Congressional Record, Volume 159 Issue 58 (Thursday, April 25, 2013)

[Congressional Record Volume 159, Number 58 (Thursday, April 25, 2013)]
[House]
[Pages H2315-H2322]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 527, RESPONSIBLE HELIUM
ADMINISTRATION AND STEWARDSHIP ACT

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on
Rules, I call up House Resolution 178 and ask for its immediate
consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

H. Res. 178

Resolved, That at any time after the adoption of this
resolution the Speaker may, 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. 527) to amend the Helium Act to complete the
privatization of the Federal helium reserve in a competitive
market fashion that ensures stability in the helium markets
while protecting the interests of American taxpayers, and for
other purposes. 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 Natural Resources. After general debate the bill
shall be considered for amendment under the five-minute rule.
In lieu of the amendment in the nature of a substitute
recommended by the Committee on Natural Resources now printed
in the bill, it shall be in order to consider as an original
bill for the purpose of amendment under the five-minute rule
an amendment in the nature of a substitute consisting of the
text of Rules Committee Print 113-9. That amendment in the
nature of a substitute shall be considered as read. All
points of order against that amendment in the nature of a
substitute are waived. No amendment to that amendment in the
nature of a substitute shall be in order except those printed
in the report of the Committee on Rules accompanying this
resolution. Each such amendment may be offered only in the
order printed in the report, may be offered only by a Member
designated in the report, shall be considered as read, shall
be debatable for the time specified in the report equally
divided and controlled by the proponent and an opponent,
shall not be subject to amendment, and shall not be subject
to a demand for division of the question in the House or in
the Committee of the Whole. All points of order against such
amendments 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. Any Member may demand a separate vote in the House
on any amendment adopted in the Committee of the Whole to the
bill or to the amendment in the nature of a substitute made
in order as original text. 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.
Sec. 2. On any legislative day during the period from
April 27, 2013, through May 3, 2013--
(a) the Journal of the proceedings of the previous day
shall be considered as approved; and
(b) the Chair may at any time declare the House adjourned
to meet at a date and time, within the limits of clause 4,
section 5, article I of the Constitution, to be announced by
the Chair in declaring the adjournment.
Sec. 3. The Speaker may appoint Members to perform the
duties of the Chair for the duration of the period addressed
by section 2 of this resolution as though under clause 8(a)
of rule I.
Sec. 4. The Committee on Education and the Workforce may,
at any time before 5 p.m. on Tuesday, April 30, 2013, file a
report to accompany H.R. 1406.

The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Utah is recognized for 1
hour.
Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I
yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr.
McGovern), pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume.
During the consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for
the purpose of debate only.

General Leave

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. I further ask that all Members have 5 legislative
days during which they may revise and extend their remarks.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Utah?
There was no objection.
Mr. BISHOP of Utah. This resolution provides a structured rule for
the consideration of H.R. 527, the Responsible Helium Administration
and Stewardship Act. It makes several amendments in order, which were
compliant with the rules of this House. In fact, four of the five
amendments suggested to the Rules Committee will be presented.

[[Page H2316]]

The only one that was rejected is one that was duplicative of one that
was added in here. So everything that the Members cared enough about to
file in an appropriate way have been accommodated for the discussion we
will have be having today on this particular bill. It provides for 1
hour of general debate, with 30 minutes equally divided and controlled
by the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on Natural
Resources. It's a very fair and good rule.
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to stand before the House today in support
of this rule and the underlying piece of legislation, H.R. 527, the
Responsible Helium Administration and Stewardship Act, as opposed to
the irresponsible helium administration and stewardship act one could
assume coming from the other body.
The underlying legislation is a bipartisan bill and enjoys a broad
base of support on both sides of the aisle, including the sponsor, the
chairman of the Natural Resources Committee, Mr. Hastings of
Washington, and the Natural Resources Committee ranking member, Mr.
Markey. In fact, H.R. 527 was favorably reported out of the Committee
on Natural Resources on February 14 on a voice vote, and there were no
dissenting votes.
I'd like to thank the chairman of the Natural Resources Committee,
the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Hastings), for his work on this
commonsense bill and approach.
Mr. Speaker, helium is an essential and vital element and a commodity
that we all depend on in countless ways. It's used widely in the
scientific community, but also in the health care industry. It's vital
to the proper functioning of MRI equipment in hospitals. It's vital in
the production of electronics, such as microchips and superconductors.
Helium is essential for science. It's essential for our NASA space
program. Helium is a byproduct of natural gas production.
In short, we have heard from people for a long time that what
Congress needs to do is come together and work in a bipartisan way,
find a compromise and present a solution that can actually solve some
of the problems we're facing. This is exactly what this particular bill
does do.

