Michael Burgess

Mr. BURGESS

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

Mr. BURGESS

Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor Winfred Parnell, MD, a board certified physician in obstetrics and gynecology. On February 19, 2016, Dr. Parnell was named chairman of the Parkland Health & Hospital System Board of Managers. Dr. Parnell has been a pillar in the medical community and in 2004 he was named one of ``The Best Doctors in Dallas'' by D Magazine. Dr. Parnell practices obstetrics and gynecology at Carlos and Parnell, MD, PA, a medical practice he cofounded more than 30 years ago. He serves as a regional director for Doctors of America and is a member of the Parkland Foundation Physicians Council. He also serves as a delegate to the Texas Medical Association as well as board of directors of BBVA Compass Bank Dallas. Dr. Parnell previously served as a board member of the Dallas County Medical Society and for more than 15 years served as a board trustee at Medical City Hospital Dallas. A native Floridian, Dr. Parnell earned a bachelor's degree in pre- medical science at Florida A&M University in 1974 and a medical degree at the University of Florida College of Medicine in 1977. He completed residency training in obstetrics and gynecology at Parkland in 1982. Dr. Parnell and his wife, Debra, are the proud parents of twins, Winfred and Wendy. His daughter, Wendy Parnell, MD, completed residency training at Parkland in 2011 and practices obstetrics and gynecology. His son, Winfred Parnell, MD, is pursuing residency training in family medicine. Dr. Parnell's dedication to the field of medicine has proven his willingness to serve his community. He is an exemplary physician and is highly regarded among his peers. It is an honor to serve someone who has sacrificed so much for his community in the U.S. House of Representatives.

Mr. BURGESS

Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the Medical Center of Lewisville as they mark their 40th anniversary. With a full-service medical and surgical facility offering 24-hour emergency services, MCL is licensed to accommodate 186 patients. Excellent customer service and patient safety are among their top priorities. Originally named Lewisville Memorial Hospital, MCL opened its doors on February 29, 1976. On March 15, 1976 they admitted their first patient and 11 months to the day of their induction, the first baby was delivered. Denton County became the fastest growing county from 1980-1990 and MCL was the cornerstone of Denton County's successful growth-rate. MCL has received many accreditations and honors. Of these, the more notable accreditations and honors include: Magnet Designation by American Nurses Credentialing Center (2015); Bill Aston Award recipient (2012); Texas Hospital Association Quality Improvement Silver Award (2014); and recognition in Becker's Hospital Review: 100 Great Places to Work in Healthcare. I have a close connection to the Medical Center of Lewisville as I spent a part of my career practicing medicine there. It has been a great honor to witness the staggering growth that MCL has seen in the last 40 years. Their dedication to serve the Denton County community has been vital to their success as a leading medical center in the northeast region of Texas. It is an honor to serve the staff of Medical Center of Lewisville in the U.S. House of Representatives.

