone. What we don't want is to create a giant loophole in trying to help a narrow band of Americans and companies that offer these Americans health insurance coverage.

The White House has said there is a fix here. And I know the White House has been trying to work with the proponents of this bill to come up with a fix. But as they said the last time this was up, this needs work, and it should not come up for a vote.

But what are they saying now? The administration issued this today:

The administration does not support House passage of H.R.

4414 in its current form because it would reduce consumer

protections and create even more loopholes in the Tax Code.

There is a fix, but this is not it because it goes way beyond. And what we also have to do is recognize that there are other things involved.

This bill will cost the American taxpayers money. How much? We are told by the Congressional Budget Office and Joint Tax Committee, $1.4 billion. Is it paid for? Are the $1.4 billion that we would take away from--or have to take from other taxpayers covered so that we won't have to have other Americans pay for this? No. This bill is unpaid for.

And so for any number of reasons, we should sit down and get this resolved the right way because the White House says there is a fix. Those of us who oppose this bill say there is a fix. But to create more loopholes which allow American citizens and immigrants who are lawfully here, working hard, to all of a sudden be deprived of their protections----

To deprive American citizens who don't know about this, to deprive those immigrants who came to this country legally and are working in this country and today have the same protections to make sure they are not discriminated against for a preexisting condition, who also have a chance to get offered a plan that has those protections against that fine print we used to see in the health policies, to all of a sudden tell them that they are going to be denied that because we were trying to fix a problem for Americans who work abroad for more than a half a year, that is not what we should be doing.

There is a fix. This should not cost the taxpayers more money. And I believe we could do this pretty quickly because it is a narrow issue.

If we really want to help expats, take out the language in the bill that talks about legal immigrants who are in the country. It talks about workers who come to this country to work under worker visa categories, like in the high-tech field or in agriculture. We can do this very simply. And I just appeal to my colleagues and friends on both sides of the aisle: Let's not open up bigger loopholes that cost the taxpayers money simply to try to fix a narrow version of this that we know we can do.

So with that, I hope that sanity will prevail before this goes too far.

Mr. Speaker, last week, when I was back home in my district in Delaware getting a workout at the YMCA in my hometown of Wilmington, a man came up to me as I was on the exercise bike and said: Excuse me, do you mind if I interrupt?

I said: Of course not, I work for you. He said: I wanted to see if you know about the status of H.R. 4414 because I write expatriate health insurance plans

for Cigna, and I don't want to lose my job.

Losing even one job like this in my State keeps me up at night. The prospect of losing 500 jobs is a punch to the gut. That is how many jobs we will lose in my home State of Delaware if we don't pass this bill on the floor today.

I am a strong supporter of the Affordable Care Act, so are a lot of people in my State; but no law is perfect, and in a law as important, as complicated, and as technical as the Affordable Care Act, there are bound to be a few things that needed to be fixed.

The ACA was unintentionally written in a way that subjects U.S. expatriate health insurance plans to all the provisions of the ACA, which places a unique burden on these types of plans.

Expatriate health insurance plans offer a high-end, robust coverage to people working outside their home country, giving them access to a global network of health care providers. Individuals on the plan could be foreign employees working here in America, Americans working abroad, or, say, a German working in France.

Expatriate plans ensure that these employees have worldwide access to quality health care while working outside their home country.

Several U.S. health insurance companies--Cigna, MetLife, Aetna, and United Health--offer expatriate health insurance plans. These insurance companies compete with foreign insurance companies that also sell the same kind of plan. The issue is these foreign plans don't have to comply with the ACA.

Forcing U.S. expatriate insurance plans to comply with the ACA thereby gives their foreign competitors a distinct advantage. As a result, to stay competitive, a U.S. expatriate insurer will move their business overseas, taking the jobs with them; and that is why I am here on the floor today.

The good news is that we have bipartisan legislation here today that will level the playing field. In fact, the administration has already provided temporary relief for expatriate plans from nearly every Affordable Care Act provision that has gone into effect so far. The problem is this relief is only partial and only temporary. The administration can't make this relief without this legislative fix.

Our legislation ensures that American expatriate insurance carriers are on a level playing field with their foreign competitors, so that American jobs stay here in America.

Many of you know that this is our second go-round at this legislation. Over the past few weeks, we have worked painstakingly to improve our bill, and we have.

We are confident that our original version of the bill wouldn't have negatively impacted green card holders or create loopholes in the ACA, but we have worked hard over the past few weeks to address the concerns we heard.