{time} 1250

This is exactly what this particular bill does do.
The leadership, both Republicans and Democrats on the committee, have
crafted a bill in which they have come together and presented a
compromise. We should be happy with this day. We should be celebrating
this particular bill on the floor because it's a perfect example of
government done right.
When an elderly lady will call my district office and complain that
her Social Security check has not arrived, the most important issue of
government to her is her Social Security check. To me and my staff, the
most important issue of government for us should be getting her Social
Security check. I do not have the arrogance to try and tell her that,
look, take the broad view of government, your issue is so small in
conjunction to everything we're doing, it should be ignored until we do
something more complicated first. No. You find the problem and you
solve that particular problem.
This is one of the situations we have here today. The concept of
helium is a potential problem if we don't change the law that regulates
it. It will affect people in the manufacturing sector and in the health
care sector. It will hurt real people.
What we should celebrate is the fact that today Republicans and
Democrats have come together and done what the people have requested
and found a problem and suggested a good, commonsense solution to a
problem in a rational and reasonable way. That is what we have before
us today, Mr. Speaker.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. McGOVERN. I want to thank the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Bishop)
for yielding me the customary 30 minutes, and yield myself such time as
I may consume.
(Mr. McGOVERN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I want to begin by thanking the majority
for bringing up a bipartisan bill. It's not often that this majority
works in a bipartisan way on legislation. In fact, it's a rarity. But,
in this case, Chairman Hastings worked with Ranking Member Markey to
produce a bill that should pass the House with very, very little
opposition.
In fact, we have a streamlined process here in the House for
noncontroversial bills like this. It's called the suspension calendar.
This is a perfect bill for the suspension calendar. We could be done
with this bill in 40 minutes. We could debate, vote, and send it to the
Senate so they could send it to the President.
But, instead, the majority is stretching this bill out over 2 days--2
days, Mr. Speaker, to consider a bill that isn't controversial and will
pass overwhelmingly, 2 days to consider this bill when there are so
many other urgent challenges that this majority continues to ignore, 2
days on the Responsible Helium Administration and Stewardship Act.
That's a lot of hot air even for this House. So while we're spending a
ridiculous amount of time on this bill, the Republican majority
continues to ignore the economy.
The gentleman from Utah is right when he says that this could
potentially be a problem if we don't address this issue of helium, but
that's not until the end of the fiscal year. We have some major
problems right now this very second that the majority of this House
continues to ignore, challenges that impact our constituencies all over
this country.
This sequester that my friends on the other side embraced is still
going into effect. We've already seen cuts to programs like Meals on
Wheels and on food pantries and WIC recipients and Head Start
facilities, just to name a few.
I would like to enter into the Record, Mr. Speaker, a news item that
appeared on a Fox affiliate out in Utah entitled, ``Sequestration
forces food pantry closure.''
We started hearing reports about airport delays because of the
sequester's impact on the FAA. And I really got a kick out of my
Republican colleagues coming down here kind of expressing their
astonishment that there were airport delays as a result of
sequestration. They actually had the temerity to complain about those
delays.
I asked my friends on the other side of the aisle: What did you think
would happen when you voted for unnecessary, arbitrary, senseless
across-the-board cuts? My Republican friends remind me of Claude Rains
in ``Casablanca.'' They are shocked--shocked--that voting to slash
funding for air traffic controllers would result in their flights being
delayed.
Well, I want my friends to understand one thing. There are
consequences to their actions. There are consequences to the
sequestration.
The truth, Mr. Speaker, is that deficit reduction is an important
goal, but deficit reduction alone is not an economic policy. We know
that mindless austerity budget cuts like this stupid sequester are not
going to help our economy grow and help people get jobs and help get
our economy back on the kind of footing we all want it to be on.
When Bill Clinton was President, when he rescued the economy in the
1990s, he did so through job creation, investing in our economy. We
expanded the tax base by increasing the workforce, bringing more
revenue into the Federal Government and thereby reducing the deficit.
And here's the funny thing. Despite the apocalyptic gloom and doom of
some on the other side of the aisle, believe it or not, the deficit is
actually shrinking faster than expected. And the best thing we can do
is to help speed up that process by investing in our people and
creating jobs. We should be promoting growth through infrastructure
projects and job-training programs. We should be creating long-term
demand through research and development, not cutting the National
Institutes of Health's research budget, not cutting the National
Science Foundation. We should be supporting these areas that create
innovation and opportunity. We should be investing in our young people,
preparing our students for the 21st century economy, but we're not
doing any of that today--any of that today.
And, yes, the bill before us that we're dealing with right now is
fine, no problems. Yes, Republicans and Democrats worked together on
this in a way that

[[Page H2317]]

is sadly uncommon for this current Congress, but we aren't doing enough
to solve our biggest problems.

Tomorrow, when we adjourn after this overlong debate on this helium
bill, we're going to take another week off--the sixth week of recess
that this House of Representatives has taken since January--the sixth
weeklong recess with all that's going on. With all of the difficulty
that people all across this country are dealing with because of the
sequestration, we're taking another week off.
Mr. Speaker, I think we should do more, we can do more, we must do
more, and we certainly can do better. So while I have no problem with
this bill, and while, if we don't deal with this helium issue come the
end of the fiscal year there may be a problem, we'll deal with it fast
enough. Right now there are urgent issues that we need to face, not
just airline delays. There are people in this country who have fallen
through the cracks. There are people in this country struggling who are
seeing their benefits slashed because of the sequestration. There are
research facilities all across this country that are terminating
important medical research programs because of the sequestration. We
ought to deal with that.
And one other thing, Mr. Speaker. My friends on the other side of the
aisle a few weeks ago made a big hoo-ha and sent all kinds of press
releases about how they were going to force the House and the Senate to
pass budgets, otherwise we would lose our salaries.
Well, the House passed a budget, a lousy budget, but the House passed
a budget. The Senate passed a budget, as well. So you have two budgets.
Why doesn't the House move to go to conference? Why aren't we trying to
reconcile the differences between the House and the Senate to try to
get our budgetary situation under control? We're not doing that. We're
not doing anything, quite frankly, that we need to do at this moment.
So I would urge my colleagues, this is a fine bill, vote for it,
bipartisan support. Mr. Hastings, Mr. Markey, it's all good, but we're
spending 2 days on this? Give me a break.
I reserve the balance of my time.

[From fox13now.com, Mar. 29, 2013]

Sequestration Forces Food Pantry Closure

(By Zach Whitney)

Murray, UT.--For months, the threat of sequestration has
had organizations tightening their budgets. But as those
federal cuts take effect, it appears those in need are taking
the biggest hit.
Salt Lake Community Action Program closed its Murray food
pantry last week. The food pantry was one of five locations
that serve over 1,000 people every month. Now those people
will have to go somewhere else, with even less to go around.
``The potential is for a perfect storm where there's less
help available and it's harder for people to get by,'' says
Crossroads Urban Center Executive Director Glenn Bailey.
Crossroads Urban Center relies on private donations for
funding, but says they're prepared for a potential increase
in traffic as sequestration cuts begin to impact other parts
of the valley.
``There's a lot of uncertainty as far as groups that have
something to do with providing a social safety net,'' says
Bailey. ``That certainly includes food pantries. Particularly
if they have significant government funding.''
The closure of the SLCAP food pantry in Murray is a big
hole in that safety net. Neighborhood Pantry Manager Mary
Anderson says the federal cuts left them little choice.
``The pantries have had to take a 10 percent budget cut,''
Anderson says. ``We operate on Community Development Federal
Block Grants, which are government programs.''
Customers from the Murray pantry are being diverted to
SLCAP's pantry on Redwood Road. But Anderson says it's a big
inconvenience for a group of people who are already
struggling.
``The need has been increasing a lot,'' says Anderson.
``Over 200% [in the past five years]. But also our other
programs.''
Anderson says the organization's Head Start program has
also taken a significant cut due to sequestration. Affordable
housing programs are another on the chopping block. Bailey
says that perpetuates the problem, since those are typically
the people who also rely on the food pantry.

