Bradley Byrne

Mr. BYRNE

Mr. BYRNE. House Resolution 369 provides a structured rule for consideration of H.R. 1734, the Improving Coal Combustion Residuals Regulation Act of 2015, and H.R. 1599, the Safe and Accurate Food Labeling Act of 2015. Mr. Speaker, when I am back in southwest Alabama for district travel, I spend a lot of time visiting with small-business owners and holding townhall meetings. At almost every event I hold, someone mentions how regulations are having a negative impact on them, their business, and their employees. These regulations cover everything from energy to health care to tax policy. Too many of my constituents are drowning in red tape, and they are forced to spend too much money and time complying with burdensome regulations. Now, I get it; a lot of people in Washington think that they know best. These bureaucrats get in a room, and they start scheming on how they can solve all these problems, and our answer is almost always that we need more rules and regulations. Mr. Speaker, this is entirely the wrong approach. This kind of top- down, Washington knows best strategy is not working, and it is putting a real burden on my constituents in Alabama and people all over the country. That is why this rule allows for the consideration of two bills that are focused on simplifying the regulatory process in two very important areas, energy and agriculture. Being from Alabama, I know a thing or two about these topics. Anyone who has ever spent time in lower Alabama during July or August knows just how hot it can get, so that means families down there have to spend a pretty penny on their power bills during these summer months. Well, under the Obama administration's EPA, regulations on the energy sector have skyrocketed. The costs from these regulations are most certainly passed on to the consumer in the form of higher power bills, and the compliance burdens associated with these regulations are making it harder and harder for utilities to deliver reliable power to their customers. That is why the current enforcement structure of EPA's rule on coal combustion residuals, or CCRs, is so concerning. While most of us were pleased that the EPA decided to regulate CCR as a nonhazardous solid waste, we are left with civil suits in place of commonsense enforcement measures to make sure the industry is complying with EPA standards. This creates uncertainty among industry and a patchwork of interpretations by various courts around the country. The EPA rule also creates some unintended consequences when it comes to Federal and State jurisdiction. That is why the Improving Coal Combustion Residuals Regulation Act empowers States and allows them to establish permit programs to meet or exceed regulatory requirements set forth in the EPA's final rule. It only makes sense that each State, with their unique topography and geographic conditions, should be able to set the permitting requirements most appropriate for their conditions in order to meet these EPA standards. In fact, States already govern the disposal of solid and hazardous waste under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, or RCRA, and have done so since 1976. It is important to point out that these regulatory reforms do not change the minimum requirements under the EPA rule, which are designed to protect human health and the environment. This legislation actually codifies these standards and sets them as the baseline for State permitting programs nationwide. Mr. Speaker, I expect that some of my friends on the other side are going to argue that this legislation, in some way, weakens standards. Let me tell you what will result in weakened standards, allowing different Federal judges from all across the country to decide how the law should be interpreted and how standards should be set, despite the fact that these judges have no real background in regulatory matters regarding these sorts of hazardous wastes, these sorts of wastes at all. Instead of that flawed system, let's allow States to create their own permitting system, which must comply with the EPA standard. By getting frivolous civil lawsuits out of the way, estimates project that this legislation will protect around 316,000 jobs. If my colleagues on the other side think that this is a waste of time, then I want them to tell that to these 316,000 families. H.R. 1734 is a good bill that makes some very sensible reforms that simplify the process for the safe management and disposal of coal ash while providing a realistic enforcement mechanism for existing environmental standards. The second bill covered by this rule, the Safe and Accurate Food Labeling Act, deals with agriculture. Now, agriculture is the top industry in my home State of Alabama, with over 500,000 jobs. I have heard from a number of farmers who support this bipartisan legislation. H.R. 1599 will provide much needed clarity and uniformity in the labeling of food products containing genetically engineered plants or ingredients. This commonsense legislation is supported by almost 500 associations and farmers from Hawaii to Maine. The current regulatory system is a patchwork of State and local regulations, which create unnecessary costs among consumers and food manufacturers without really helping to increase consumer awareness. In fact, a study by Cornell University found that food prices could rise for American families by as much as $500 a year if something isn't changed. This legislation would streamline the labeling process and create a national, voluntary food labeling standard for products derived from GMOs. By doing so, America's farmers and food manufacturers won't be burdened with inconsistent and costly regulations. This legislation isn't just good for producers and farmers; it creates a uniform system driven by consumer demand. Under this bill, consumers will be able to easily identify products and make their own decisions about what products are best for them and their families. Mr. Speaker, these bills are both about reducing the regulatory burden and simplifying the regulatory process. From consumers to small- business owners to rural electric cooperatives to family farmers, people shouldn't have to spend precious time and money figuring out how to comply with regulations. Instead, here in Congress, we should be focused on getting government out of the way and allowing the American people to actually do their job, and that is what both of these bills do. This is a fair rule, and I urge its support. The coal ash rule allows for six amendments, all but one of them Democrat amendments. The food labeling rule allows for four amendments, all of them Democrat amendments, including one amendment that is a complete substitute for the bill. The Rules Committee has worked very hard to make a very fair amendment process, and I believe that is exactly what this bill has done. I do urge support for this rule. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. BYRNE. 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 consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only. General Leave