We heard concerns the bill would let insurance companies create low- quality plans. Our bill now requires expat plans to meet the same value standard as any other employer-based plan under the ACA, and if the plan doesn't meet that standard, the expat can use subsidies to buy coverage on the exchange, just like any other American.

We heard concerns that the definition of an expat was too broad, that it could be taken advantage of. We changed that definition, tightened it up, and it is identical to the HHS regulations today.

We now make explicit that expat plans must follow all ERISA and Public Health Service Act requirements that were in place before the

So if we don't pass this legislation today, people who have expatriate plans and the companies that offer them will continue to do so. The question is whether they will do so here in the United States and keeping those workers here or whether they will move those operations overseas.

I understand, as well as anyone, that the ACA is a political weapon in a larger political war on both sides of the aisle. All I am asking today is that we take actions so that 500 hard-working Americans in my district don't become collateral damage in that partisan political fight. Let's call a temporary truce in that battle today to protect those jobs.

Finally, I want to thank my colleague, Congressman Nunes, and the Ways and Means staff on both sides of the aisle for their hard work on this issue, and I want to thank leadership on both sides of the aisle for recognizing this is a very serious problem that needs fixing.

I ask my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support us and vote ``yes'' on this legislation today. Vote ``yes'' on H.R. 4414.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 4414, the Expatriate Health Care Coverage Clarification Act.

I do want to point out that the American people do expect us to work together in a responsible manner to solve real problems, and that is what this bill we are talking about today does.

I certainly want to thank my colleagues, Representative Carney of Delaware and Representative Nunes of California, for taking the initiative to craft this really important piece of legislation.

I also know it is really difficult to look at any bill dealing with the health care law without considering the broader context of the law. However, it is also difficult to look at the state of our economy today and be nonchalant about the fact that 1,200 of our fellow Americans stand to lose their jobs if we don't act and pass this legislation.

Many of those folks live in the State of Delaware. Many of them live in the State of Pennsylvania, just over the Delaware State line. So our constituents are hearing about it, just like the story you heard from Mr. Carney and he is stopped by his constituents. We are hearing about this at home.

So that is really what this bill introduced by Mr. Carney and Mr. Nunes does. It saves jobs, it is that simple, and it does so without jeopardizing anybody's health care.

No one is going to be affected by this in a negative way. The bill on the floor today simply allows American companies to continue selling insurance to people who live and work overseas, many of our neighbors and friends. That happens to them.

If we don't pass this bill, the business will go to foreign insurance companies who will be selling these plans and possibly getting many of these jobs. Why would we want to do that? More importantly, why would we even allow that?

So this bill represents a very narrow change to the law and saves jobs. This bill simply amends the law. It does not end the law. This is not a partisan bill. This bill is a vote to keep jobs here in America and Pennsylvania and Delaware and California and other places and would take sensible steps to fix a law that we all know needs to be fixed.

Again, I know it is difficult, but we need to focus on the trees here and look past the forest, so to speak, on this bill. We need to take action and save jobs for American workers. And most important of all, we need to demonstrate to the American people that we can work together to solve very specific problems that need to be fixed. That is what we are doing. That is why everybody, whether you are a Republican or a Democrat, should stand up and enthusiastically support this bill that will not harm anyone's health care and will save American jobs.

Mr. Speaker, just in response to some of the comments I heard from my colleagues from California, I think it is pretty clear, the Joint Committee on Taxation, JCT, has been quoted here, but under this bill, the Joint Committee on Taxation confirms that all plans are ACA compliant. The JCT also confirms that more U.S. employers--American employers--will offer employer-sponsored insurance as a result of this bill.

Further, the Joint Committee on Taxation confirms that the impacts of this legislation are under 1 million people, closer to 300,000 at best. That is what we are talking about here.

Let's be very clear. The Nunes amendment that was offered to this bill actually does help solve many of the problems I believe that have been raised here in the last few minutes. Mr. Waxman from California also raised his concerns. But I must say that if we don't move on this bill, we are not going to have to worry about any of this, because Americans working overseas as expats will be buying insurance from German insurance companies or British or some other European concern. These Americans may be working in places like Ghana, Ethiopia, or Poland. Frankly, the ACA, the health care law, really has no standing in those countries.

So, please, this is a very targeted piece of legislation. These Americans will have good, quality health care as they are working overseas in countries that really don't recognize the health care law. So it is a commonsense proposal. The JCT, the Joint Committee on Taxation, confirms that this is going to affect fewer than 300,000 people. We know that all these plans are ACA compliant, and we know that more U.S. employers are going to offer employer-sponsored health insurance as a result of passing this bill.

I say vote for the bill, do the right thing, get the bill to the Senate and ultimately to the President's desk.