Mr. BURGESS

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

Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 611 provides for a rule to consider a commonsense, bipartisan piece of legislation that will fix a problem that was wholly created by the intransigence of the bureaucrats at the Food and Drug Administration. This important bill amends the difficultly drafted Affordable Care Act, which rigidly mandated that food establishments provide physical notices of the nutritional value of every food item that they offer. Perhaps this is a noble endeavor in theory, until one considers that the inflexible rule put out by the Food and Drug Administration makes no allowances for establishments that allow for multiple variations of their offerings. This could mean that a pizza chain, for example, would have to provide calorie counts for every possible different type of pizza combination that one could order, a mandate that would result in a pizza place needing to literally wallpaper their establishment, and perhaps the establishment next door, with all of the different scenarios for personalized pizzas. The rule provides for 1 hour of debate. It is equally divided between the majority and the minority of the Energy and Commerce Committee. The Committee on Rules made in order every amendment that was submitted to the committee to be considered, two Democratic amendments and one bipartisan offering. Finally, the rule affords the minority the customary motion to recommit, a final opportunity to amend the bill should the minority choose to exercise this option. Mr. Speaker, the issue before us today in the underlying bill is not about whether restaurants should provide their customers with nutritional information; the issue is fundamentally one of the proper role of government. Since President Obama moved into the White House and Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid served as his stewards in the 110th Congress, the Democrats have drummed a steady beat toward expanding the role of government in every direction in our lives. H.R. 2017, the Common Sense Nutrition Disclosure Act, is bipartisan legislation introduced by Representatives Cathy McMorris Rodgers and Loretta Sanchez to fix the Food and Drug Administration's unworkable implementation of the menu labeling law. The Food and Drug Administration's regulatory framework is not just cumbersome for the food industry, it also impedes a business' ability to provide meaningful information that customers can use to make nutrition decisions. The Common Sense Nutrition Disclosure Act is critical to avoid harming consumer choice, harming jobs, and harming small business. The Federal Government should not presume to know how restaurants, supermarkets, cafes, convenience stores, and entertainment venues can best serve their customers and run their businesses, yet the Food and Drug Administration has done exactly that. For years now, many restaurants and retail food establishments have disclosed caloric information to their customers. This industry expertise should have been instructive to the Food and Drug Administration as it developed the Federal regulation. In fact, the Food and Drug Administration took 3\1/2\ years before finalizing a rule that virtually ignores serious concerns raised about the harm of an overly prescriptive, one-size-fits-all approach. Not only did the FDA disregard the input of consumers and industry experts, it also extended the scope of the regulation far beyond what anyone could have imagined when they voted for this bill in March of 2010. If the Food and Drug Administration is allowed to implement the rule as it stands, the Office of Management and Budget has determined it will require more than 14 million--14 million--compliance hours, in addition to costs exceeding $1 billion. Even the Food and Drug Administration acknowledged that initial compliance will cost almost $400 million, with recurring costs as high as $150 million per year. Likely, the actual costs for the private sector will far exceed those estimates. Perhaps even more concerning than the costs, food service establishments. Food service establishments are going to face Federal criminal penalties for even the slightest failure to comply with the framework envisioned by the Food and Drug Administration. Under section 403(a)(1) of the Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act, food labeling must be truthful and not misleading. Food labeling that does not meet the Food and Drug Administration's standard for ``truthful and nonmisleading'' is deemed ``misbranded.'' Under the U.S. Code, introducing misbranded food into commerce is a prohibited act, and the liable party shall be imprisoned for up to 1 year, fined not more than $1,000, or both. Food to which these menu labeling requirements apply is deemed misbranded if the Food and Drug Administration's rule requirements are not met. It is not necessary that the person intentionally mislead customers. Under the Food and Drug Administration's framework, merely adding an extra slice of pepperoni will render the calorie content on the menu misleading, and your chef is now a criminal. People say that the Food and Drug Administration won't put people in jail over