National Park Service 100th Anniversary Commemorative Coin Act

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 557 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to my friend, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Hastings), 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. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks.

Mr. Speaker, on Tuesday, the Rules Committee met and reported a rule for consideration of the first two appropriations bills that the House will consider for fiscal year 2015: H.R. 4486, the Military Construction and Veterans Affairs Appropriations Act; and H.R. 4487, the Legislative Branch Appropriations Act.

The resolution provides an open rule for consideration of H.R. 4486 so that all Members have the opportunity to come to the floor and offer amendments on this important piece of legislation.

The resolution also provides a structured rule for consideration of H.R. 4487, the Legislative Branch Appropriations Act, which is customarily considered in this manner. This structured rule makes in order eight amendments.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to present to this House the first of what I hope are many appropriations bills for fiscal year 2015. Because of the Ryan-Murray budget agreement late last year, the Appropriations Committee has been able to move expeditiously and report these two bills for consideration by the whole House. In fact, this is the earliest that appropriations bills have been considered in this House since 1974.

In addition, Mr. Speaker, both of these bills enjoy strong bipartisan support. Both were reported out of committee by voice vote and take into account updated priorities for the coming fiscal year.

I am proud, for example, that we were able to provide additional funding for our veterans, who have given so much in service to our country. I am also proud that these bills maintain the fiscal discipline this country so desperately needs.

The MilCon-VA bill actually spends $1.8 billion less than fiscal year 2014, and the Legislative Branch bill provides for level funding.

Mr. Speaker, I want to commend Chairman Rogers for beginning this process in earnest, and look forward to consideration of additional appropriations measures at the appropriate time.

I urge support for the rule and the underlying legislation, and I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to begin by thanking my good friend for putting an emphasis and a spotlight on an area of bipartisan cooperation in the veterans area. He is precisely right in the concern that both sides of the aisle have for the men and women in uniform that have fought this Nation's battles.

While the wars themselves have been contentious, I actually don't think the funding of veterans has ever been contentious, regardless of who was President and regardless of who was in control of this Chamber.

Quite frankly, as I recall, during the Bush years, we increased veterans expenditures by about 100 percent over an 8-year period. That has continued under President Obama.

Again, you can never do enough, but I think the Congress actually, over an extended period, has really tried in this area and has worked together quite well in a bipartisan sense.

My friend also referred a little bit to the legislative branch, and there, again, we probably have some areas of agreement, maybe some areas of disagreement, but not profound ones.

The reality is we are in a difficult time financially. My friend is absolutely correct when he points to some of the reductions in House expenditures. We have reduced, by about 14 percent, House expenditures over the last 3 or 4 years.

I would suggest, while those changes have been difficult, they have been appropriate, given the size of the deficit and the fiscal difficulties we had.

It is important to note, in this budget, we make no further reductions. As a matter of fact, we actually increase expenditures in some important institutions that actually support Congress and its work.

We have not done it again, as my friend has correctly stated, for Members' offices or for committees. We did do a little bit of that last year in raising so-called MRAs and committee budgets.

This year, because of the allocation we had, frankly, I have chosen, as chairman of that committee, to focus on things like the Government Accountability Office, the Government Printing Office, the Capitol Police, the Congressional Budget Office, areas that are absolutely indispensable in the operation of this institution. The Library of Congress, another one where the Congressional Research Service is housed, again, is very important to what we do.

Hopefully, as we go forward, we will be able to do more in some of these areas, but I think, given what we had, we have done reasonably well; and again, while these have been tough decisions, they have been made in a bipartisan manner with the cooperation between majority and minority on the appropriate Legislative Branch Subcommittee.

Finally, my friend did point to the Senate, and I suppose we always have a little bit of envy of the other body in terms of its funding. I would suggest, while their expenditures have gone up, they have not been particularly dynamic in their legislative performance.

