Working Families Flexibility Act of 2013

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. 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

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.

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. ``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. 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. 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. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Slaughter), the distinguished ranking member of the Committee on Rules.

I yield an additional 1 minute to the gentlewoman.

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.

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.

Madam Speaker, I thank the gentlelady for yielding me the customary 30 minutes, and I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Madam Speaker, I rise today in opposition to the rule and the underlying bill, which should be called the More Work, Less Pay bill.

As my colleagues know, last week Majority Leader Cantor outlined his party's agenda for the month of May. The words he used to describe it was as a ``full legislative agenda,'' yet here we are only debating this bill on the floor of the House and I think finishing the business of the House around 1:30 p.m. today with plenty of time for Members of Congress to play golf, to go to the beach, whatever they want to do. This is hardly a full legislative agenda.

Let me add, Madam Speaker, that this bill is about overtime. Under this current legislative agenda, Congress wouldn't even come close to qualifying for overtime at a time when we have increasing national needs, balancing the budget, moving forward with jobs and the economy, comprehensive immigration reform. There are so many issues crying out for our attention, but here we are debating yet another bill that not only won't go anywhere, but also would actually make life harder and more unpredictable for American families.

This bill claims to provide working families flexibility, but in reality it allows employers to avoid paying overtime and get interest- free loans from their own employees.

There are many hourly employees who struggle holding two or three jobs, depending on overtime to pay bills, to keep food on the family table. If this bill were to become law, employers would be able to save a couple of bucks by essentially requiring people, in effect, to take comp time instead of overtime pay if they want extra hours.

Many American workers want to work more, not less. Under this bill, people's paychecks would be reduced and people don't have a real choice. It's no wonder that the vast majority of labor unions and workers oppose this bill and are not asking for this bill or this ``kind of help.''

I also want to correct something that has been claimed by my Republican colleagues, that somehow this bill gives private sector employees the same protections as public sector employees. That is not true. Most public sector workers are already protected against arbitrary and unfair treatment by civil service laws. Private sector workers don't have anything like that kind of protection.

That's why my colleague, Mr. Tim Bishop of New York, offered an amendment in committee specifying that private sector employers could provide comp time instead of overtime if they provided the same job security protections that public employees already receive. But this amendment was voted down in the Rules Committee yesterday, and we're not even allowed here on the floor of the House, where we're going to finish by 1:30 p.m., to have a debate. Somehow, there is not even enough time. Ten minutes is all we asked for on Mr. Bishop of New York's amendment.

Madam Speaker, the presentation of this bill is not consistent with the content of the bill. Of course it sounds good. Why wouldn't employees want the choice of being able to choose how they take their time? It all sounds good.

But like so many things that Congress does, the devil is in the details.

Contrary to what this bill says, employers can already give their employees time off if they so choose. Many do. We had Representative Joe Courtney in our Rules Committee yesterday who talked about when he was in the private sector and he had employees who had to attend school meetings, et cetera, he gave them time off. That's what most responsible employers do. We don't need legislation to tell employers it's okay to give their employees comp time.

Contrary to what the majority party here in the House says, employees wouldn't get paid under this bill until the end of the year for saved comp time--at no interest. No interest. So effectively, an interest- free loan to the company. Let's say an employee does overtime, works 45 hours a week for 3 weeks, accruing 15 hours of overtime. If they want this so-called flexibility that's provided under this bill, they choose to say, ``I may use this as comp time.'' That's their choice. However, they pay dearly for that choice in a number of ways.

Number one, if they don't use that comp time after a year, they get paid the original amount by the company. While it is true that if they got a raise in the intervening period, they get paid at that level of the raise, there is no accounting for interest or the net present value of those dollars. That's less of an impact when inflation is 1 or 2 percent, but still, it's an interest-free loan to the company. There's a much greater impact should interest rates ever return to their historical norms. And it wasn't that long ago that interest rates were in the high single digits, even double digits, effectively taking money from the worker and giving it to the company.

Number two, let's say the employer does want to use this comp time. Effectively, the employer has a unilateral veto over that. All they have to do is show that it creates undue disruption. That's the standard of unilateral employer veto.

Now, this is nothing like what occurs under the Family and Medical Leave Act, the FMLA. We've heard them say it's the same; it's not. Under FMLA it's a factor that leave doesn't create undue disruption. There's a variety of factors. It's not a sole determinant as determined by the employer.

