Providing 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.

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.

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.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on the bill H.R. 527.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself as much time as I may consume.

Today, I rise in support of H.R. 527. This bill is necessary to protect our economy from the impending helium shortage and to inject free-market principles into our Federal helium program.

The Federal Helium Reserve was first created after World War I, when we imagined a world where blimps would be the future of air travel and vital to our national security efforts. Although this effort took a different course, that didn't stop the Federal Government from spending money on this program and stockpiling helium continuously through the 1980s. By the 1990s, it became clear that the Reserve had a declining usefulness and had racked up a $1.3 billion debt.

In response, Congress in 1996 passed legislation to implement reforms to the program and require the sale and privatization of the Reserve by 2015, or when the debt was paid off, whichever came first.

However, since this original decision to close the Reserve, both the demand and uses for helium have dramatically changed. This has created a situation where the Reserve's debt will be paid off sooner than expected--nearly 2 years earlier--in October of this year. But, while the debt will have been paid off, there will still be helium in the Reserve. By law then, the current Federal helium program will end and the Bureau of Land Management, or BLM, will no longer have the authority to sell the remaining 11 billion cubic feet of helium. It's important to note, too, Mr. Chairman, that the Reserve contains half of our U.S. domestic supply and 30 percent of the world's helium supply.

If Congress fails to act before October, we will artificially drop the helium supply and cause a global helium shortage that will cost jobs and severely disrupt our economy. Despite what many think, helium is not just used for party balloons. It is essential to our 21st century economy. Without helium we wouldn't have lifesaving MRI machines, computer chips, fiber optic cables, or other devices used for defense needs.

The bill before us today is truly a bipartisan plan that I'm pleased to have worked on with the lead Democrat on the Natural Resources Committee, Mr. Markey from Massachusetts, as well as our other colleagues on the committee, Mr. Flores of Texas and Mr. Holt of New Jersey.

First, this bill would implement a new operating system for the Federal Helium Reserve over the next decade that would include semiannual auctions. This will ensure that we prevent a helium shortage and that the Reserve stays open until nearly all of the helium supply is sold.

Second, it will build on the reforms made in 1996 and inject more free market principles into the sales process to get a better and fairer return for American taxpayers.

Over the last decade, the Federal Government has been selling helium from the Reserve significantly below market price. As you can see from this chart--and this is based on BLM data--the new demands for helium have caused the market price to rise much higher than the Federal Government's pricing formula and much faster than BLM's ability to track market prices.

So, as a result, this has cost taxpayers tens of millions of dollars. This has been confirmed by reports and testimony from both the Government Accountability Office, the GAO, and the Department of the Interior Inspector General. The big gap is right here. This is what we are selling it for, and this is what the market price is.

In addition, the current program restricts sales to only a few companies through an allotment system that is essentially an oligarchy for Federal helium. Nearly 100 percent of our helium supply is being put into the hands of four refiners that directly benefit from the low Federal pricing formula while other competitors are locked out. The current cheap price of helium gives an unfair market advantage to these handful of companies.

Implementing semiannual helium auctions will inject much-needed competition into the program and help establish a fair market price for helium. According to the CBO, this bill will bring in over $340 million to the Treasury over the next 10 years. The bill also includes important reforms to increase transparency and to prevent supply disruptions.

Now, Mr. Chairman, over 20 groups representing the end users of refined helium--and these are high-tech manufacturers of semiconductors, aerospace technologies, medical devices, chemicals, fiber optics, and scientific research--all have called for the passage of this legislation. Although this bill enjoys broad bipartisan support, I do want to take a moment to directly address some concerns that have been raised throughout this legislative process.

First, doing nothing is not an option. While I recognize that many people don't believe that the Federal Government should be in the helium business--and I would agree--we must recognize the realities of our current situation. Helium is too essential to our economy to essentially cut off the valve at the Reserve. We need this bill to protect our economy from severe disruptions and to provide additional time for the new development of alternative domestic helium resources so that our country and economy are prepared for when the Reserve does close. However, this bill will make sure that we are building on the reforms of the 1996 act and that we are managing and selling the helium in a more responsible manner.

Second, maintaining the status quo is not an option. Under conditions in the current law, the entire program comes to an end this October. Simply authorizing the continuation of the current program does nothing to address the current issues with the Federal pricing formula and the need to implement free market reforms. We cannot keep selling helium to a handful of companies. Instead, we need an open helium market that encourages more bidders, more competition, and more accurate pricing in order to get the best return for the taxpayers.

What we need then, Mr. Chairman, is no more lucrative handouts, no more government picking winners. What we need is good ole American competition.