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
I wish to thank the gentleman from Massachusetts for his kind words
about the process that we are doing here. It is nice to be complimented
on a bill which we have done correctly and done right. I would suggest,
though, that it is wise of us to actually bring it here to the floor,
rather than put it on a suspension calendar.
There were several Representatives that wished to have a chance to
speak to this and amend it. We are dealing with amendments to this
particular bill, which is, once again, why you bring it to the floor,
otherwise they would be closed from that process.

{time} 1300

I also appreciate his comments about sequestration. I am very happy
that he mentioned that because, not only did I vote against the
original law that established it, but I voted twice for solutions to it
well before sequestration was ever established. Both of those bills
passed in a bipartisan way and were sent over to the Senate. The Senate
responded by doing nothing, which is typical of a lot of things that
simply happen around this place.
In 1925, when the issue of helium was first addressed by Congress, we
made a mistake. The idea at the time was that dirigibles would be the
source of aviation for the future, and therefore helium was extremely
successful. It's not the first time we've been wrong. The fact that we
have steps leading out the east side of this Capitol Building, going in
that direction, is because, when this was originally laid out and
established and built, everyone knew that Washington, D.C., would grow
to the east. We've been wrong from the very inception of this
governmental city. But in 1925, the Federal Government enacted
legislation which created a Federal Helium Reserve, and the Federal
Government basically has had a monopoly on the helium market ever
since.
After World War II, the demand for helium increased dramatically, so
Congress passed the Helium Act in 1960 to provide incentives for the
private natural gas industry to strip helium from its natural gas wells
and sell it to the government, which then placed it in the Federal
Helium Reserve, eventually leading to a supply large enough to supply
all of the U.S. Federal and domestic needs as well as the ability to
sell some overseas. The 1960 legislation required that the Federal
Government set prices on the sale of helium, which would cover the
costs of the Federal Government for its purchase and storage.
Since the 1990s, the Federal demand for helium has dropped
significantly while the private demand has increased. So, in 1996,
Congress passed the Helium Privatization Act, which was intended to
lead to the phasing out of the Federal role in helium production and
storage with a view towards allowing market forces to work within the
private sector for its production and reducing the cost to the Federal
Government. The 1996 law required the government to price helium, not
on market prices, but only on the minimum price necessary to recover
$1.3 billion in Federal debt that was incurred to build this helium
reserve.
The Federal Government will be able to pay off that $1.3 billion debt
sooner than was anticipated--another cause for celebration. That
doesn't happen very often in this government either; but unless the
particular law we have on the books now is amended, it will close the
reserve, leaving no new domestic sources of helium. The industry would
be forced to look overseas to such producers as Algeria and Qatar and
Russia to fill their needs.
In essence, if we do not deal with this particular bill, there will
be a harm that will impact real people. I'm sorry that fixing this harm
is not good enough for some, but it is something that needs to be done,
and it needs to be done in an open way, which will allow us to discuss
some amendments people wish to present towards this particular bill.
The National Academy of Sciences issued a report in 2010 which
addressed this issue, as did the General Accounting Office. H.R. 527 is
based largely upon the recommendations of these reports, and it makes
revisions to the law to continue the effort to divest the Federal
Government from its current role as a monopoly on helium production in
an orderly, three-phased process. A new approach will better
incorporate market forces into the production and the sale of helium,
and it will ensure the future supply of helium to the Federal
Government and to private users; and it will ensure that it will not be
interrupted.

[[Page H2318]]

It is important that Congress take a proactive step through the
passage of this legislation in order to avoid disruptions in our helium
supplies worldwide; and it would have, if we did not, a far-reaching
negative consequence. This legislation is a model of how important
bipartisan legislation which addresses real issues and real problems
for real people can, indeed, be achieved in Congress. It's a good bill
and a fair rule.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. McGOVERN. I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I would just like to remind my colleagues that, again, as we are
debating this bill--which I'm not saying we shouldn't pass--even with
all of the amendments, we could probably spend, maybe, a total of an
hour on this bill and get all of those things taken care of. I have no
problem with passing the bill.
What I do have a problem with is the fact that this Republican
majority continues to ignore the economy. This Republican majority
continues to ignore the very, very harsh consequences of the
sequestration that they thrust upon this country, that they voted for,
that they will not allow us to bring up an alternative to fix.
I want to read for my colleagues and insert into the Record an
article that appeared in The Washington Post on April 3. It's entitled,
``Cancer Clinics are Turning Away Thousands of Medicare Patients. Blame
the Sequester.''
It reads:

When the gentleman says that he's sorry that this helium bill isn't
good enough for some, he's right. It isn't good enough for me. It isn't
good enough for the majority of people on my side of the aisle who
believe that we ought to be fixing this problem that many cancer
patients are facing right now, that we ought to be fixing the problem
of the delays in our airlines, that we ought to be fixing the problems
of these budget cuts to programs like WIC--that's the Women, Infants,
and Children program--and food banks. I could go right down the list.
So there are urgent things for us to do, not to spend 2 days on
helium--that is totally unnecessary--and then take another week off, to
adjourn for another week, while all of these cuts continue to go into
effect, these cuts which have a really nasty and negative effect on our
economy. We ought to be doing our job here, not kicking the can down
the road.

[From the Washington Post, Apr. 3, 2013]

Cancer Clinics are Turning Away Thousands of Medicare Patients. Blame
the Sequester.