In this case, the language is wide open to effectively provide a complete veto right of when that employee takes their time off. So again, our friend works 45 hours a weeks for 3 weeks, accrues 15 hours of overtime, and they get sold on this program. They say, ``I'll set aside the 15 hours.'' They try to take it off for their kid's birthday, they try to take it off when their kid is home from school. The employer says, ``No, you can't take it off that week.'' So it turns out that at the end of the year they still have their 15 hours.

They finally get paid, but because of net present value and interest, they are out 2 or 3 percent of that. Again, with higher interest, they could be out 10 percent. They could be out 15 percent of that. We can and must do better for American workers.

This bill would have a devastating impact for workers in my home State of Colorado. Me and my staff talked to Debbie Olander from United Food and Commercial Workers, Local 7. Debbie is a leader in our community, and she told me that wage step is already a big problem for workers in Colorado, and this bill would make it easier for employers to avoid overtime obligations and make it harder for employees who need those hours to pay those bills.

What happens if the employer goes out of business in the intervening year? Of course, the person whose wages are due can line up with other creditors, but who has the time or, if you're living paycheck to paycheck, the ability to wait to see if you ever get paid by a bankrupt employer? Instead of improving the lives of working families by giving greater flexibility, this bill allows employers to avoid paying overtime.

My Democratic colleagues on the Education and Workforce Committee and I agree that we must give working families flexibility to meet workplace and family needs. That's why we support bills like the Paycheck Fairness Act, which would help ensure that women are paid as much as men in the workplace, and the Healthy Families Act, which would establish a national paid sick day standard.

I've also heard from hundreds of workers from my district and across the country who support the Employment Nondiscrimination Act, which would prohibit workplace discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity. In more than half of the States, it's still perfectly legal in this day and age for an employer to fire an employee just because they're gay and what they do in their off work time. It's none of the employer's business who an employee is dating. To think that in this day and age it's legal in half the States for an employer to fire an employee because of who they're dating is absolutely absurd. We need to solve that by passing the Employment Nondiscrimination Act.

American workers are asking for these kinds of protections, unlike this sort of program that's being discussed today, which workers oppose or don't see as necessary. Well, you know, based on again the schedule for Congress, me and my colleagues aren't about to accrue any overtime anytime soon unless things change around here. Here we are, examining bills that are catchy, have good titles, might sound good on the surface, but don't address any of the real issues faced by American workers, the American economy, or our country as a whole. We need an agenda that's consistent with the needs of working families.

Madam Speaker, despite this fixation on changing the image and appealing to voters, many on the other side of the aisle seem to be recycling old ideas. In fact, an identical version of this bill was introduced in 1996, 1997, and 2003. It failed to pass the House each time. Madam Speaker, what this body needs is not just new branding, it needs new ideas, ideas that will actually help working families and make our country stronger.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Before further yielding, I yield myself a moment to respond.

I thank the gentlelady for the correction. What I was referring to is the vote in the Rules Committee yesterday on an open rule which we voted on in committee. Had we considered this bill under an open rule, I or Mr. Bishop, or any other Member of this body, could have brought forth his amendment.

You're correct, it was not submitted to the Rules Committee. It was offered in the committee of jurisdiction, on which I also serve. And I argued, you might recall, to the chair yesterday that this bill is a fine candidate for an open rule. Given that there's nothing else this body's doing today and we're getting done at 1:30, we might as well allow amendments like Mr. Bishop's and others to be able to be debated by the House and considered by the full House.

I also want to discuss something that the gentlelady said, something about how a mischaracterization of the opponents of this bill is somehow saying the private sector is bad or the government's good. I haven't heard anybody argue that. The private sector is great. The private sector is a chief engine of economic growth. This discussion is about the private sector.

In fact, it's the other side that's somehow trying to model policies that they say already exist in the public sector and force the private sector to comply with them. We're not here seeking to try to copy what exists in the public sector and apply it to the private sector. The private sector is the primary engine of economic growth.

I think where perhaps we disagree is that I hear from many on the other side that somehow government is bad. I believe, and many on my side believe, that the minimum amount of government is necessary to ensure the success of the private sector, to ensure the rules are followed and there's an open and competitive environment that allows the private sector to thrive and succeed and create jobs for American families.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee).

Mr. Speaker, if we defeat the previous question, I will offer an amendment to the rule to bring up H.R. 377, Representative DeLauro's Paycheck Fairness Act. To discuss her bill, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro).

Before further yielding, I want to address this fallacious concept that the gentlelady from North Carolina has brought up in previous debate as well as this one that somehow the White House discriminates against women. Again, that's been proven as untrue. We actually have a young lady on our Rules Committee staff who worked for the White House and tells us she earned the same amount as men.