Mr. BYRNE. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 369 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. BYRNE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I appreciate the gentleman from Massachusetts' interest in this very important topic. We said it several times. I am going to say it again. What this bill does is provides a national label where there is no label now at the national level; and we believe so strongly in that, that we put forward this bill. Our side put forward this bill to give us a national label because there is none now. There is zero, and you would be, as a consumer, totally depending upon your local government, your State government, coming up with it. You may find that your government at the local level has one thing, your State government at the State level has another, a community down the road has a different one. The idea behind the uniformity is to give consumers a uniform way of understanding what this information is. I do wonder, by the way, what some people at home may be thinking when they hear all this talk about GMOs. They may be running to the refrigerator and saying, What is this GMO stuff? The truth of the matter is we all are probably consuming GMOs, because they have actually been a tremendous benefit not just to the agricultural industry, but to us consumers. It gives us so many different varieties of good quality food that we didn't have before. So this is not about whether GMOs are a good thing or a bad thing. They are about our side providing a vehicle to give a national labeling system today, where there is none today. I think the consumers of America will appreciate the fact that we did that. I do want to go back and say one last thing about the coal ash bill. There has been a lot of talk about somehow this bill weakening the EPA regulation. Totally to the contrary, this bill codifies the regulation in statutory law. Whereas under the present regime at the EPA they are not going to do any oversight over how it is going to be implemented, they are going to rely upon people to file lawsuits in various Federal courts around the Nation, this bill provides that State regulators who are already doing this for the most part will be the ones to provide that regulation with their substantial expertise and experience, which, I can tell you from my years of practicing law in Federal courts, the vast majority of our Federal judges don't have that. They will do their jobs. They will do their homework. Their law clerks will work with them, but they won't bring to it what these State regulators have. So we have substantially enhanced the regulation here. We have substantially enhanced its implementation by having this bill before the House and the House adopting it. As they consider these two bills, I would urge everyone to understand that what we have offered in these bills is good for consumers and it is good for the economy of the United States because it lessens that regulatory burden I have talked about at the beginning.