this, so I don't think there should be an issue in saying just that, that people will not be put in jail for an extra slice of pepperoni. I don't think there is a problem with codifying that in statute. I think it will give great reassurance to food preparers in the industry. The Food and Drug Administration's regulation is applicable to restaurants and similar establishments that sell ready-to-eat food that are part of chains with at least 20 stores. This would include bakeries, cafeterias, coffee shops, convenience stores, delis, entertainment venues, food service vendors, fast-food take-out or delivery establishments, grocery stores, confectionery stores, quick service restaurants, and table service restaurants. Although stores may be part of a nationwide chain, there is substantial variation between regional locations. For example, convenience stores noted in their testimony that, unlike a McDonald's or a doughnut shop that have the same format everywhere they go, many convenience stores have different layouts based upon region, so coming up with a uniform standard would, in fact, be challenging. This means that all chains will incur individual costs for nutritional analysis and for menu labeling for each location, not just one time done at the national level. Under the rule, the definition of a menu is applied broadly to mean any writing a customer uses to place an order. This approach would include everything from in-store menu boards to print advertising in the form of door hangers or circulars or online advertising. The rule requires that each menu item have a clearly visible calorie count, including separate calorie information for variable menu items such as toppings or flavor additives. Pizza chains estimate that there are over 30 million combinations available to customers; and the calorie content for each option couldn't fit on any menu board that I have ever seen. Grocers estimate that the rule would include hundreds of items in stores that are offered subject to availability and demand, things such as fresh produce, baked goods, seafood, making it virtually impossible to have accurate menu boards without changing them on a nearly constant basis. Many of these businesses would likely stop offering the range of options that are currently available because it would simply cost too much to comply. Clearly, the Food and Drug Administration's regulation does not provide a workable framework for businesses. This rule should be about ensuring customers are provided with accurate, trustworthy nutrition information to help inform their decisions, all the while, enabling small businesses the ability to comply. Representative McMorris Rodgers' bill is carefully constructed to create transparency for consumers, while maintaining the flexibility necessary for all regulated businesses to be in compliance. The Common Sense Nutrition Disclosure Act will establish a more reasonable standard for Federal regulation by applying nutritional disclosure requirements to establishments that derive more than 50 percent of their total revenue from the sale of food. The bill also ensures that inadvertent human error will not subject a local franchise owner to crippling fines or possibly imprisonment. Nutritional information could be provided by a remote access menu for food establishments where the majority of orders are placed by customers off premises. Establishments with self-serve food may comply with the requirements for restaurants or place signs with nutritional information adjacent to each food item, and the bill clarifies that advertisements are not menus. Yesterday, during the Rules Committee hearing, Ranking Member Pallone testified that it is important that consumers have information at the point of purchase. I disagree with this point. Consumers should have the information when they are placing their order. A menu board may work for some businesses where customers order at the counter where they also pay; but for something like a pizza restaurant where most people are ordering online or over the telephone, having the calorie information when they pick up their order actually won't be helpful to the consumer when they are actually making the decisions. This is an example of how the Food and Drug Administration did not consider the array of business types included in this rule, and this is why a legislative solution not only is necessary, but it is required. The food retail sector employs millions of Americans, and it provides access to affordable, healthy options. The Federal Government must not impose arbitrary regulations that will cause unnecessary harm to businesses and customers. The businesses impacted by this rule widely support providing customers with the nutritional information to better inform their food decisions, but they want to do it in a practical and commonsense way. This legislation provides clear guidance to small business owners, ensuring compliance and at the same time delivering that critical information. I encourage all of my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on the rule and vote ``yes'' on the underlying bill. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Carter), a member of the Education and the Workforce Committee.

Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. The simple truth is the faith of the American people does not hinge upon the fact that we will jail a chef for an inadvertent mistake made at a pizza restaurant. Let me take just a few minutes to recap some of the history of the Affordable Care Act and, perhaps, a lesson in civics at the same time. I am just a simple country doctor. My understanding of how a bill became law was, perhaps, relegated to the video ``Schoolhouse Rock!'' that I saw many years ago as a child with how a bill becomes law: You are just a bill on Capitol Hill. You go to committee. You get out of committee. You come to the floor. You go to the Senate. You go to a conference committee. You come back. You get voted on, and you are on your way. But, as Paul Harvey said, then there is ``the rest of the story.'' So let's examine the process for a moment. We have the Affordable Care Act. Here is a bill that was sort of bumped around on Capitol Hill for a little over a year's time. Finally, it did get passed into law. We had a section in the Affordable Care Act, section 4205. Now, Mr. Speaker, I do not recall which special interest wanted section 4205 placed into the Affordable Care Act. I feel fairly certain that there was a special interest that did want this language in the bill, because the entirety of the Affordable Care Act was, essentially, written by one special interest or another. Yet here is a section that was in the Affordable Care Act, that was duly voted on by the House and the Senate, and that passed in March of 2010. I voted ``no''--let me be very clear on that--as did every Republican who was in the House of Representatives at the time. Section 4205 is not a terribly long section, and it is not terribly difficult to read. Section 4205 goes on for, perhaps, four pages, and it talks about nutritional labeling. Nutritional labeling, in and of itself, is not a bad thing; but because of the way the law is written, after its passage, it was then handed off to a Federal agency--a Federal agency that is composed not of elected Members of Congress, not of anyone who is directly accountable to any single American constituent anywhere, but the Federal agency sits down and goes about the work of interpreting what Congress intended when it passed the law and how we are going to make this work in and amongst all of the other Federal rulings and regulations that are out there. The Food and Drug Administration sat down to go about the task of writing the rules and regulations that would govern this one section of the Affordable Care Act--this four-page section in the Affordable Care Act. They, indeed, published their work in the Federal Register on Monday, December 1, 2014. Since we are talking about font size anyway, it is 100 pages of very small font writing, three columns per page; so there is a lot of stuff here--it is pretty dense. You have heard me mention that I am concerned about the fact that a hidden, inadvertent addition of a single slice of pepperoni on a pizza could send someone to jail for a year. That, actually, is not covered in the remarks in the Federal Register; so let me save people some time if they want to read about where the penalties arise. The penalties arise because, as a consequence of the language in the Federal Register, a law known as the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, is amended as a result of this work. The Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, section 403, reads: A food shall be deemed to be misbranded if its labeling is false or misleading in any particular. That is pretty broad. Now, if the food is misbranded, that then invokes a second part under the ``prohibited acts'' in the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act. Under section 331: The following acts and the causing thereof are prohibitive: the introduction or delivery for introduction into interstate commerce of any food, drug, device, tobacco product, or cosmetic that is adulterated or misbranded. We go back to the word ``misbranded.'' A food shall be deemed to be misbranded if its labeling is false or misleading in any particular. Now we come to a food that has been misbranded and the penalty for such an act when we get to the section of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, section 303, under Penalties: (a) Violation of section 331 of this title: Any person who violates a provision of section 331 of this title shall be imprisoned for not more than 1 year or fined not more than $1,000 or both. Therein, Mr. Speaker, is the problem with the Affordable Care Act, as written and then interpreted and as it applies to existing law in the United States Code. I would think that menu labeling, as a matter of course, is a marketing aspect. If you know that your restaurant is putting out food labeling that is accurate and upon which you can depend, great, as I may be more likely to go to such a facility; but, there, it is a voluntary choice. It goes from voluntary to compulsory under the language of the Affordable Care Act. Therein is the problem. That is the problem that Representative McMorris Rodgers sought to correct of the inadvertent addition of a single food item in food that is prepared in a restaurant that has more than 20 facilities. Think of a name brand pizza place. You may have a local franchise in your town. If you go there on a Friday night and if the calorie count is not identical to what has been posted on the menu board and someone checks, that chef could be imprisoned for a year. That is the reason that, indeed, constituents have written and that restaurant owners have written. They asked Mrs. McMorris Rodgers, and she responded to their requests, and that is why we have a bill in front of us today. The rule that is under consideration right now provides for the consideration of an important fix to a harmfully crafted law and to a poorly written regulation. I applaud my fellow Energy and Commerce Committee member Cathy McMorris Rodgers for her work and for doing all she could to bring all stakeholders together to craft a workable compromise. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on the rule and ``yes'' on the underlying bill.

Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 611 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. BURGESS. Mr. 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

Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Allen), a valuable member of the House Agriculture Committee.

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

Mr. BURGESS

Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, this past weekend, along with other members of the Border Caucus, I traveled to the lower Rio Grande Valley sector of the United States border. Mr. Speaker, the flood of illegal immigrants across the southern border has proven to be a mounting American crisis, greatly impacting Texas families. You simply cannot understand the magnitude of the problem in the lower Rio Grande Valley unless you see it for yourself. It is impossible to understand the characteristics of this ever-changing region and why it is so difficult to manage. That is why I make regular visits to the border. President Obama missed an opportunity when he refused Governor Perry's request to come to the border while he was in Texas in July 2014. I would renew that call for our executive to come to the border. The United States, as a Nation, has a sovereign right and responsibility to define and defend its borders. In order for this problem to be improved, the executive must travel to the border and have the will to make this a priority and get it done.

Mr. BURGESS

Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that it be in order at any time through the legislative day of February 12, 2016, for the Speaker to entertain motions that the House suspend the rules, as though under clause 1 of rule XV, relating to the bill (H.R. 757) to improve the enforcement of sanctions against the Government of North Korea, and for other purposes.

Mr. BURGESS

Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize and thank Thomas P. Rufer for his service at the University of North Texas since his arrival in August of 2006. Retiring as Associate Vice President of Auxiliary Services, Tom, as he is known on campus, has been responsible for the leadership and management of seven auxiliary service operations on UNT's Denton Campus. In this role, he oversaw the operations of Student Housing and Residence Life, the University Union, Summer Conferences, Campus Vending Services. Tom also served as the contract administrator for the UNT Bookstore and the self-operated Food Services, the Gateway Center and Coliseum. It is in the Gateway Center and Coliseum where I have experienced first-hand the quality and service UNT students and staff provide under his capable direction. Prior to arriving in Denton, Tom worked in the hospitality and higher education industries for over 25 years, which proved to be excellent preparation for effectively managing all aspects of his position with UNT overseeing a breadth and variety of services necessary on a campus with over 37,000 students. Serving during a time of continued growth, Tom's efforts in expanding operations have allowed him to leave an indelible mark on the campus in the day-to-day operations management of food and facilities, but also in the campus facilities with the construction of Rawlins Hall and the opening of the new $137 million Student Union Building--the largest construction project in the university's 125 year history. Due to Tom's professionalism and commitment to service, the students and the greater Denton Community have reaped the benefits of the efficiency and discipline he has brought to the campus. On behalf of the 26th Congressional District, I also thank him for his service years to our nation in the Air Force and wish him the best in his well-earned retirement.

Mr. BURGESS

Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize and congratulate Stan Morton on receiving the United Way Dr. Bettye Myers Humanitarian Award for his service to the local community. Prior to his retirement last month, Stan Morton served as the President of Texas Health Presbyterian Hospital, Denton since March 2003. His impact in the community rivals his accomplishments as the leader of the hospital. Stan served on the board of directors for United Way of Denton County for nine years, is a past board chair and, upon completing his service on the board, was honored with the distinction of Lifetime Member. In addition to serving as United Way of Denton County's board chair, Stan also served as the 2006 Campaign Chair. Under Stan's leadership, the organization reached the $2 million fundraising threshold for the first time in the organization's history. While serving on the Health Services of North Texas Board of Directors, Stan was instrumental in positioning them to successfully apply for Federally Qualified Health Center designation. Recipients of this prestigious Dr. Bettye Myers Humanitarian Award are dedicated to helping others and promoting human welfare and have shown active engagement in the community. I would like to congratulate Stan Morton who is well deserving of this award and thank him for his tireless service to our community.