Of course, for the same job, women get paid the same amount. That's what paycheck fairness is about. It doesn't say if you do a different job you get paid the same amount, and it doesn't mean that every man and every woman is compensated the same. It's just for the same job, same pay. As for the Obama administration, every one of their actions and the White House's actions have been consistent with that. We believe it should apply to the private sector because, of course, not every woman in the country has the privilege of working for the White House.

We're talking about American families with real private sector jobs out there, not these government jobs that the other side keeps alluding to.

With that, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Capps.)

Before further yielding, I want to again address this great and sudden desire that the gentlelady from North Carolina has expressed to make sure that government policies apply to the private sector, to try to say somehow the way that government employees are treated needs to be the way that every private sector employee is treated. Usually it's the private sector that leads the way, not Big Government like the gentlelady from North Carolina is arguing. In fact, it's even a misinterpretation of what the public sector does.

The public sector has civil service protections for its employees. That's something that doesn't exist in the private sector. That's why, if we had been able to, under an open rule--which we don't have because, of course, somehow this body has to finish up by 2 p.m. so everybody can go home. But if we were allowed to have an open rule and actually bring forth amendments on this, we would be able to introduce Mr. Bishop's amendment, which would have facilitated this discussion of, well, if it's good enough for the goose, it's good enough for the gander. If the Republicans are so keen to apply public sector personnel policy to the private sector, then why not apply civil service protections to the private sector?

Again, the truth of the matter is there's a night-and-day difference between the types of protections and policies that public sector and private sector employees have. One of the goals of the Civil Service Act was to add a degree of professionalism to public sector jobs, to take away the patronage components that had a corrupting influence on the system. By and large it succeeded in that goal, to its great credit. It's a very different set of rules that we have with regard to the private sector.

So, again, I think that that is, to a certain degree, a false analogy, and I hope that the information I provided helps correct that in the eyes of those who are listening.

With that, Mr. Speaker, I'd like to yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur), a colleague of mine.

I yield the gentlelady an additional 30 seconds.

I would just like to indicate I have one remaining speaker.

With that, I would like to yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Maloney).

Mr. Speaker, I am prepared to close.

I would like to inquire if the gentlelady has any remaining speakers.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the remainder of the time.

First of all, conflating somehow paycheck fairness with compensation of women at the White House is comparing apples and oranges.

Nothing that we are supporting or that the Paycheck Fairness Act includes says that women and men should all be paid the same regardless of what their job is. It simply says ``equal work, equal pay.'' There's no evidence in the Daily Caller or anywhere else that for the same job, in the White House or anywhere in the administration, that women are paid less. They are not.

Even if you had paycheck fairness--again, we passed our law; it becomes the law of the land in the private sector--it doesn't mean every woman gets the same pay as every man. It simply means that for the same job men and women get the same pay. It is quite possible there could still be a differential either way. There's not a problem with that. It depends on what jobs people have. But for the same job, it should be the law of the land, just as it has been President Obama's policy that men and women receive the same pay.

Mr. Speaker, this bill, the ``more work, less pay bill,'' is yet another attempt to roll back workers' rights under the guise of doing just the opposite.

I wish we were here talking about things that would benefit American families like the Paycheck Fairness Act to ensure women receive equal pay for equal work; making sure that people can't be fired from their job just because of who they date. It is none of the boss's darn business.

But instead of collaborating with Democrats to produce a compromise bill we can be proud of, instead, this House is considering a bill that would

weaken over time and is nearly identical to bills that have failed in three prior Congresses.

There are many measures that we could be taking up to help grow the economy, reduce the deficit, create jobs, invest in the middle class, replace our broken immigration system with one that works; but this bill is none of those.

I wanted to point out and highlight the work of the Democrats on the Educational and the Workforce Committee. The Web site is Democrats.edworkforce.house.gov. They produced a video that shows exactly what this ``more work, less pay'' legislation is.

Mr. Speaker, I support giving American workers and families more flexibility. There could be a way to work together; but, again, this body has not done so. It does just the opposite. Instead of having an open rule under which many of us could bring forth amendments to discuss, Democratic Members offered several sensible amendments, which were rejected by the House majority, both in the committee of jurisdiction and the Rules Committee.

Mr. Speaker, if we defeat the previous question, I will offer an amendment to the rule to bring up H.R. 377, Representative DeLauro's Paycheck Fairness Act, of which I am an original cosponsor.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of the amendment in the Record along with extraneous material immediately prior to the vote on the previous question.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' and defeat the previous question so we can bring up the Paycheck Fairness Act. I urge a ``no'' vote on this restrictive rule and the bill, and I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Madam Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 198 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Madam Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Polis), pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only.