(By Sarah Kliff)

Cancer clinics across the country have begun turning away
thousands of Medicare patients, blaming the sequester budget
cuts.
Oncologists say the reduced funding, which took effect for
Medicare on April 1, makes it impossible to administer
expensive chemotherapy drugs while staying afloat
financially.
Patients at these clinics would need to seek treatment
elsewhere, such as at hospitals that might not have the
capacity to accommodate them.
``If we treated the patients receiving the most expensive
drugs, we'd be out of business in six months to a year,''
said Jeff Vacirca, chief executive of North Shore Hematology
Oncology Associates in New York. ``The drugs we're going to
lose money on we're not going to administer right now.''
After an emergency meeting Tuesday, Vacirca's clinics
decided that they would no longer see one-third of their
16,000 Medicare patients.
``A lot of us are in disbelief that this is happening,'' he
said. ``It's a choice between seeing these patients and
staying in business.''
Some who have been pushing the federal government to spend
less on health care say this is not the right approach.
``I don't think there was an intention to disrupt care or
move it into a more expensive setting,'' said Cathy Schoen,
senior vice president of the Commonwealth Fund, which
recently released a plan for cutting $2 trillion in health
spending. ``If that's the case, we're being penny-wise and a
pound-foolish with these cuts.''
Legislators meant to partially shield Medicare from the
automatic budget cuts triggered by the sequester, limiting
the program to a 2 percent reduction--a fraction of the cuts
seen by other federal programs.
But oncologists say the cut is unexpectedly damaging for
cancer patients because of the way those treatments are
covered.
Medications for seniors are usually covered under the
optional Medicare Part D, which includes private insurance.
But because cancer drugs must be administered by a physician,
they are among a handful of pharmaceuticals paid for by Part
B, which covers doctor visits and is subject to the sequester
cut.
The federal government typically pays community oncologists
for the average sales price of a chemotherapy drug, plus 6
percent to cover the cost of storing and administering the
medication.
Since oncologists cannot change the drug prices, they argue
that the entire 2 percent cut will have to come out of that 6
percent overhead. That would make it more akin to a double-
digit pay cut.
``If you get cut on the service side, you can either absorb
it or make do with fewer nurses,'' said Ted Okon, director of
the Community Oncology Alliance, which advocates for hundreds
of cancer clinics nationwide. ``This is a drug that we're
purchasing. The costs don't change and you can't do without
it. There isn't really wiggle room.''
Okon's group has sent letters to legislators urging them to
exempt cancer drugs from the sequester or, as a back-up, only
shave 2 percent off the money they receive to administer the
medications.
Doctors at the Charleston Cancer Center in South Carolina
began informing patients weeks ago that, due to the sequester
cuts, they would soon need to seek treatment elsewhere.
``We don't sugar-coat things, we're cancer doctors,''
Charles Holladay, a doctor at the clinic, said. ``We tell
them that if we don't go this course, it's just a matter of
time before we go out of business.''
Cancer patients turned away from local oncology clinics may
seek care at hospitals, which also deliver chemotherapy
treatments.
The care will likely be more expensive: One study from
actuarial firm Milliman found that chemotherapy delivered in
a hospital setting costs the federal government an average of
$6,500 more annually than care delivered in a community
clinic.
Those costs can trickle down to patients, who are
responsible for picking up a certain amount of the medical
bills. Milliman found that Medicare patients ended up with an
average of $650 more in out-of-pocket costs when they were
seen only in a hospital setting.
It is still unclear whether hospitals have the capacity to
absorb these patients. The same Milliman report found that
the majority of Medicare patients--66 percent--receive
treatment in a community oncology clinic, instead of a
hospital.
Non-profit hospitals will likely have an easier time
bearing the brunt of the sequester cuts. A federal program
known as 340B requires pharmaceutical companies to give
double-digit discounts to hospitals that treat low-income and
uninsured patients.
Eastern Connecticut Health Network began preparing for
additional volume after a local oncology practice sent out
notice that it would stop seeing certain cancer patients.
``What we're trying to do in the hospital is prepare for
this,'' ECHN spokesman Eric Berthel said. ``We're making sure
we have access to the pharmaceutical companies and that we
have appropriate staff on hand. We're hoping the oncology
practice will be successful in renegotiating this. It's so
fresh, so we're pretty unsure.''
Some cancer clinics are counting on the federal government
to provide relief, and continuing to see patients they expect
to lose money on.
``We're hoping that something will change, as legislators
see the impact of this,'' Ralph Boccia, director of the
Center for Cancer and Blood Disorders in Bethesda, Md., said.
``I don't think we could keep going, without a change, for
more than a couple of months.''
An analysis prepared by his clinic estimates that, if the
full 2 percent cut takes effect, between 50 and 70 percent of
the drugs it administers would become money losers.
Boccia estimates that 55 percent of his patients are
covered by Medicare, making any changes to reimbursement
rates difficult to weather.
``When I look at the numbers, they don't add up,'' he said.
``Business 101 says we can't stay open if we don't cover our
costs.''

At this point, I yield 3 minutes to the ranking member of the
Committee on Natural Resources' Subcommittee on Energy and Mineral
Resources, the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Holt).
Mr. HOLT. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend from Massachusetts, a superb
Member of Congress, Mr. McGovern. I join him in saying that this
legislation represents an unwarranted delay on what should be a
noncontroversial piece of legislation.
H.R. 527 is a bill carefully written by Chairman Hastings, in
consultation with me and with Ranking Member Markey, with
Representative Flores,

