PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Congressional Research Service
Version 81 · Passed House without amendment · Jul 17, 2013
(This measure has not been amended since it was introduced. The summary of that version is repeated here.)
Authority for Mandate Delay Act - Amends the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act to delay until 2015 enforcement of requirements that large employers offer their full-time employees the opportunity to enroll in minimum essential coverage. Delays the effective date of related reporting requirements for such employers and for providers of minimum essential coverage.
People & committees
Rep. Griffin, Tim [R-AR-2] · R–AR
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Referred to the Subcommittee on Health.
Pursuant to the provisions of H. Res. 300, H.R. 2667 is laid on the table.
Motion to reconsider laid on the table Agreed to without objection.
On passage Passed by the Yeas and Nays: 264 - 161 (Roll no. 361). (text: CR H4546)
House roll call 361 · Individual votesPassed/agreed to in House: On passage Passed by the Yeas and Nays: 264 - 161 (Roll no. 361).(text: CR H4546)
House roll call 361 · Individual votesOn motion to recommit with instructions Failed by the Yeas and Nays: 188 - 230 (Roll no. 360).
House roll call 360 · Individual votesThe previous question on the motion to recommit with instructions was ordered without objection. (consideration: CR H4574)
DEBATE - The House proceeded with ten minutes of debate on the Andrews motion to recommit with instructions pending reservation of a point of order. The instructions contained in the motion seek to require the bill to be reported back to the House with an amendment providing that nothing in the Act shall be construed to allow employers to reduce insurance coverage for individuals and families who currently receive job-based health benefits. Subsequently, the reservation of a point of order was withdrawn.
Mr. Andrews moved to recommit with instructions to Ways and Means. (consideration: CR H4573-4574; text: CR H4573)
Considered as unfinished business. (consideration: CR H4573-4575)
POSTPONED PROCEEDINGS - Pursuant to clause 1(c) of rule XIX, the Chair postponed further proceedings on H.R. 2667 until a time to be announced.
The previous question was ordered pursuant to the rule. (consideration: CR H4557)
DEBATE - The House proceeded with one hour of debate on H.R. 2667.
The resolution provides for consideration of H.R. 2667 and H.R. 2668 under a closed rule. The resolution provides for one hour of general debate and one motion to recommit in each instance.
Considered under the provisions of rule H. Res. 300. (consideration: CR H4546-4557)
Rule H. Res. 300 passed House.
Rules Committee Resolution H. Res. 300 Reported to House. The resolution provides for consideration of H.R. 2667 and H.R. 2668 under a closed rule. The resolution provides for one hour of general debate and one motion to recommit in each instance.
Referred to the House Committee on Ways and Means.
Introduced in House
Introduced in House
Primary sources
Text links open the official source. We currently store references to these documents.
Source last updated: Apr 7, 2025. Consult Congress.gov for the current record.
AI Conversation Starters
Choose a perspective, copy a prompt, and paste it into your preferred AI. Each prompt includes the bill version and available official source links, and asks for counterarguments as well as supporting evidence.
Analyze H.R.2667 as objectively as possible. Explain its main provisions, who would be affected, possible benefits and harms, implementation, exceptions, and uncertainties. Present the strongest arguments for and against it, and identify evidence needed to assess its public impact.
Examine H.R.2667 through a progressive lens, focusing on fairness, access, economic inequality, and effects on vulnerable communities. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and distinguish stated goals from demonstrated outcomes.
Examine H.R.2667 through a conservative lens, focusing on fiscal responsibility, institutional stability, federalism, and the scope of government. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and any provisions that challenge this perspective.
Examine H.R.2667 through a civil-liberties and limited-government lens. Consider individual rights, privacy, voluntary choice, accountability, and government power. Explain tradeoffs, possible safeguards, and the strongest counterarguments without assuming the proposal is beneficial or harmful.