Frankly, far be it from me to offer a definitive opinion. We normally let each institution do what they want to do, but I am always happy for the contrast in the budget of a Republican House and a Democratic Senate because I think it is abundantly clear which one is serious about fiscal responsibility and which one is not, and I suspect we will have that debate going forward.

Again, I thank my friend for his remarks and his focus on what is genuinely important, and I know, when he talks about this institution and its staff and its functions, he does so with genuine respect and genuine concern.

Again, some of those concerns, I certainly share, and perhaps, going forward, as we did last year and we tried to do in some of the supportive institutions this year, we can restore some of that capability that I know he and I would both like to see us have.

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

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

First, I want to begin by extending the same regard and personal affection to my friend that he was kind enough to display toward me. I have had the privilege of serving with him on the Appropriations Committee, obviously, ever since I arrived at that committee; and we currently serve on the Defense Appropriations Subcommittee together, the Legislative Branch Subcommittee together, and Interior Subcommittee together. And on that committee, Interior, of course he was an absolutely superb chairman. I happen to think he is an even better ranking member. But he was a superb chairman, and we have worked together on many items. And I, like my friend from Florida, am going to miss my friend from Virginia, who I think has rendered distinguished service in this Chamber, and certainly to our committee.

In terms of his suggested amendment, I will make two points. First, we are advised this is a clause 2 violation to be legislating on an appropriations bill; and I thought there was a reasonable chance, secondly, that we would have a chance to discuss this and he would have a chance to make his point.

And I am glad that the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Moran) did make the point that he made because I think it is a very important point to be made. I particularly share your concerns about the long-term character of the body, and I think those were well stated. I don't think we are in any danger right now of reaching that point, but I think my friend does point out a trend that could occur.

I would also be quick to add, there are about as many different styles of Members as there are Members themselves. Some people come here with the idea of being here for a long time. Other people come here for shorter periods of time, not with the idea of cashing out, but because they believe that is the appropriate way to serve.

In my State, my good friend Senator Coburn has always lived by term limits. He did when he was in this Chamber. He has, again, in the Senate. So not every Member that comes here and serves 6 or 8 years is trying to cash out. They just think that is the appropriate length of time, and that is a judgment that is quite often shared by their constituents. And again, I think either one is appropriate. I think Members and districts make that decision for themselves.

But I also think, in consideration of the decisions we have made in the last several years--by both parties, by the way. Again, my friends, when they were in the majority, had some concerns about increases in salaries as well, and I think that was because they saw the fiscal problems of the country.

We have had to make some tough decisions around here in the last few years. We are going to have to make, I think, some more tough decisions. And I think sometimes, to add legitimacy to those decisions, you have to lead by example. I think that is what we have tried to do. I think that is what my friends tried to do as well during the period that they were in the majority. So as long as we are preaching fiscal austerity, we have got to practice a little fiscal austerity.

But I want to conclude by saying, I still think my friend's point is a very important one to be heard. I am glad he made the remarks that he did and has raised it.

I am sorry for your staff because I am sure the incoming mail and calls have been extraordinary.

But again, one of the things I like about my friend, even when I disagree with him--because on occasion, we do--he is never afraid to articulate a position and present a point of view. And if there is a little fire associated with that, so much the better. I think he enjoys the give-and-take of that. And that is one of the things I am going to miss the most about him when he departs this Chamber.

With that, Mr. Speaker, I will reserve the balance of my time.

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

I want to thank my friend from California for working so closely with Chairman Culberson and Ranking Member Bishop on what is a genuinely important contribution to the legislation; and I think, frankly, it is pretty exemplary of the manner in which Chairman Culberson and Ranking Member Bishop worked together throughout this process. I saw it myself during our full committee markup where, literally, they were working together to make changes to try and respond to Members' legitimate concerns in this area and did it right to the last minute of the bill.

So I know we are going to have contentious moments in the appropriations process; we always do as we go forward. But in this particular case, in this legislation, and certainly between the chairman and ranking member, I think we have an example of how to work together in a bipartisan fashion that most Americans, if they had a chance to learn about it, would be genuinely pleased with.