[[Page H2319]]

and with many individuals and organizations that depend on a reliable,
fairly priced supply of helium. Now, most Americans give no thought to
our supply of helium; but a reliable supply of helium is essential for
health care imaging, for electronics manufacturing, and for many, many
other activities important to Americans today and in the future.
In line with the recommendations of the National Academy of Sciences,
which my friend from Utah mentioned, the bill succeeds in averting a
global helium crisis that would result from the closure of the Federal
Helium Reserve at the end of this fiscal year. The bill also fixes the
mechanism for helium pricing so that we can now provide a fair market
price to users and a positive return to taxpayers. So I support the
bipartisan agreement represented here in H.R. 527.
Yet by bringing this legislation to the floor under a rule, which is
really not necessary, with amendments and by scheduling a debate today,
which will end, maybe, an hour or two from now--and amendments
tomorrow, which will take an hour or so, stretched over 2 days--the
leadership has created a deliberate, irresponsible delay. We could have
dispensed with this in 10 minutes. My colleague said 60 minutes--okay.
Let's be generous--60 minutes--but we could have dispensed with this.
Instead, we spend 2 days on this, and in the 2 days we spend on this,
we are not considering legislation to create jobs, to provide education
and training for workers, to consider a conference on the budget
resolutions of the House and the Senate, or legislation to undo the
sequester imposed by the Republican majority and now affecting airport
delays and Head Start limitations and lost food inspections and delayed
medical research and so many other things. The bill could have been
considered and adopted under a suspension of the rules, but instead we
are here debating a rule.
It's an important issue. We've proposed a workable solution. There is
no controversy that I know of on this, so let's pass H.R. 527 without
delay and get on to all of these other issues. It's not as if there
aren't important problems facing this country.

{time} 1310

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
I appreciate the words that were given by the gentleman from New
Jersey. He is far too modest. You are a cosponsor of this bill. It's a
good bill. It was worked out well. This is not an unwarranted delay
bill. This is an important bill that solves problems for real people.
Once again, even though I think what you have done with your bill is
a very good job, there are others in this body who are not on the
Natural Resources Committee who would disagree, and that is why they
have proposed amendments. The only way to allow those amendments to be
discussed on the floor is not through suspension, but going through
regular order.
I appreciate also the comments that were made by other speakers as to
issues that we're taking. I do take one sense of umbrage at the idea
that we're going on a vacation again. I do not know how some people try
to view the district work period--to some it may be a vacation, but for
me it is not. When I go back to the district, at that time, I'm
constantly in meetings and going to places to meet with constituents
and find out how the actions and ideas of this body impact real people.
I note just in the history of Congress there occasionally have been
Speakers who did not like to allow people to go back and talk to their
constituents. You have the opportunity, if you're here all the time, of
hiding from constituents and not necessarily having that interface. So,
one Speaker, every time that particular Speaker allowed Members to go
back and interface with the districts and the constituents in the
districts, they always came back with a different opinion that had to
be remolded and reshaped.
Some people don't like the idea of actually interfacing. Some people
think if we never go back and talk to our constituents, that we're
hiding from them. That is why the district work period, to me, is not a
vacation. It's not a recess from what we're doing. It's a chance to
actually expand what we're doing so when we come back here we make
wiser decisions, or at least have a true understanding and implication
of what it does and how Congress impacts the real workings that deal
with real people. I appreciate that.
I also appreciate, once again, the concepts of sequestration. The
gentleman from Massachusetts, I think, makes some nice points about
sequestration. I think he's in the wrong spot, though. This body has,
numerous times before sequestration went into effect, passed laws to
blunt the impact of sequestration to solve the problem. We need to talk
to our friends on the other side of this building who refuse to even
discuss any of those bills that were passed in this body to solve the
problem before it hit. It was a great speech, wrong people. You need to
be talking to an element that is a lot more elderly than we are over on
this side, and I say that with grey hair.
Also, Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Let me respond to my friend from Utah by simply saying that I think
going on a week-long recess while people are being furloughed, while
cuts in medical research go forward, while we see cuts in programs like
WIC and cuts in programs like food banks and scientific research, I
think going on recess with all of this happening, quite frankly, is
unconscionable. That's running away from our responsibility here in
this Congress and running away from our responsibility to our
constituents.
The Democrats have had an alternative to sequestration. Mr. Van
Hollen has tried on countless occasions to have the Rules Committee
allow him the opportunity to bring his alternative to the floor. He's
been turned down every single time.
Again, I really appreciated my Republican friends who came down here
and were upset about the flight delays. They're upset about the flight
delays because, quite frankly, that impacts them directly. What was
missing from their outrage were the cuts in WIC, the cuts in food
banks, the cuts in medical research and the furloughs. Why aren't they
complaining about that as well? Maybe because it doesn't affect them
directly.
But I think the idea of leaving here for a week with this
sequestration in play is an absolute disgrace, and I reserve the
balance of my time.
Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Speaker, once again, a nice conversation. We
need to have that conversation with my friends in the Senate. We've
already sent two bills over there they haven't addressed. I don't know
how many more we need to address, but it would be nice if the Senate
did something.
With that, I yield as much time as she may consume to the gentlelady
from Florida (Ms. Ros-Lehtinen), a member of the Rules Committee.

Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. I thank the gentleman for the time.
I so agree with what the gentleman has been discussing, which is the
difference between recess and district work period. It is so important
for Members of Congress to maintain close attention and close ties with
the constituents we so proudly represent. If we don't go back home, if
we don't meet with constituents, if we don't talk to the Lions Clubs
and the Rotary Clubs and Chambers of Commerce and everyday people who
come to our congressional offices every day seeking help and remedy
from the bureaucracy of the Federal Government, we would really not
know what is going on in our congressional districts.
Many people prefer to move up to D.C., and they get the Beltway fever
and they rarely go back home. I think that's the wrong approach. I
value the time that we get to be in our district so we can be in touch
with our constituents. I'm lucky enough that Miami is not too far from
D.C. We have many flights every day, and so I'm able to go home every
weekend to be with my constituents. But it's difficult to really plan
very much without knowing for sure that you're going to be home for an
extended period of time, so I value the district work period.
This Saturday, for example, what is my day like? Well, we have a
student award ceremony where we're giving