Finally, this bill will do absolutely nothing to interfere with private business contracts, and it will not create instability within the helium market. With or without this legislation, the existing helium program and existing contracts all will end in October of this year. This bill violates no contracts because none will exist when certain conditions in current law expire, which we think will be this October. This is why Congress must act before October to establish a new helium program to finalize the sell-off of the helium from the Reserve.

The bill will protect our economy from a harmful helium shortage and implement much-needed reforms to update the Federal Helium Program so that it better reflects the uses and demands for helium in the year 2013.

Mr. Chairman, this is a good bill, and it's a bipartisan bill. I'm glad I had support in working with my colleagues across the aisle on the committee, and I urge the passage of this legislation.

With that, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I'm very pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wittman), a valuable member of the Natural Resources Committee.

Mr. Chairman, I want to ask my friend from New Jersey, I have at this point no further requests for time. One additional speaker may be coming, but I'm prepared to close.

Mr. Chairman, I'm pleased to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Lamborn), the chairman of the subcommittee dealing with this issue.

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

Mr. Chairman, as has been pointed out on both sides, this is a very important piece of legislation. Our free economy is made up of a lot of different parts, and it's hard--as a matter of fact, it's impossible-- to regulate all of those parts. The market does it a whole lot better.

But in this situation, because of past actions of Congress, there was a stockpile of Federal helium, and it became more and more valuable; but market prices weren't being got for that available commodity. This issue addresses that until the markets can catch up in several years in order to make sure there is a supply of helium.

And I'm glad to have worked in a bipartisan way with my colleagues on the Natural Resources Committee. We'll deal with the amendment process tomorrow. That's why we have a rule. There are several Members who wanted to improve, from their point of view, this piece of legislation, and you can't do that, obviously, on a suspension calendar, as has been suggested. You have to go through the rule process, and we will do that tomorrow.

So, in the meantime, Mr. Chairman, I urge adoption of this legislation, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee do now rise.

I seek to offer an amendment and address the House.

Mr. Chairman, our amendment, the Dent-Higgins-Esty amendment, ensures the continued supply of helium for end users while requiring the BLM, Bureau of Land Management, to honor existing contracts for the supply and delivery of this vital resource. Most importantly, the amendment protects American manufacturers who use helium from the uncertainty of a disrupted helium supply. It's absolutely essential.

Some of my colleagues have repeatedly stated that helium has been given away by BLM at rock-bottom prices to ``a monopoly of refiners.'' Respectfully, the current price structure says otherwise.

Since BLM began selling off helium under this program, during most years far less than all the helium available to be purchased was purchased. In fact, during some years, no helium was purchased at all.

If the price were really so low, wouldn't all the available helium have been purchased? Instead, the BLM price set for the purchase of crude helium has been higher than the crude price for helium purchased elsewhere in the United States. Further, there is absolutely no bar to the taxpayer getting much more revenue from helium sales today. BLM can impose higher prices for helium right now. In fact, over the past 3 years, BLM has raised its prices by 30 percent.

When the Congress in 1996 decided to privatize helium in the BLM reserve, a few companies stepped up and spent tens of millions of dollars to build a helium enrichment unit, which the BLM operates, a highly unusual public-private partnership. If there are only a few companies who refine helium out of the BLM reserve today, it is because they, and not their competitors, chose to make investments that have benefited our Nation's manufacturers and society generally.

Our amendment does not seek to preserve a so-called ``monopoly'' over our Federal helium supply. Instead, our amendment seeks to uphold these existing contract and property rights while ensuring a continued supply of helium for domestic manufacturers. In fact, many welders, the Welders Association, Welders Distributors Association, strongly support this amendment because they are deeply concerned. I'm just going to quickly read what they said. They are deeply concerned about ``the effect of the remedies fashioned in H.R. 527 on the stability of the existing market for helium particularly as they affect the ability to meet contractual obligations for product supply.''

With that, I reserve the balance of my time.

At this time, I would like to yield 1 minute to my colleague from New York (Mr. Higgins).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlelady from Connecticut (Ms. Esty).

Mr. Chairman, how much time remains?

Mr. Chairman, I just want to quickly address a few of the issues.

My friend, Mr. Holt, said that these reservoirs will be depleted. I agree. The issue is who's going to invest in an enrichment and refining facility at a reservoir that's going to be depleted in 5 years. Nobody's going to make that investment. That's really what's at issue here.

The prices of helium have gone up. BLM can charge more. Our amendment is about respecting preexisting contracts and about protecting property rights while ensuring continued supply of helium to American manufacturers.

Without this amendment, there will be a real disruption of supply for helium because they won't be contractually able to release that helium. They will be under no obligation to release it, so I think that is the greatest threat. This amendment protects the helium supply. As has been mentioned, MRIs, computer chips, and fiber optics all need this. American manufacturing needs this. Support this amendment. Vote for a helium supply. And again, vote to support our welders.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Gases and Welding

Distributors Association,

Doral, FL, April 25, 2013.

