[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 159 (2013), Part 4]
[House]
[Pages 5947-5955]
[From the U.S. 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,

[[Page 5948]]

     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. 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. 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

[[Page 5949]]

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 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

[[Page 5950]]

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.
  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:

       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 care 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.

  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.

[[Page 5951]]

     ``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, 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

[[Page 5952]]

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 DC, 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 
DC. 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 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.

[[Page 5953]]



                              {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 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

[[Page 5954]]

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.


                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)

[[Page 5955]]


     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.

                          ____________________