[[Page H2320]]

awards to every student who has gotten good grades, who's had good
attendance, who's been most improved throughout the year. Then we'll
also be having an art competition at another local school. I'll be
meeting with human rights activists who have come from Cuba to talk
about the deteriorating human rights condition. We'll be having a get-
together with the Dade County Farm Bureau. It's a very extended day
that can only be possible when we have these district work periods.
On the issue of sequestration itself, as the gentleman, my colleague
on the Rules Committee, has pointed out time and time again, the House
has dealt with the sequestration problem not once, but twice. We have
passed bills and given them to the Senate. And I agree with the
gentleman from Utah when he says it's time for the Senate to do its
job. We have sent them the legislation. It's time for them to debate
it, send it back to us, and let's have a conference and see on what
points we can or cannot agree.
But if we keep passing bill after bill and the Senate just sits on
its hands--as it likes to do--and doesn't pass meaningful legislation,
doesn't even care to debate it, it's very difficult for us to get
ourselves out of this sequestration jam.
We are willing to work with the Senate, and we've made that point
very clear. And the way that we deliver that message very clearly is by
sending not one, but two bills over to the other body. We would like
those bills to be debated, and we would like them to settle on
legislation that we can both agree on that will not be a perfect bill,
but will address some of the major holes that we have with
sequestration, whether it's airport delays--whether they're real or
manufactured--whether they're problems of people accessing the social
service safety net that we want to provide for the most needy of our
constituency.
So I thank the gentleman for the time so that I can highlight that
this is not recess, that this is district work period. I don't know how
others handle their week at home, but I can tell you I've got a full
calendar, and it means working hard for the people in this job that I
really hold in such high esteem. I never forget that the people I work
for are the people with whom I'm going to meet next week, and those are
my constituents, the residents of the 27th District of Florida.
So we can't be successful Members of Congress unless we're in touch
with the people we represent. I enjoy that opportunity. Of course, I
get to go back to a lovely district like Miami, Florida. But whatever
district you represent, it's important to be in touch with our
constituents so they can tell us their needs, and then we can come back
here and fight so their needs are addressed in legislation like the
legislation we sent to the Senate not once, but twice, dealing with
these sequestration cuts and the devastating impacts it has on our
community.
So I thank the gentleman from Utah for his time. I hope that people
understand, especially our constituents understand, the value of
district work periods and that it will keep us more attuned to our
constituency and better able to address the needs that they are facing
each and every day.
We know that those needs are great. There is no way that we're
saying, There is no problem with sequestration; this is fine. Nobody is
saying that. These are real problems. We need to solve them. We have a
plan to do it, and we've done it twice.
So I thank the gentleman for the time, and I will continue to try to
work in a bipartisan manner in our Rules Committee, as well as in our
Foreign Affairs Committee, to see what we can do to make our Nation
safer, to secure our future for the next generation.
I'm proud to have with me here, Madison, a young lady who is from St.
Louis, Missouri. Today is Take Our Children to Work Day. Madison is not
my child, but she belongs to all of us; and I want to make sure that
the future for Madison is a bright future where she doesn't graduate
from college with terrible debt, where she has a lot of opportunities
available to her, where she knows that every path is available and open
to her, that there will be no problem for her, whether she's male or
female, what nationality, what religion, what ethnic background. This
is the land of opportunity and this is the land of equality. I want
that for all of the children of the United States of America. And I
think having Madison here with me today is a very important point to
say to my colleagues: We want a bright future for Madison. We don't
want to have her be shouldering this massive debt that we're piling
onto the next generation.

{time} 1320

If we continue to be not careful stewards of the taxpayer dollars,
that's what we'll be passing off to Madison--insurmountable debt and a
huge problem for her as she advances in her career.
So I thank the gentleman from Utah for the opportunity so we can
highlight the next generation of Americans, the Madisons, who are going
to inherit, we hope, a better society. And if we do our job right, they
will be able to inherit that better society.
I thank the gentleman for the time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Womack). Members are advised to not make
reference to persons on the floor as guests of the House.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I want to thank the gentlelady from Florida for her comments. I
appreciate the fact that she has a beautiful district in southern
Florida, and I appreciate the fact that she's going to spend her recess
going to a student awards ceremony to honor kids who have a good
attendance record.
But with all due respect, Mr. Speaker, I think my colleague's time,
and in effect all of our time, would be better spent trying to solve
the sequestration problem, trying to avoid deep cuts in medical
research that will cost jobs, that will delay advancements in medical
science, that perhaps could find cures for diseases like Alzheimer's or
Parkinson's or diabetes. By the way, if we found a cure for one of
those diseases, it would help make Medicare and Medicaid solvent
forever and ever and ever. So investment actually does pay off.
I appreciate the fact that she brought a guest on the floor here
today, a young student. But I would simply say that the sequestration
cuts education. Sequestration actually cuts education. It will be more
difficult to fund our schools. It will be more difficult to be able to
provide students with the financial aid that they need to go to college
because of the sequestration.
So with all due respect about all of the wonderful things that my
colleagues will be doing during their recess, it is still a recess. It
is a week that we are not dealing with the budget. It is a week we are
not dealing with sequestration.
And by the way, I understand that it has become fashionable to blame
the Senate for everything, but when it comes to the budget, the House
has passed a budget. The Senate has passed a budget. We're waiting for
the House to go to conference. So we're going to vote in a little
while, and then that's it for the day. We're done. We're done for the
day. Why aren't we going to conference with the Senate on a budget? Why
are we not doing something meaningful?
So with that, Mr. Speaker, I again respect the itinerary of my
colleague from Florida, but I'll tell you, there are lot of workers who
are being furloughed who are expecting us to come to some sort of
solution so they don't lose a week or a month's pay, which will make it
more difficult for them to pay their mortgage and their utility bills,
and for their kids. This is urgent, and we're not dealing with it.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. BISHOP of Utah. I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from
New York (Ms. Slaughter), the distinguished ranking member of the
Committee on Rules.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I rise again today, as I have ever since
we started this term in January, to talk about the lack of work that
this House of Representatives has produced and how absolutely
devastating it is to the public and how angry they are that week after
week we do absolutely nothing here of any importance.
One-House bills--this week, I think, is a prime example of that. We
came in, went into the Rules Committee, put a