Hon. Charlie Dent,

House of Representatives,

Washington, DC.

Dear Mr. Dent: The Gases and Welding Distributors

Association (``GAWDA'') offers its support to your proposed

amendment to H.R. 527, legislation to reauthorize the sale of

the Federal Helium Reserve.

GAWDA is a national trade association representing the

interests of some 500 companies that distribute compressed

and liquefied gases and related welding equipment, and

includes some 300 additional companies that supply products

or services to the gases and welding industry. GAWDA

distributor members sell a variety of products, including

helium, oxygen, argon, nitrogen and carbon dioxide, as well

as specialty gases and mixtures, to customers involved in

manufacturing, construction, welding, research, health care,

and biomedical engineering.

Most GAWDA members are small businesses. Approximately 85

percent of GAWDA distributors have less than $10 million in

annual gross revenue, so they have limited leverage in

negotiating supply agreements for products. In the vast

majority of cases, GAWDA distributors will contract

exclusively with a single manufacturer (or in the case of

helium, a refiner) for a comprehensive menu of gas products.

The contract generally will provide all of the distributor's

needs for all of those gases.

In addition, the distributor will generally contract with

its customers in an exclusive ``requirements'' arrangement to

supply all of the customer's needs for a variety of gases as

well. A small distributor might have a couple of dozen

contracts to supply helium and other gases to customers,

while a large distributor might have several hundred or more

of these requirements contracts.

The GAWDA distributor will typically purchase bulk helium

in gaseous form from a refiner; the distributor will then

repackage the helium into compressed gas cylinders and

deliver them to customers for their use.

GAWDA distributors are concerned, however, about the effect

of the remedies fashioned in H.R. 527 on the stability of the

existing market for helium, particularly as they affect the

ability to meet contractual obligations for product supply.

A periodic auction mechanism would set up a spot market for

helium. If an established refiner is not able to secure all

of the crude helium that it requires to meet the supply

obligations set out in its contracts, then some distributor

customers will receive less than their contractual allotments

of helium, or perhaps none at all. The distributor will be

forced to seek other sources of supply, presumably only if a

force majeure clause in the agreement allows the distributor

to obtain replacement product from another supplier.

In turn, if the distributor defaults, the distributor's

customers might be forced to seek alternative supplies of

helium for at least part of their needs for that period, and

to pay above market prices to the winning auction bidder(s)

to ensure a continuous supply of product. This also raises

questions of the effect on the contractual obligations to

sell and purchase the other gases in the contracts.

This same scenario will play out each time an auction is

held, several times a year. Refiners, distributors and end

users will not know which parties will have adequate supplies

of helium to meet existing contractual demands. This will

generate legal questions about contract default, partial

product allocations, mitigation of damages, and obligations

to cure, as well as commercial questions about which parties

may be able to meet supply obligations on a consistent basis.

The distributor will have to resolve these issues with each

customer for that auction period; when another auction takes

place, and different sales volumes of helium are awarded by

BLM to new bidders, the distributors will have to go through

the same

legal and commercial exercise to ensure that each of their

customers will receive enough product to meet its

requirements.

An unreliable product stream for helium will make it

difficult for any distributor to entertain long-term,

exclusive supply arrangements with customers that foster

stable commercial relations and support economic growth.

Your amendment would protect those existing agreements

between the Bureau of Land Management and refiners for a

sufficient period to allow refiners and distributors to

develop alternative arrangements and to access new supplies

of crude helium. That approach will help to ensure a reliable

supply of this critical product to all end users.

Thank you for your assistance with this issue.

Best Regards,

Richard P. Schweitzer,

General Counsel.

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

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

I rise in support of H.R. 527, and I begin by commending and thanking Chairman Hastings for his outstanding bipartisan leadership on this legislation and on other things before the committee. This bill was drafted in close cooperation with the Democratic minority, and I thank the chairman of the committee. He worked with Ranking Member Markey and me and with Representative Flores; and we've put together, I think, a solid piece of legislation. The legislation is an example of how we can work together. I wish it were moving faster on the floor today and tomorrow, but it is a cooperative undertaking.

As the chairman said, helium is critical for magnetic resonance imaging, MRI machines; for NASA rocket operation; for high-tech manufacturing; and for all sorts of scientific research. For many of these applications, there is no replacement for helium with its truly unique properties. Farsighted legislators established a Federal stockpile many decades ago, which was good; and as important uses of helium were recognized over the decades, we can be thankful that the stockpile existed.