General Leave

Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks.

House Resolution 198 provides for a structured rule providing for consideration of H.R. 1406, the Working Families Flexibility Act of 2013.

Madam Speaker, it's hard to raise a family and earn a living at the same time. The reality is that every hour you spend working to provide for your family is an hour you can't spend with your family, seeing your children off the first day of school, taking them to a doctor's appointment, or attending parent-teacher conferences. As a mother who worked while my daughter was growing up, I understand the firsthand

struggles of working parents. That is why my colleagues and I have introduced H.R. 1406, the Working Families Flexibility Act.

This commonsense legislation will allow private sector workers to choose paid time off instead of cash wages as compensation for working overtime, which is the same privilege that Federal, State, and local government employees have been able to choose for over 30 years.

The Working Families Flexibility Act is pro-family, pro-worker legislation that gives workers the flexibility to spend time with family, attend parent-teacher conferences, care for aging parents, or attend to other family needs that may arise.

If an employer and an employee agree on comp time, then the paid time off must be granted at time-and-a-half for each hour of overtime worked. Labor unions support flexible overtime compensation for their own members, and this benefit is already included in many public sector union collective bargaining agreements.

The flexible approach offered by this bill has worked for public sector employees since 1985. If the policy works for our public service employees, it will work for our private sector employees, as well. Fair is fair, Madam Speaker.

The bill maintains protections for workers to ensure that this new flexibility is not abused by making the decision to receive comp time completely voluntary and allows an employee to change his or her mind if he or she initially chooses comp time but later decides to receive cash wages for overtime. All existing protections in the Fair Labor Standards Act remain in effect under this legislation, and it is up to the employee when he or she decides to use accrued comp time. Additionally, an employee cannot be intimidated, coerced, or otherwise forced to accept comp time in lieu of cash wages for overtime.

The legislation also maintains all existing enforcement remedies for employees if an employer fails to uphold the agreement, and employers must provide 30 days' notice to employees if comp time will no longer be offered.

H.R. 1406 provides proper protection and flexibility for employees and will help American workers better balance the needs of family and the workplace. I urge my colleagues to support this rule and the underlying bill.

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

Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume to respond to the gentleman from Colorado.

Madam Speaker, this bill sounds good because it is good. This is the theme from our colleagues across the aisle: everything about the private sector is bad; everything about government is good. That is their constant theme. This bill allows voluntary participation by employees. It does not require things.

I would also like to point out to my colleague from across the aisle, who is very quick to point out any mistake that I might make, is we did not have an amendment from Representative Bishop in the Rules Committee yesterday. Representative Bishop's amendment was offered in the Education Committee, but was not offered in the Rules Committee yesterday.

I would also like to say that government employees do not get interest paid on the time that they eventually get paid for instead of comp time, so we are not setting up a double standard here. What we're trying to do is eliminate a double standard, again, that our colleagues across the aisle love to have--bash the private sector.

Madam Speaker, we live in the greatest country in the world, and what made us a great country? Look at the rest of the world. What's made us a great country is the rule of law, which means we believe everybody should be treated the same way. It's our capitalistic system which has worked wonderfully well for this country, and every other system has failed all across the world. We don't need to do much but to look at what is happening in the rest of the world and how sorry their economies are, and it's our Judeo-Christian underpinnings. Those are the things that I think have made us great, Madam Speaker, and this bill will allow us to give people who work in the private sector, which is part of what's made us such a great country, the same privileges that people get who work in the public sector.

With that, Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to my distinguished colleague, the gentlewoman from Kansas (Ms. Jenkins).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to my distinguished colleague from Missouri (Mrs. Hartzler).

Mr. Speaker, I would believe that the comments of my colleague from Connecticut would be a little more sincere if she would direct the issue of pay disparity to the White House. The White House needs to do something about pay disparity. If we had leaders who led by example, then the White House would straighten out the pay disparity that exists there.

Also, my colleagues don't seem to want to talk about the bill before us today because it is such commonsense legislation. They have no real arguments to offer about defeating it, so they want to distract the American people onto other issues.

With that, Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to my colleague from Indiana (Mr. Stutzman).

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

As my colleague from California knows, I am very fond of her and respect her a great deal; but I want to say that this bill is not a bad bill. This bill does not roll back the rights of workers at all.