So again, I thank my friend from California for participating outside the committee in that. I think she made a very valuable contribution, and I am pleased that she made that point. And again, I recognize the wonderful work of Mr. Culberson and Mr. Bishop.

With that, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

I want to begin by thanking my friend from New Jersey and again recognize his very special and very distinguished service in this body. This is a typical example of the good sense and the compassion he brings to the floor on a regular basis, and I know I appreciate that. And while we are in different parties, he is one of the people, like my friend from Virginia (Mr. Moran) who spoke earlier, that I most admire and I think is generally admired on both sides of the aisle. So I associate myself with the remarks he made and appreciate that very, very much, and I wish him well in whatever he chooses to do next because he has certainly distinguished himself here, as

he had in his academic career before he came here. And whatever he does next, I know he will be equally distinguished in that field, but we will miss him very much in this body.

And with that, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Speaker, while I appreciate what my friend from California had to say, the reality is this legislation doesn't have anything to do with the minimum wage, and frankly, it would be inappropriate to consider the minimum wage here. It would be legislating on an appropriations bill, something that as a rule we do not do around here.

Second, while not wishing to engage in a long debate about the minimum wage, I will say this. Remember, the people of this country and the people of individual States have the opportunity to move on this issue when they choose. Indeed, 19 States, if I recall correctly, actually have minimum wages above the Federal minimum wage.

There is serious concern that the one-size-fits-all minimum wage doesn't make a lot of sense. I can tell my friend I don't pretend to be an expert on what the cost of living in California or New York is, but I am sure it is considerably higher than it is in the State of Oklahoma, and at the end of the day, I actually trust the Oklahoma Legislature, the Oklahoma Governor, and the Oklahoma electorate to make this decision for themselves. I don't think imposing a national solution or national standard in this case is necessary or desirable.

So, again, I think you leave this to the wisdom of the States and localities. I think that is what our Founders generally envisioned we should do when we had questions of this nature.

Again, I am sure we will have this debate another time and on other occasions. It is a perfectly appropriate debate to have. It is not an appropriate debate, it would not be something we could do legislatively on this particular rule or the underlying legislation. So it seems to me not a strong reason to vote against either one because this vehicle could not carry the legislation that my friend from California would like to see enacted.

With that, I reserve the balance of my time.

I am prepared to close whenever my friend is.

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

In closing, I would like to say that one of the basic functions of Congress is to fund the government, and this rule would begin the process for consideration for fiscal year 2015 of actually doing that function and doing it in an orderly way and appropriate way.

I am particularly pleased that the appropriations process has moved as well and as quickly as it has so far this year. To that, I give credit to my

friend, Chairman Rogers, and my great friend, Ranking Member Lowey. They have worked well in a bipartisan manner.

I want to also commend the chairman of the Military Construction and Veterans Affairs Subcommittee. Mr. Bishop is the ranking member, and Mr. Culberson is the chairman. I think they have done a wonderful job.

Frankly, I have had the opportunity to work with my good friend Debbie Wasserman Schultz in the legislative branch as the ranking member, and I am currently privileged to be the chairman. I think that has been a very productive relationship. I have no doubt we are going to have some contention in other bills, but these bills have really moved together in a bipartisan fashion, and I think given the allocations that we had, have been worked through in a very professional, workmanlike way.

Now, my friend from Florida did mention the syrupy debate, and I know that is not his style. I have had the privilege of serving with him on the Rules Committee not just in this Congress but in a previous Congress, and he is one of the best debaters on the floor, and I have no doubt on every occasion I have seen he always gives as good as he gets and makes his case quite well. But I have appreciated having the opportunity to have this exchange with him. Obviously, I would urge that my colleagues actually support the rule and the underlying legislation.