The frenzy of privatization under the Gingrich era in Congress has now made this legislation necessary. Our Nation's Federal Helium Reserve supplies nearly half of the helium used in the United States; and if Congress fails to pass this legislation, by the end of the current fiscal year, the Interior Department's authority to continue operating the Reserve will expire. If this is allowed to happen, nearly half of America's helium supply would be cut off overnight, creating truly a crisis in health care, in research, in electronic manufacturing, and in many other areas. That's the immediate problem that this legislation would solve; but there is a second, potentially more severe, problem to be addressed.

At the current withdrawal rates, we have only 5 to 7 years of helium available from the Reserve. Reviews by the National Academy of Sciences, by the Government Accountability Office, and by the Interior Department Inspector General's Office have all concluded that we are not selling the Nation's helium at market prices. Since Federal helium comprises such an enormous percentage of the global supply, with the price set and controlled by the Interior Department as required under the guidelines established some years back, the global price of helium is artificially low.

The current system isn't just a bad deal for taxpayers; it has also distorted the global helium market. If we continue to avoid a solution, as some have advocated, we could find ourselves facing even more severe helium shortages and price spikes when the Federal Reserve is largely exhausted a few years from now and when there may be insufficient alternative supplies to turn to.

That's why we must reform our Nation's helium policy, put the market- based signals in place that will help provide an incentive to bring new supplies on line. The failure to enact reforms of the helium program, such as those contained in this legislation, could mean an increased reliance on insecure and irregular helium supplies from Russia, Algeria, Qatar, and other foreign sources. It could mean higher prices for American industry and for researchers.

There have already been interruptions in supply. National labs have testified before our committee that helium deliveries necessary for their research have already been subject to interruptions.

The bipartisan legislation before us today would address both of these impending crises. H.R. 527 would extend the life of the Federal Helium Reserve past the end of this year and ensure a fair return to taxpayers on this federally-owned resource. It would generate more than $300 million for American taxpayers as estimated by the Congressional Budget Office. The bill will increase competition, transparency, and participation in helium markets, which will help shift commercial helium reliance from the Reserve to private sources.

The principles of this bill are consistent with the recommendations made by the National Academy of Sciences in 2010 to improve the helium program by expanding participation and openness in helium markets.

It will protect Federal users, such as NASA and the National Labs, as well as the scientific community by ensuring that they have priority access to this federally-owned resource in the short term and exclusive access in the longer term.

This bill was created with input from the Department of the Interior, the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy, and many scientific researchers. It has the support of the American Physical Society and many other groups and many helium users, such as corporations like General Electric, Siemens, Philips, Intel, Applied Materials, Dow Chemical, IBM, Texas Instruments, and many others. It's a product of close work between the majority and the minority members of the committee.

Again, I thank the majority for providing that collaboration with us. It's a good bill. It provides a workable solution to a real problem. I urge its adoption.

I wish we could deal with this bill promptly and all the amendments promptly. We could be done in less than an hour, and then we could turn our attention to other concerns that Americans have, such as jobs and education, training for workers, a conference committee to reconcile the differences between the House and the Senate budget resolutions, removing the thoughtless sequester that the majority imposed on the country affecting air traffic control and food inspections and Head Start slots and medical research and many other things. But instead, we will postpone the consideration of the amendments until tomorrow, I'm sorry to say, and eat up valuable time that we could spend dealing with America's pressing problems. Nevertheless, I look forward to the passage of this bill, and I urge my colleagues to support it.

With that, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Johnson).

If the gentleman needs more time, I gladly yield an additional 30 seconds.

I yield an additional 15 seconds to the gentleman.

We have at least one more speaker, and my closing.

I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Tonko) who counts among his constituents many who work in technical industries and laboratories who depend on helium and understand that although there are a lot of easy jokes about helium, this is a serious matter. It is a serious matter that we should move along with promptly.

Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the comments of the gentleman from Colorado, the chair of the Energy and Mineral Subcommittee. He reiterates the important uses of helium, and I would add that any American patient or doctor who uses MRIs, which depend on helium, or any American who uses modern electronics whose manufacture depends on helium, or anyone who depends on so many other things for which helium is essential, should be grateful that decades ago farsighted legislators created the stockpile to preserve helium.

We now have before us the need to make sure that helium isn't sold at fire-sale prices. We need to make sure that we have a reliable supply for these important uses. We need to make sure that the Interior Department is not forced out of the business prematurely. The Interior Department has expressed support for the approach taken by this legislation.

Again, I commend and thank the chairman for his bipartisan leadership to bring this sensible legislation to the floor. I hope that the other body will act quickly and follow our lead and pass this legislation so we do not experience supply disruptions and price spikes later this year. I urge passage of this bill.

I yield back the balance of my time.