And if the bill is so bad and what it does is give fairness to people in the private sector and it gives to the people in the private sector the same rights and privileges that people in the public sector have, then why are my colleagues not trying to roll back those rights for the public sector? It would make sense that all the horrible things they've said about this bill which apply to the public sector you would want to protect the public sector.

But that's not what my colleagues are doing. They're simply saying it isn't right to let the private sector employees have the same rights and privileges that public sector employees have. It doesn't make any sense for them to make that argument. It just doesn't make any sense to do that.

Mr. Speaker, the Working Families Flexibility Act makes it easier for American workers to juggle the needs of family and the workplace. That's what it accomplishes.

I want to urge the people watching this debate to read the bill. Unlike the thousand-page bill that came out that people have to ``wait until it passes'' before they understand what's in it, before we understand what's in it, this bill is basically 8 pages long. Any American can read this bill and understand it. So I would say to you, if you doubt what we are saying on our side of the aisle, read the bill. That is the best way for the American public to be informed.

Mr. Speaker, as we consider it, there are some things to keep in mind.

First, it in no way undermines longstanding essential worker safeguards or forces workers to give up overtime pay if that's how they choose to be compensated. It simply provides an additional level of flexibility that government workers already enjoy. I don't know how many more ways we can make that point, Mr. Speaker, but we will continue to do that.

Further, the bill does not allow employers to bully employees into picking comp time over cash payment. It provides new important safeguards to ensure that the choice to use comp time over cash wages is truly voluntary. Employees can change their minds and request overtime cash payment in lieu of unused comp time.

For employees represented by a labor organization, the labor organization and the employer must first reach an agreement to provide this benefit before the employee can choose to exercise it. For an employee who is not a member of a labor organization, the agreement is between the employer and the individual employee and must be entered into knowingly and voluntarily by the employee and may not be a condition of employment.

The bill does not change the 40-hour workweek or how overtime is currently calculated and accrued, and it does not affect comp time provisions regarding employees of Federal, State, or local governments.

Mr. Speaker, in fiscal year 2012, IRS employees accrued 246,450 hours of comp time in lieu of overtime pay. That amounts to 30,806 full 8- hour days. Employees at the Department of Labor accrued 51,097 hours of comp time, or 6,387 full 8-hour days. Employees at the Department of Education accrued 12,408 hours of comp time, or 1,551 full 8-hour days.

It's clear that Federal employees appreciate this flexibility. What is unclear is why my colleagues on the other side of the aisle are so hell-bent on denying private sector employees this same flexibility. What's good for the goose is good for the gander.

We hear the word ``fairness'' from the other side of the aisle constantly. This bill is fair, Mr. Speaker. H.R. 1406 simply affords private sector employees the same flexibility that Federal, State, and local government employees have enjoyed for over 30 years. It is unconscionable to me that our colleagues would vote against this and say you should be a second-class citizen if you work in the private sector.

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

Mr. Speaker, I assume the gentleman from Colorado has additional speakers, but at this time I would like to reserve the balance of my time.

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

A little while ago we had a debate about the pay in the White House. I have an article from the Daily Caller that I would like to enter into the Record, and I will quote briefly from the article. The article is dated January 15, 2013, posted by Caroline May:

While President Obama handily won the women's vote by 11

percentage points in November over Republican nominee Mitt

Romney, his administration paid the women on his payroll less

than his male employees last year.

A Daily Caller analysis of the administration's ``2012

Annual Report to Congress on White House Staff'' shows that

while women comprised about half of the 468 staffers--as the

President touted during his press conference Monday--they

also earned about 13 percent less, on average, than their

male counterparts.

The median 2012 salary for female employees of the White

House was $62,000; for men that number was $71,000.

The article ends with a quote from New York Democratic Representative Charlie Rangel. He, however, called Obama's failure to appoint more women and minorities to high-profile positions ``embarrassing as hell.''

``The questions I've heard are fair,'' Rangel said January 10 on MSNBC. ``The record does speak for itself.''

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

[From the Daily Caller, Jan. 15, 2013]

Obama White House Paid Women Staffers Less Than Men in 2012

By Caroline May

While President Barack Obama handily won the women's vote

by 11 percentage points in November over Republican nominee

Mitt Romney, his administration paid the women on his payroll

less than his male employees last year.

A Daily Caller analysis of the administration's ``2012

Annual Report to Congress on White House Staff'' shows that

while women comprised about half of the 468 staffers--as the

president touted during his press conference Monday--they

also earned about 13 percent less, on average, than their

male counterparts.

The median 2012 salary for female employees of the White

House was $62,000; for men that number was $71,000.