While the rule vote is a procedural vote, and it is not uncommon for us to basically have a partisan division, I suspect that when the underlying legislation actually reaches this floor on the MilCon bill, the VA bill, and on the legislative branch bill, we will have a great deal of bipartisanship. Certainly, I look forward to that vote. I look forward to the debate and discussion over those. But the first thing we have to do is pass the rule, so, again, I urge my colleagues to pass this.

The material previously referred to by Mr. Hastings of Florida is as follows:

An Amendment to H. Res. 557 Offered by Mr. Hastings of Florida

At the end of the resolution, add the following new

sections:

Sec. 5. 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. 6. Clause 1(c) of rule XIX shall not apply to the

consideration of H.R. 1010.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution.

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, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

I would like to thank my friend from Oklahoma for yielding me the customary 30 minutes for debate.

Mr. Speaker, H.R. 4486, the Military Construction and Veterans Affairs Appropriations Act for fiscal year 2015 provides for $165 billion in appropriations for veterans programs, military construction projects, and other agencies and programs. H.R. 4487, the Legislative Branch Appropriations Act for fiscal year 2015, provides for $3.3 billion for legislative branch activities.

Clearly, the parties working on this matter worked together, and we need more of that in this institution. This bipartisan effort brought Democrats and Republicans together to draft legislation that appropriates funds to military construction projects, improves quality of life for veterans and military families, and allows for the continued operation of the essential functions of our Nation's governing body.

Included within these measures is an increase of $8.8 billion for veterans benefits programs, guaranteeing those who have dedicated themselves to defending our Nation will receive the benefits they earned.

I am very proud of the fact that Mike Sykes is sitting with me today, who is one of those veterans that is working in my office and prepared me for this particular day. I would like to thank him, Tom, and all of the people that work with us with reference to this particular part of the responsibilities that we have on the Rules Committee.

H.R. 4486 provides for significant reductions to Defense Department construction spending, which is in line with the President's fiscal 2015 request, but uses those savings to increase total funding for the Veterans Affairs Department by 7 percent.

This shift represents the growing awareness that as we wind down the costly wars that we have been engaged in for over a decade, we must now turn our full attention to supporting those who will bear the cost of those wars for decades to come.

Last week, I participated in a ceremony for World War II, Vietnam, and Korean war veterans where we were honoring a gentleman that has spent a large portion of his career in making sure that veterans receive their proper due.

It was telling to me that we had not done all that they anticipated that we could, and, therefore, I am hopeful that we will take cognizance of the fact that the veterans coming home from Iraq and Afghanistan will have tremendous needs, and, hopefully, this small advance will allow for us to attend them properly.

The Department of Veterans Affairs is provided a total of $158.2 billion in budget authority, an increase of almost 7 percent over last year. This legislation ensures full funding for essential VA compensation and benefits programs in areas like education, vocational training, and housing assistance.

This measure also includes $58.7 billion in advance funding for the VA, ensuring that veterans will continue to have full access to their medical care needs, regardless of where Congress stands in the annual appropriations process.

The underlying legislation includes funding for important national programs and activities, such as the Medical and Prosthetic Research account, Post-9/11 GI Bill authorities, and encouragement for the department to maximize the availability of mental health services to veteran victims of sexual trauma while serving in the military.

H.R. 4487, the Legislative Branch Appropriations bill, while a bipartisan effort--and for the most part, noncontroversial--still falls short of restoring funding levels for Member offices and committee staffs.

As with their fixation on cutting spending on any investment in our Nation's infrastructure, education, and scientific research, my friends on the Republican side continue to believe that you can reduce the budget indefinitely and still get the same product.

What they fail to acknowledge is that, eventually, there comes a breaking point where the lack of investment produces tangible reductions in the quality of the product rendered, and unfortunately, that time is fast approaching for Members' offices and committee staffs.

Two reports mentioned by the minority members on the Legislative Branch Subcommittee bring into stark relief the consequences of ongoing funding shortfalls.