Mr. BYRNE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the points of the gentleman from Maryland. I, too, would like to see a 6-year highway bill. If you come to my district and see Interstate 10 going through Mobile at rush hour, on a holiday weekend, or on a summer weekend, you will see cars backed up just about every direction. We need another I-10 bridge across the Mobile River. We can't do that with a short-term highway bill. So I strongly support what you are trying to accomplish--maybe not exactly how you are trying to get there, but I certainly support the concept there. Here is the problem, though. Your idea, whatever it is, hasn't been vetted through committee. You are just going to put it up here in place of whatever we have got, and there really won't be an adequate opportunity for the Members of this House to understand all the details, and the details are going to matter. Also, I was listening to the gentleman from Massachusetts in his initial statement talk about how inappropriate it is that we put two different bills on two different topics under one rule, and now we are going to interject transportation. Well, if agriculture and energy are confusing, if we add transportation, it is going to be further confusing. So as much as I appreciate the idea that the gentleman from Maryland has--perhaps not the specifics, but the idea--this is not the appropriate place, and this is certainly not the appropriate rule for us to be discussing it. When the time comes to be appropriate, I will actually move the previous question, but I will also ask all of my colleagues to support the previous question when I do so. I believe that is the appropriate way for this House to handle a matter of this magnitude, and it is a matter of great magnitude. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. BYRNE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I wanted to assure my friend from Massachusetts that the gentleman from Washington and I are indeed paying attention to him, as we do in the Committee on Rules. He is a very knowledgeable gentleman and certainly makes very interesting points. The problem is that, as I listened to you talk, what you were saying, the gentleman says, I think quite eloquently, that we need a national standard, and right now, we don't have a national standard. This bill will provide a national standard. If you want a national standard, the status quo doesn't get you there. If you want a national standard, this bill gets you there. That is why the bill has been offered. That is why we have this rule today, and that is why it is so important that we have this debate and the debate on the underlying rule, so we can make sure we are all straight about what this bill does and does not do. This bill does something that is not being done right now. It provides a national standard for GMO. The gentleman, I think, would like for it to be mandatory; the bill calls for it to be voluntary. We can disagree about whether or not that is advisable, but we can't disagree about the fact that there is no national standard now, and this bill provides one. I want to make sure the gentleman knows, we listened to him. He makes very interesting points that are always educational to us, but we don't agree with his line of thought here. This bill, in our judgment, gets us where I think he is trying to take us to go. I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. BYRNE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I was listening to the gentleman's remarks. If he believes that, by codifying the EPA regulation that this bill is undermining the EPA, I just don't follow that reasoning. That is what this bill does. It takes the EPA regulation and it codifies it. It puts it into statutory law. It sets it as a minimum, and it allows the State regulators who are already regulating solid and hazardous waste to use that as a minimum and to go above it. Far from undermining the EPA's authority here, far from undermining the effort to get a clean environment for the people of America, this enhances it by putting it into law and allowing the States to go above it if that is what they want to do. What this bill really does that is new and is different from what the EPA is trying to do is that it takes the enforcement of this away from different Federal courts around the country, and it gives it to the State regulators, who are already providing this regulation in other common areas and who have been since 1976. I am a lawyer and have practiced in Federal courts. We have many fine Federal district judges around the country, but they are not experts in this area. If you bring a lawsuit in their courts, they and their law clerks will work very hard to make sure that they get it as close to right as they can. But in not having their experience and their expertise, we are going to get a lot of differences. We are going to get a patchwork. Whereas, if we go to the State regulators, who are doing it now, we are going to get something that makes sense within each of these individual States, given their different geographies and topographies and other things that we should consider. This coal ash bill does not undermine the law. It enhances the law. Now, on the food labeling law, we had discussion about this in the Rules Committee yesterday. I am a consumer. I go to the store. My wife sends me to the store, and she says to get this, this, this, and this. She does a lot of studying before I do that, but sometimes I have to read the labels. Now, imagine that I go to a store where I live in Alabama and that I am an hour away from Mississippi and an hour away from Florida. Somebody has got to put a product on store shelves up and down the gulf coast, and they have got to comply with all three States' regulations on what has got to be on the label. I am going to pick up a can, and there are going to be all of these different disclosure requirements, but they have been put on the same can because they have got to make sure they can market it in all of these States. I have got to figure out what does all of that mean as opposed to having one common, uniform disclosure. If somebody chooses not to disclose--if a producer of a given food product chooses not to disclose whether or not it contains GMOs--I am going to assume that there are. If I have a problem with GMOs, I am not going to buy it. Five percent of the consumers in America today won't buy GMOs, and they are pretty educated consumers. What they are going to do is they are going to go into the store and say, ``All right. Who has got GMO labeling and who doesn't? If they don't, I am not buying it.'' If the producers of those foods want to sell something to those customers, they had better start taking advantage of what is happening through this common rule, this uniform rule, across the country to market themselves. Far from hurting the consumers, this helps the consumers. That is what this bill has tried so very hard to do, and I think they have done a good job with it. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Newhouse), a member of the Rules Committee and a farmer himself.

Mr. BYRNE

Mr. BYRNE. Mr. Chairman, thank you for your work on this critical legislation. The Resilient Federal Forest Act is key if the Forest Service is to have the flexibility it needs to actively manage our Nation's Federal timberland. Now, I come from a State where forestry is critically important to our economy and our ecosystem. In fact, forestry is a $13 billion industry in Alabama. Thankfully, my State does not have a serious issue with wildfires due to our active forest management. That said, it does not mean that my area isn't impacted by the wildfire crisis. The Forest Service and the Bureau of Land Management are forced to spend so much money fighting wildfires that they have to take money away from other nonfire accounts that, ironically, help prevent wildfires, like thinning and controlled burns. Mr. Chairman, this bill just makes sense. By simplifying the environmental process requirements and reducing burdensome regulations that hinder active forest management on Federal timberland, we can help reduce wildfires and protect our Nation's forests. So I want to thank the gentleman from Arkansas and others for their work on this bill and the continued leadership on behalf of our Nation's foresters. Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues in this House to support this legislation, and I call on the Senate to act on this bill right away.