The DC calculated the median male and female salaries by

determining employee genders based on their names. In cases

where the gender was not clear, The DC either identified the

specific employee in other ways or--in a few cases--assigned

gender based on the most common use of a given name according

to databases of baby names.

The 2012 pay disparity represented an improvement from the

disparity in 2011 figures the Washington Free Beacon reported

last year. According to that analysis, the median female

compensation in the White House was $60,000--$2,000 less than

in 2012--and the male employees' median was unchanged at

$71,000. That amounted to an 18 percent difference.

In his statement last year declaring April 17 Equal Pay

Day, Obama lamented the pay disparity between men and women

in America, echoing the well-worn yet often-questioned

statistic that ``women who worked full-time earned only 77

percent of what their male counterparts did.''

He pointed to the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act, which made

it easier for women to sue for lost wages due to pay

discrimination, and to the creation of the National Equal Pay

Task Force in 2010, as examples of the administration's

commitment to equal pay.

``At a time when families across our country are struggling

to make ends meet, ensuring a fair wage for all parents is

more important than ever,'' the president said. ``Women are

breadwinners in a growing number of families, and women's

earnings play an increasingly important role in families'

incomes. For them, fair pay is even more than a basic right--

it is an economic necessity.''

Obama's White House female employees achieved a slightly

better 87 percent of what their male counterparts earned,

compared to Obama's national 77 percent figure.

In recent weeks Obama has come under fire for the

composition of his inner circle--initially sparked by an

official White House photo of the president published by The

New York Times in which he was surrounded by all men. His

nomination of white men to all four second-term cabinet

positions so far has also drawn criticism.

Establishment media outlets and women's groups have been

troubled by the apparent lack of female leadership and

diversity the administration has exhibited so far--with the

National Organization for Women demanding to know ``President

Obama, Where are the Women?'' Jane Fonda, Robin Morgan and

Gloria Steinem, all co-founders of the Women's Media Center,

have pressed Obama to adopt an inner circle that looks more

like American.

``[Obama] wouldn't have been re-elected without 55 percent

of the women's vote, something he earned by representing

women's majority views on issues, yet now he seems to be

ignoring women's ability to be not only voters, but

leaders,'' the trio wrote Friday in a CNN website essay.

NBC's Andrea Mitchell noted Sunday on ``Meet the Press'' that

women inside the White House ``are not happy'' with the male-

dominated face of Obama's administration.

Monday, Obama addressed some of the criticisms about the

composition of his cabinet, saying that it is too soon to

``rush to judgment'' and that women were influential

throughout his first term.

``So if you think about my first four years, the person who

probably had the most influence on my foreign policy was a

woman,'' Obama said. ``The people who were in charge of

moving forward my most important domestic initiative, health

care, were women. The person in charge of our homeland

security was a woman. My two appointments to the Supreme

Court were women. And 50 percent of my White House staff were

women. So I think people should expect that that record will

be built upon during the next four years.''

We have no further speakers, Mr. Speaker, and I am willing to close after the gentleman from Colorado.

Mr. Speaker, we are very proud of this bill. I can't understand why our colleagues on the other side of the aisle are so opposed to fairness when fairness applies to the private sector.

I would like to point out to my colleague that we would have entertained amendments in the Rules Committee had they been germane or if they had not been withdrawn. As he well knows, being a member of the Rules Committee, the amendments that were introduced by his colleagues were withdrawn before the committee had an opportunity to consider the amendments or were ruled nongermane.

I also assume that, based on the comments our colleagues have made across the aisle, that because the rights and privileges that are given to public employees are so horrible that they cannot be extended to the private sector, that they will probably be introducing a bill to withdraw those rights and privileges because they're only hurting public employees, and our colleagues don't want to be hurting private sector employees.

Mr. Speaker, House Republicans are committed to providing more opportunities for more Americans and helping make life work for more families. This legislation is a great step in that direction.

The rule before us today provides for consideration of a bill that gives employees across the country the flexibility that they deserve so they can better manage the many daily challenges of family life. Whether the employee is a new parent who wishes to stay at home with a newborn, a proud aunt who wishes to attend her nephew's baseball game, or a son or daughter who wants to care for an elderly parent, America's private sector employees should be able to determine for themselves what to do with the overtime compensation that they have earned.

Therefore, I urge my colleagues to vote for this rule and the underlying bill.

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

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 178 and ask for its immediate consideration.

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

I further ask that all Members have 5 legislative days during which they may revise and extend their remarks.

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.