[[Page H2321]]

rule that we knew would not go to the Senate, and we knew the President
would veto it. But we spent time on it until suddenly some groups got
very angry about it and said, Well, you'd better not vote for that. It
was pulled off the floor yesterday after we'd done the rule. And
everybody who voted for the rule is already on record that they wanted
that bill to pass. I think that's important. If they were trying to
escape making some conservative groups mad, they've done that already.
But Frank Pallone, Representative Pallone from New Jersey, who was
managing that bill for the Democrats, got no notice at all that the
bill was not going to be taken up, and was standing here almost open-
mouthed when he found out he had nothing to do.
Now this bill we have here today could have been done on suspension
without any question. There's nothing here--helium. This whole thing is
filled with hot air.
And the sequestration--I've said and said as recently as yesterday
that Congressman Van Hollen has come to the Rules Committee three
times, and four times he has tried to get a bill on the floor which
would take away sequestration and would provide all of the money by
other means, sensitive ways to cut, that sequestration is going to
take. But no, he didn't have a chance to do it.
So now we're going to worry about airplanes, which is important
because I live in a district that does not necessarily have the best
flight schedules, but I'm also concerned about the cancer patients in
this country who are not getting their shots because of sequestration.
I'm worried about the at least 70,000 young kids who have been cut out
of Head Start because of sequestration.
The answer for us here is to make Van Hollen in order for tomorrow
and take away sequestration and follow his bill, and we'll get the same
amount of money.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentlewoman has expired.
Mr. McGOVERN. I yield an additional 1 minute to the gentlewoman.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Sequestration was an awful thing. The whole idea of it
made absolutely no sense. And it was so stupid that I think that most
Members in this House really thought they'd never see it; that nobody
in here would be dumb enough to do that. Mr. McGovern and I were smart
enough to vote against it, weren't we, Jim? So if you voted for it,
it's your bill. But let me tell you, we need to get rid of
sequestration. We have a chance to do that tomorrow. Obviously for the
optics of the thing, we have to stay here and do something because we
haven't done anything this whole week. If we're going to do something,
make it meaningful. Let's take away sequestration. Let's get people
back to work. The people who are on unemployment who are barely making
it, poor souls, because they can't find a job because the economy is so
bad, are having that cut as well.
We have done enormous harm with this folly, and we have an
opportunity to heal it. Let Van Hollen's bill come to the floor
tomorrow. In a bipartisan way, let's discuss that with our leadership
and your leadership, bring that out here, and bring this thing to a
close.
What we're suffering now and what people are seeing now with flight
delays is only a small piece of it. Every day it's going to get worse.
And we will rue the day we had all of these opportunities with Mr. Van
Hollen to get rid of it, and certainly we will rue the day if we don't
make it in order for tomorrow when we're apparently trying to make
work.
Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Speaker, if one needs an MRI, this helium
bill is extremely significant. If one needs to use microchips, this
helium bill is significant. This bill solves problems of real people.
And I recognize that we have other issues that people wish to discuss.
That's great. This one is one that we should do now and get it over to
the Senate and see if once again the Senate actually will do something,
at least on this issue, which has bipartisan support. It's a good bill.
I'm going to reserve the balance of my time, but I'm ready to move on
as soon as the other side is.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I'll close, but I would be interested to
know whether anybody on the other side can tell me when we might go to
conference on the budget? The House has passed a budget. The Senate has
passed a budget. I thought the whole point of getting the Senate to
pass a budget was to go to conference and try to work out the
differences. I don't know whether anybody on the other side of the
aisle has any information on when we might go to conference. It's the
House's responsibility to ask for a conference. I'm just trying to get
a sense. If not today, will it be tomorrow? Surely it won't be next
week because we're on break next week. Anybody?
Okay, thank you for that informative answer.
Mr. Speaker, let me close by saying I have no problem with this
helium bill. There is value to passing this bill. It doesn't have to be
passed today. It could be passed anywhere up until the end of this
fiscal year, but I'm fine with passing it today. It's not
controversial. This could pass really quickly, but we are stretching it
over 2 days for reasons that none of us can quite fathom.

{time} 1330

But the problem is not with the helium bill. The problem is with what
we're not doing. And as we speak, there are people who are losing their
jobs. There are people who are being furloughed. There are cancer
patients who are not getting access to their treatments. There are poor
women who benefit from the WIC program who are not getting that
benefit. There are food banks that are being closed all around this
country.
There is medical research that is being curtailed. There is
scientific research that is being curtailed, all while we speak. And
all this is vitally important to our economy. All this is vitally
important to our economy. And yet we're doing nothing. We're doing
nothing. We're just going to kind of wait it out.
And what we're saying on this side of the aisle is we ought to do
something. We ought to be debating what is urgent right now before the
American people, and that is the cuts that are impacting them as a
result of sequestration. That's what we should be talking about right
now. That's what we should be debating. I don't know why that's such a
controversial idea.
But we're not. We're going to do this bill, which is not urgent, and
we're going to go home for a week, the sixth week of recess since
January, the sixth week of recess.
And, again, I appreciate the fact that we all have busy schedules
when we go home--I do as well--but the idea of leaving here while
people are being furloughed, while families are being hurt, I just find
unconscionable.
And so our complaint is with the fact that we're not addressing the
central issue before the American people today, and that is these
devastating cuts. And I would like to think that we could get some clue
from somebody that, at some point in the near future, we would be able
to deal with it.
Just one final point. My friends on the other side of the aisle
embrace this idea of sequestration, so my friends own it. I think it's
your responsibility to at least provide us the forum to find a way out
of it.
I will close by saying, Mr. Speaker, that, again, we have no problem
with the helium bill. We could do this in an hour, with all the
amendments. That's how noncontroversial it is.
But the idea that we're stretching it over 2 days, and we're not
dealing with these devastating cuts and sequestration, I think, is just
wrong.
With that, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Speaker, I have enjoyed being held
accountable for the Senate's inaction on some of these issues. However,
we do have a bill before us that is a good bill, that solves a real
problem, and that helps real people. And I promise you that if we use
this bill, or if we pass this bill, which has amendments that suggests
that there has to be some controversy applied, that if, indeed, we were
to pass this bill we would make the desert bloom.
Mr. Speaker, in a moment, I will offer an amendment to the rule. The
amendment will provide suspension authority for potential consideration
of additional measures prior to the district work period next week
where we will be meeting with people.