Mr. BYRNE

Mr. BYRNE. Mr. Chairman, my straightforward amendment would prohibit any effort to redirect funds allocated under the Gulf of Mexico Energy Security Act, also referred to as GOMESA. GOMESA was passed in 2006 and created a revenue sharing agreement for offshore oil revenue between the Federal Government and four States in the Gulf of Mexico: Texas, Louisiana, Mississippi, and my home State of Alabama. Under GOMESA, 37.5 percent of the revenues generated from selected oil and gas lease sales in the Outer Continental Shelf of the Gulf of Mexico is returned to these Gulf States. There is a reason the law was structured this way. These Gulf States not only provide the lion's share of the infrastructure and workforce for the industry in the Gulf of Mexico; we also have inherent environmental and economic risks. The BP oil spill 5 years ago should tell us all what that means. Unfortunately, Mr. Chairman, in his budget proposal this year, President Obama has recommended that the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, under the Department of the Interior, redirect the distribution of expanded revenue payments expected to start in 2018 for the Gulf of Mexico oil and gas leases away from the Gulf Coast and instead be spent all around the country. Not only does this proposal directly contradict the current Federal statute, it vastly undermines the purpose of the law, to keep revenues from these lease sales in the States that supply the workforce and have the inherent risk of a potential environmental and economic disaster. My amendment today is simple, to protect the clearly defined statute and prevent the President from using these revenue sharing agreements as a slush fund for politically driven environmental projects across the country. Regardless of whether you are from a Gulf Coast State or not, I would urge my colleagues to vote in favor of this important amendment to protect the rule of law to support our coastal communities. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from California (Mr. Calvert), the chairman.

Mr. BYRNE. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. BYRNE. Mr. Chairman, I wish that these sorts of amendments were unnecessary, but the way this administration plays fast and loose with its interpretation of the law, particularly through these administrative agencies, I am afraid it is necessary to protect a law passed by this Congress in 2006 in recognition of the inherent risk that these four Gulf States have produced so much energy for this country have, and without it, we will have an agency that will take the laws that exist-- even this appropriations bill--and interpret it the way they want to, and this amendment makes it very clear they can't do that, that these four coastal States will retain control over these moneys as it was enacted by this Congress in 2006. Mr. Chairman, I respect the gentlewoman's point of view. I wish it were unnecessary, but given the behavior of this administration through these administrative agencies, I am afraid it is necessary. Mr. Chairman, I ask for the Members to support this amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. BYRNE. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. BYRNE

Mr. BYRNE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in the wake of last week's devastating shooting in a church in Charleston, South Carolina. The killing of any human is a real tragedy, but to lose nine innocent people while they were in a Bible study simply because of the color of their skin is heinous beyond words. On behalf of the people of southwest Alabama, I want to share our condolences with the families of those who lost loved ones. Let me be very clear. In today's society, this kind of hate-based act and particularly hate-based on race or ethnicity is deplorable and unacceptable. We are one Nation, and there is no place in our country for racism. As a southerner, but more importantly, as an American, I feel as if there has been a death in my own family because these deaths were in my family, the family of all citizens in the United States of America.

Mr. BYRNE

Mr. BYRNE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to celebrate the 800th anniversary of one of the world's most important documents, the Magna Carta. On June 15, 1215, King John added his seal to the Magna Carta after it was drafted by barons in England who were tired of continued attacks on their freedoms and rights by a tyrannical king. The Magna Carta, which is Latin for ``the great charter,'' established the rule of law in England and served as an inspiration for the American revolution and the basis for the Declaration of Independence and our Bill of Rights. As Thomas Paine said in 1776: ``In free countries, the law ought to be king; and there ought to be no other.'' Mr. Speaker, it seems that far too often our problem is we don't fully understand our history, and that is why we stray from it. We are currently dealing with a President who has shown a willingness to change the laws through executive fiat. I believe it is vitally important that we remember the Magna Carta, which is based on the idea that no person, regardless of their position, will ever be above the law. People from all over the world have fought for centuries in order to preserve and defend this basic principle, and that fight can never end. So on this 800th anniversary, I call on this body to remember the Magna Carta and work every day to carry forward the torch of freedom.

Mr. BYRNE

Mr. BYRNE. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the order of the House of June 10, 2015, regarding consideration of the Senate amendments to H.R. 1295, be modified by striking ``printed'' and inserting ``submitted for printing.''