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. 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.

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.

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. 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. 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.

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. 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. Speaker, I offer an amendment to the resolution.

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.

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

I thank Congressman Polis for yielding time and rise against the rule and the underlying bill, H.R. 1406, the More Work for Less Pay Act.

Congress should protect workers' wages and overtime rights, not undermine them. USA Today reported yesterday that stock markets and corporate profits are breaking records, but workers who rely on paychecks for their income have been running in place--financially speaking--and falling behind, despite their productivity increasing consistently for the last several years. That means they're working harder for less. Adjusting for inflation, an average worker who was paid $49,650 at the end of 2009 is now making about $545 less, and that's before taxes and deductions.

Living standards aren't rising for the middle class; they're falling. Yet the profits of Standard and Poor's 500 companies hit a record in the first quarter. The roaring market is making the richest Americans even richer, giving them even more money to spend.

How about this? Brian Moynihan, Bank of America, he earns about $12.1 million that is reported in the papers--I'm sure it's even more than that--and Goldman Sachs, their CEO, Lloyd Blankfein, $21 million that he's willing to admit; and John Stumpf at Wells Fargo, $22.9 million. Frankly, how much more do they need?

Now, meanwhile, during the first 2 years of the recovery, while average net worth rose for the top 7 percent of households, it fell for the other 93 percent, according to the Pew Research Center. The reason is clear: corporate America isn't sharing its record earnings with those who are earning them. In fact, higher corporate profits owe partially to the employers' success at paying workers less even while those workers are working harder, and holding down their raises and forcing overtime rather than hiring from the ranks

of the 12 million who remain unemployed.

Productivity has been rising at an average of 1.5 percent a year since the recovery began, while companies are squeezing more out of each worker even as inflation-adjusted wages have stagnated and hiring remains sluggish.

I thank the gentleman.

Still, so many Americans are out of work that employers can get away with giving no raises at all.

America is supposed to be about opportunity for all, not just the few. We're supposed to be about fair pay for hard work.

I ask my colleagues to oppose the Republican More Work for Less Pay Act, and I would urge us to pay fair wages for a fair day's work. All you have to do is go to parts of the country where people's faces are worn. You'll see what's really happening out in the real America. Let's oppose this Republican bill and the rule.

The bill gives employers the flexibility not to pay overtime to their workers; instead employees would be provided comp time.

However, employers, not the employee, are provided the flexibility to decide when and even if comp time can be used.

There is nothing in the legislation that guarantees that workers will be able to use the comp time they have earned when they need it.

In fact, the bill permits the employer to deny a comp time request if the employee's use of comp time would unduly disrupt operations.

Employers can even veto an employee's request to use comp time even in cases of urgent need under the legislation.

If an employee does not accept comp time, they could be penalized with fewer hours, bad shifts, and loss of overtime hours.

Given that it is cheaper to provide comp time than to pay overtime wages, this bill provides a significant incentive for employers to hire fewer people and rely on overtime to be paid for future comp time.

The Fair Labor Standards Act currently allow employers to provide workers with flexibility and time off without compromising their right to be paid fairly for the hours they work.

Consequently, this legislation is unnecessary based on current law.

Workers should not have to put in extra time beyond a 40-hour week and be forced to forgo pay to earn time to care for themselves or their loved ones.

The same bill proposed and died in committee in 2003 and failed in 1996 and 1997 to get through Congress.

[From USA Today, May 6, 2013]

Economy Leaves Wages Behind

(By Paul Davidson and John Waggoner)

Stock markets and corporate profits are breaking records.

The economy suddenly looks brighter after the government's

surprising report Friday that employers added 635,000 jobs

the past three months.

But instead of celebrating, many working Americans are

borrowing a line from the 1996 movie Jerry Maguire: ``Show me

the money.''

Hourly wages ticked up 4 cents in April to an average

$23.87, rising at about the same tepid 2 percent annual pace

since the recovery began in mid-2009.

But taking inflation into account, they're virtually flat.

Workers who rely on paychecks for their income have been

running in place, financially speaking. Adjusting for

inflation, an average worker who was paid $49,650 at the end

of 2009 is making about $545 less now--and that's before

taxes and deductions.

Stagnant wages aren't only tough on workers--the American

economy is paying a price too. Living standards aren't

rising. Consumer spending, which is 70 percent of the

economy, is more restrained. And the recovery advances at a

slower pace.

Ultimately, for the economy to thrive we need everyone

participating,'' says Mark Zandi, chief economist of Moody's

Analytics.