The first, by the Congressional Management Foundation and the Society for Human Resource Management, shows that over 50 percent of congressional staff cite salaries as a major factor in their decision to leave their positions.

The second, by the Congressional Research Service, found that, between 1977 and 2010, House committee staff levels dropped by 28 percent, while Senate committee staff levels have increased by almost 15 percent over the same time.

Either the Senate is doing a lot more work than we are, or we are seriously hamstringing our ability to conduct thorough research and debate on the critical issues before us today.

We cannot continue to decimate our staffs and committees, while asking for more and more from them. As we must be responsible stewards of the resources that the American people have entrusted us with, so too must we be responsible to those who have chosen public service.

Just as we cannot continue to allow companies to pay nonliving wages, we cannot continue to pay our staffs in the same manner that we have. We can and must do better.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased at this time to yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Moran), the ranking member of the Appropriations Subcommittee on the Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies.

Mr. Moran is leaving us after this session, and he will be sorely missed, but he takes it upon himself to address an issue that is of vital concern to all Members of the House of Representatives.

I yield an additional 30 seconds to the gentleman from Virginia.

Mr. Speaker, before yielding to the next speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds.

Mr. Speaker, just in response to my friend from Oklahoma, what Mr. Moran pointed to was the fact that moderate rent in this metropolitan area is $27,000 a year. I don't think it is unreasonable for us to not only have a discussion, but to do something about the fact that there are Members that are here that can't afford that on the salary that they make. Now, it may be that the constituency is unsympathetic. It may be that these are tough times.

I yield myself an additional 30 seconds.

It may be that these are tough times, but the simple fact of the matter is we have at least 20 Members of the House of Representatives living in their offices, and I don't think that that is right. And I think that the public needs to know that, and I think once the public understands that a lot of that is attributed not only to that Member's idea about how to serve, but the fact that he or she cannot serve in a proper manner living in accommodations that I think they deserve by getting to this high station.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from California (Ms. Hahn), a member of the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased at this time to yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Holt), my good friend.

I yield the gentleman from New Jersey an additional 30 seconds.

Mr. Speaker, if we defeat the previous question, I will offer an amendment to the rule to bring up H.R. 1010, our bill to raise the Federal minimum wage to $10.10 an hour.

I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from California (Mr. Takano) to discuss the importance of raising the minimum wage.

I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.

Mr. Speaker, I would advise my friend from Oklahoma that I am the last speaker, and I am prepared to close if he is prepared to close.

Thank you very kindly.

Mr. Speaker, it has been one of our more syrupy debates around here, and it is because of the bipartisan nature that allowed for this legislation to come to the Rules Committee and then to be put here on the floor.

Mr. Speaker, I am happy to say that we can be pleased by the level of support provided in this legislation for essential veterans programs. America's veterans deserve the very best support our Nation has to offer, and I am pleased to note that Democrats and Republicans came together to craft legislation that provides the necessary resources for veterans and their families.

At the same time, though, we must realize that if we continue to strangle the support for the offices that are tasked with creating the legislation and programs to support those very veterans, we will eventually begin to fail them, as well.

We must break free from the false logic that all spending is bad spending and realize that investments in our country, our infrastructure, our education, our medical research, or even our legislature is a sound one.

Mr. Speaker, if we defeat the previous question, I am going to offer an amendment to the rule to bring up H.R. 1010, our bill to raise the Federal minimum wage to $10.10 an hour. And while my friend from Oklahoma makes very salient commentary regarding what might very well be a view of some note in our body politic, I don't deem it unwise or unnecessary to talk about lifting people out of poverty at any time during the course of our legislative business, understanding the rules and the fact that this would not have been a rule germane to the specific issue.

But it is germane to the families out there in America. It is germane to the people that are working and are still in poverty that may be lifted out of poverty if we were to have a $10.10-an-hour minimum wage.

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.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' and defeat the previous question, and I now 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.