[[Page H2322]]

Amendment Offered by Mr. Bishop of Utah

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Speaker, I offer an amendment to the
resolution.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will report the amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:

At the end of the resolution, add the following:
Sec. 5. It shall be in order at any time through the
legislative day of April 26, 2013, for the Speaker to
entertain motions that the House suspend the rules as though
under clause 1 of rule XV.

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time,
and I move the previous question on the amendment and on the
resolution.
The previous question was ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the amendment.
The amendment was agreed to.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the resolution, as
amended.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 231,
nays 177, not voting 24, as follows:

[Roll No. 124]

YEAS--231

Aderholt
Alexander
Amash
Amodei
Bachmann
Bachus
Barber
Barletta
Barr
Benishek
Bentivolio
Bera (CA)
Bilirakis
Bishop (UT)
Black
Blackburn
Bonner
Boustany
Bridenstine
Brooks (AL)
Brooks (IN)
Broun (GA)
Buchanan
Bucshon
Calvert
Camp
Campbell
Cantor
Capito
Carney
Carter
Cassidy
Chabot
Chaffetz
Coble
Coffman
Cole
Collins (GA)
Collins (NY)
Cook
Costa
Cotton
Crawford
Crenshaw
Culberson
Daines
Davis, Rodney
DeFazio
Denham
Dent
DeSantis
DesJarlais
Diaz-Balart
Duckworth
Duffy
Duncan (SC)
Duncan (TN)
Ellmers
Farenthold
Fincher
Fitzpatrick
Fleischmann
Fleming
Forbes
Fortenberry
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gabbard
Garcia
Gardner
Garrett
Gerlach
Gibbs
Gibson
Gingrey (GA)
Gohmert
Goodlatte
Gosar
Gowdy
Graves (GA)
Graves (MO)
Griffin (AR)
Griffith (VA)
Grimm
Guthrie
Hall
Hanna
Harper
Harris
Hartzler
Hastings (WA)
Heck (NV)
Herrera Beutler
Holding
Horsford
Hudson
Huelskamp
Huizenga (MI)
Hultgren
Hunter
Hurt
Issa
Jenkins
Johnson (OH)
Johnson, Sam
Jones
Jordan
Joyce
Kelly (PA)
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kinzinger (IL)
Kline
Labrador
LaMalfa
Lamborn
Lance
Lankford
Latham
Latta
LoBiondo
Long
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Lummis
Maffei
Marino
Massie
McCarthy (CA)
McCaul
McClintock
McHenry
McIntyre
McKeon
McKinley
McMorris Rodgers
Meadows
Meehan
Messer
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller, Gary
Mullin
Mulvaney
Murphy (FL)
Murphy (PA)
Neugebauer
Noem
Nugent
Nunes
Olson
Owens
Palazzo
Paulsen
Pearce
Perry
Peters (CA)
Petri
Pittenger
Pitts
Poe (TX)
Pompeo
Posey
Price (GA)
Radel
Reed
Reichert
Renacci
Ribble
Rice (SC)
Rigell
Roby
Roe (TN)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Rokita
Rooney
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Ross
Rothfus
Royce
Runyan
Ryan (WI)
Salmon
Scalise
Schweikert
Scott, Austin
Sensenbrenner
Shimkus
Shuster
Simpson
Sinema
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Southerland
Stewart
Stivers
Stockman
Terry
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Tiberi
Tipton
Turner
Upton
Valadao
Wagner
Walberg
Walden
Walorski
Weber (TX)
Webster (FL)
Wenstrup
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Wolf
Womack
Woodall
Yoder
Yoho
Young (AK)
Young (IN)

NAYS--177

Andrews
Barrow (GA)
Bass
Beatty
Becerra
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Bonamici
Brady (PA)
Braley (IA)
Brown (FL)
Brownley (CA)
Bustos
Butterfield
Capps
Capuano
Cardenas
Carson (IN)
Cartwright
Castor (FL)
Castro (TX)
Chu
Cicilline
Clarke
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Conyers
Cooper
Courtney
Crowley
Cuellar
Cummings
Davis (CA)
Davis, Danny
DeGette
Delaney
DeLauro
DelBene
Deutch
Dingell
Doggett
Doyle
Edwards
Ellison
Engel
Enyart
Eshoo
Esty
Farr
Fattah
Foster
Frankel (FL)
Fudge
Gallego
Garamendi
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hahn
Hanabusa
Hastings (FL)
Heck (WA)
Higgins
Himes
Hinojosa
Holt
Honda
Hoyer
Huffman
Israel
Jackson Lee
Jeffries
Johnson, E. B.
Kaptur
Keating
Kelly (IL)
Kennedy
Kildee
Kilmer
Kind
Kirkpatrick
Kuster
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lee (CA)
Levin
Lewis
Lipinski
Loebsack
Lofgren
Lowenthal
Lowey
Lujan Grisham (NM)
Lujan, Ben Ray (NM)
Maloney, Carolyn
Maloney, Sean
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum
McDermott
McGovern
McNerney
Meeks
Meng
Michaud
Moore
Moran
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Negrete McLeod
Nolan
O'Rourke
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor (AZ)
Payne
Pelosi
Perlmutter
Peters (MI)
Peterson
Pingree (ME)
Pocan
Price (NC)
Quigley
Rahall
Rangel
Richmond
Roybal-Allard
Ruiz
Ruppersberger
Ryan (OH)
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schrader
Schwartz
Scott (VA)
Scott, David
Serrano
Sewell (AL)
Shea-Porter
Sherman
Sires
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Speier
Swalwell (CA)
Takano
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Titus
Tonko
Tsongas
Van Hollen
Vargas
Veasey
Vela
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walz
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watt
Waxman
Welch
Wilson (FL)
Yarmuth

NOT VOTING--24

Barton
Brady (TX)
Burgess
Conaway
Connolly
Cramer
Flores
Granger
Grayson
Hensarling
Johnson (GA)
Lynch
Marchant
Markey
Miller, George
Nunnelee
Polis
Rush
Schneider
Schock
Sessions
Stutzman
Williams
Young (FL)

{time} 1356

Ms. CASTOR of Florida and Mrs. NAPOLITANO changed their vote from
``yea'' to ``nay.''
So the resolution, as amended, was agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

____________________