The profits of Standard & Poor's 500 companies hit a record

in the first quarter. Their healthy earnings have boosted

stocks, and April's encouraging jobs report sent the stock

market even higher Friday. The Dow Jones industrial average

crossed 15,000 for the first time and closed at a record

14,973.96, up 142.38 points.

The roaring market is making the richest Americans richer

and giving them more money to spend. But in 2010, only 31

percent of U.S. households had stock holdings of $10,000 or

more, according to the Economic Policy Institute (EPI).

During the first two years of the recovery, average net worth

rose for the top 7 percent of households but fell for the

other 93 percent, the Pew Research Center says.

Meanwhile, Corporate America isn't sharing its record

earnings with employees.

``Don't hold your breath,'' for employers to become more

generous, says John Lonski, chief economist for Moody's

Investors Service. One reason, he says, is that revenue

growth has been meager, up between 0.5 percent and 1 percent

in the last year.

In fact, higher profits owe partially to employers' success

in controlling labor expenses by getting workers to be more

productive, holding down raises and hiring conservatively.

Productivity, or output per labor hour, has risen an

average 1.5 percent a year since the recovery began.

Companies are squeezing more out of each worker even as

inflation-adjusted wages have stagnated.

Another reason for stagnant wages is the law of supply and

demand. Sure, the job market has picked up: Employers added

165,000 jobs last month and an average 196,000 a month this

year, up from 183,000 in 2012. And the jobless rate has

fallen from a peak of 10 percent in 2009.

Few incentives to boost pay

Yet today's 7.5 percent unemployment rate is still high.

Nearly 12 million Americans are unemployed, and millions more

want to work but are so discouraged they've stopped looking.

With an abundant supply of potential workers, employers have

little reason to shell out big raises.

``High unemployment hurts workers' bargaining power,'' EPI

economist Heidi Shierholz says. ``Employers know they can go

get someone else.''

So many Americans are out of work that employers could get

away with giving no raises at all, Zandi says, leaving

household income falling behind inflation. But employers

realize that would hurt morale and, in turn, productivity, he

says.

Still, wage increases that just barely keep up with

inflation don't make for a prosperous economy.

``We're not seeing the living standard growth of American

workers that we should be seeing,'' Shierholz says.

Stagnant wages also hurt consumer spending. Low- and

moderate-income workers typically spend nearly all their

paychecks, juicing the economy, while high-income workers

tend to save a portion, says Dean Baker, co-director of the

Center for Economic and Policy Research.

Larry Breech, of Milville, Pa., a retired farmer who makes

about $10,000 a year, says his per diem pay for substitute

teaching hasn't changed in several years.

``We will be frugal,'' he says. ``Fiscal restraint is

imperative.''

Consumer spending, which has been growing at an average

annual rate of about 2 percent during the recovery, would be

rising by 2.5 percent if employers simply passed their

productivity gains onto their workers, Zandi says.

Some workers are getting bigger raises. While the lowest 10

percent of income earners got average raises of 0.3 percent

last year, those in the top 25 percent saw their pay jump 3.1

percent, say the Bureau of Labor Statistics and Moody's

Analytics. Workers with higher skills and more education in

booming industries, such as energy and technology, can

command higher salaries.

Stephen Allen, an oil industry contractor in St. Louis,

says his wages have increased by more than 60 percent the

past three years. He makes about $85,000 a year.

For now, it's up to Americans like Allen and those with

large stock holdings to generate a bigger share of spending

and economic activity. The top 20 percent of households based

on income account for nearly half of consumer spending,

according to Barclays Capital.

good news for households

A bright spot is that despite puny wage increases, other

barometers of household finances show improvement. The

housing market is continuing a solid recovery. Climbing home

and stock prices have helped households overall recover the

wealth they lost in the recession and housing crash.

And the share of income Americans are using to pay off debt

has fallen to 10.4 percent, the lowest level since the

government began tracking the data in 1980, reports the

Federal Reserve. Meanwhile, falling gas prices are putting

more cash in consumers' pockets. Such developments can partly

offset sluggish wage growth and pave the way for higher

spending.

After working off debt the past three years, Allen says he

expects to be debt-free this summer ``and then save for a

down payment on a house.''

Still, economists say consumer spending won't take off in

earnest until inflation-adjusted wages return to a normal

growth rate of about 1.5 percent a year. Baker says that

likely won't happen until unemployment falls below 6 percent,

probably in 2016.

Then, employers will begin to worry about not finding

enough workers.

``They'll start to hire more aggressively,'' pushing up

wages faster, Zandi says.