Mr. BURGESS

Mr. BURGESS. I thank the gentleman for yielding. Mr. Speaker, since this bill passed the House in March of 2010, probably half of the Congress has changed. So for the benefit of people who were not here in March of 2010, who did not see this debate in its full-throated entirety in 2010, I want to just revisit a couple of the salient pieces that led up to the passage of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. People may ask themselves, why doesn't this law enjoy more popularity? In fact, the night it was passed, as reported on CNN, the American people were opposed to the passage of this law by about 52 percent. That number is essentially unchanged almost 6 years later. And what was the promise of the Affordable Care Act? Well, let me remind people. And don't take my word for it. This is in the inestimable words of Jonathan Gruber, an economics professor from MIT who published a graphic novel about the Affordable Care Act. Yay. Hooray. Everyone will be able to afford insurance. You won't have to worry about going broke if you get sick. We will start to bring the cost of health care under control, and we will do this all while reducing the Federal deficit. Why wasn't it more popular when it was passed? Well, Mr. Speaker, here we are, about 2 weeks after Christmas Eve, and it was Christmas Eve of 2009 when this bill passed the Senate. And I would remind people in this body, it was not a House bill that passed the Senate. Well, I take that back. It was a House bill. It was H.R. 3590. That was a bill dealing with veterans' housing that had passed this House July of 2009 and had nothing to do with health care. But because this bill, this law, was a massive piece of tax policy, it had to originate in the House. Except it didn't, but the bill number originated in the House. So the bill that was passed by the Senate on Christmas Eve in 2009, with a big snowstorm bearing down on Washington, D.C., every Senator wanting to get out of town and get home to their district, the bill that was passed read as follows: ``Strike all after the enacting clause and insert--'' That means it took out all the housing language and put in all the healthcare language and, more importantly, all of the tax policy. That bill passed the Senate with 60 votes. Of course at that time, Democrats held a 60-vote majority in the Senate, and it allegedly was to come back to a conference committee with the House except that the Senate lost a Democratic Senator in that timeframe. Harry Reid told the then-Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi, that he no longer had 60 votes and there was simply nothing more he could do. It was up to the Speaker of the House to pass the Senate bill with no changes because he could not bring it back before the Senate because he no longer had 60 votes. So the next 3 months, literally, were consumed with arm-twisting, kneecapping, and trying to convince people to vote for something that was against their fundamental best interest. So is it a surprise that it did not enjoy popular support on the day it was passed and it has not achieved popular support even with all the giveaways and even with all the Federal money pumped into it since that time? The reason, Mr. Speaker, is very simple. At the heart of this--at the heart of this--is a very coercive--really, it is unique in Federal policy. The Federal Government tells you what you have to do. You have to buy a healthcare policy. Then they seek to regulate it under the Commerce Clause. It was the most convoluted logic anyone had ever seen. But it was coercive, and that coerciveness led to the corrosiveness that has underlain the Affordable Care Act ever since. No wonder people look at this. It was conceived--it was conceived--in a falsehood and then delivered to the American people under a false promise. Indeed, it has harmed--as we have heard over and over again from people that it has harmed--individuals in individual districts across this country. Mr. Speaker, I stand today in support of the rule and in support of the reconciliation bill.

Mr. BURGESS

Mr. BURGESS. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Energy and Commerce and the Committee on Ways and Means be discharged from further consideration of the bill (S. 1461) to provide for the extension of the enforcement instruction on supervision requirements for outpatient therapeutic services in critical access and small rural hospitals through 2015, and ask for its immediate consideration in the House.

Mr. BURGESS

Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize and thank three power linemen from Coserv Electric Cooperative from the 26th District of Texas for their service and sacrifice to help three communities far away from their own. This fall, Shea Hassell, Perry Ancell and Cody Coulter traveled to Haiti where they spent three weeks volunteering to help build the country's first electric cooperative. This work was part of a rural electrification project through the NRECA International Foundation with support from the United Nations Environmental Program and USAID. During their time in the southwestern part of the country, they built a diesel-solar hybrid electric system which now provides safe, affordable and reliable power to 1,600 consumers in three towns. Their contributions included upgrading and installing new power lines and training locally hired linemen in proper construction methods and safety practices. In Haiti, less than 15 percent of the population has regular access to electricity. Reliable electricity is a critical element in improving the quality of life and to providing healthcare, education, access to clean water and economic opportunity. Thanks to the contribution of these power linemen more people in Haiti will now have electricity.

Mr. BURGESS

Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, may I inquire as to the amount of time remaining.

Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, today's rule provides for further consideration of two important bills affecting the future of this country: the country's energy future and the future of education. They are important bills. I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on the previous question, vote ``yes'' on the rule, and vote ``yes'' on the underlying bills.

Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, at this time, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Byrne).

Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, at this time, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Duncan).

Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 542 and ask for its immediate consideration.