Mr. BYRNE

Mr. BYRNE. Mr. Chairman, my straightforward amendment would cut the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, or ATF, by 20 percent. That would result in $250 million worth of savings. Let me make one thing clear. I know that the ATF has an important mission to play in keeping our Nation safe and regulating everything from firearms to alcohol. That said, in the last few years, we have seen an outrageous growth in operations and regulations coming out of the ATF. How could we forget the Fast and Furious gun trafficking scheme that was allowed to go so far offtrack that 2,000 guns were allowed to flow to Mexican drug trafficking groups? Worst of all, a Federal law enforcement officer was killed with a gun from that operation. There was Operation Fearless, where an undercover operation in Milwaukee, Wisconsin, went horribly wrong. Convicted felons were given access to weapons, the fake storefront was burglarized, and $39,000 in merchandise was lost. The ATF even used someone with developmental disabilities in the operation and ultimately arrested him for his involvement. From Wichita, Kansas, to Portland, Oregon, to Atlanta, Georgia, the stories of botched operations and inappropriate action just goes on and on. Then there was the ATF's recent attempt to reclassify common M855 ammunition as armor piercing, despite its exemption from this classification since 1986 for sporting purposes. Thankfully, this proposal was dropped after pressure from Congress. Mr. Chairman, the people I represent in southwest Alabama are tired of a Federal Government that doesn't live within its means. They want to see their elected officials in Washington get serious about making cuts to the Federal bureaucracy. My constituents also are tired of executive overreach and the Federal Government involving itself in areas where it simply doesn't belong. I know that the committee and Chairman Culberson have made real efforts to rein in the ATF, and I appreciate those efforts. I also understand that ATF is now under new leadership, and I hope that the new leaders get serious about much-needed reforms. I am all for safety and responsible gun ownership, and the ATF does have a role to play in that, but this amendment would simply require ATF to return to its core functions and responsibilities. It would cause ATF to look at itself in the mirror, find areas where they can cut back, and refocus on their true priorities. Ultimately, this amendment is about protecting our Second Amendment rights while also pushing for real reforms to Federal spending. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. BYRNE. I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. BYRNE. I want to thank the gentleman from Texas for his superb work in this area. We are in great debt to you for all that you have done. And I am 100 percent confident you will continue to do that. I don't know the new leadership over there. I pray that it is truly new leadership. Because what has happened at ATF is simply not acceptable. And it is particularly not acceptable when it interferes with the Second Amendment rights of the people of the United States of America. So I thank the gentleman. I know that he will do everything he possibly can. I will take him up on his offer to meet the new leadership. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. BYRNE

Mr. BYRNE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor Dr. Judy Bonner, President of the University of Alabama, for her leadership and commitment to the Alabama Girls State program. Throughout her career, Dr. Bonner has encouraged young women to set high goals and never give up on their dreams. As a child, her father would cut out articles from newspapers about impressive achievements by women around the world. So from an early age, Dr. Bonner learned to dream beyond the confines of her charming hometown of Camden, Alabama. In 1964, Dr. Bonner was selected by her school to attend Girls State, which was held at Huntingdon College in Montgomery. There she made many friends and learned a great deal about how our state and local governments work. While many things inspired Dr. Bonner over the years, Alabama Girls State certainly made a big impression. Dr. Bonner went on to serve as President of the Future Homemakers of America, was selected as ``Most Intelligent'' in the Who's Who of her senior class, and served as editor-in-chief of her high school newspaper, The Tiger Rag. She received her Bachelor of Science and Master of Science degrees from The University of Alabama and her doctorate from Ohio State University. Girls State helped motivate Dr. Bonner to do great things in her life and to have a positive impact on her community and state. It is only fitting that Dr. Bonner would go on to become the first female President of the University of Alabama and the first female President from a school in the Southeastern Conference. Under her leadership, Dr. Bonner has guided The University of Alabama through record-breaking growth and expansion. University of Alabama System Chancellor Dr. Robert E. Witt is quoted as saying, ``I can say firsthand that she is one of the most intelligent, well-focused and forward thinking academic administrators in the nation.'' During her tenure at Alabama, Dr. Bonner has continued to play a key role in the Alabama Girls State program. She successfully recruited the American Legion Auxiliary's Girls State program to the campus of the University of Alabama in 2013. This year, Dr. Bonner will once again have a key impact on the over 350 young women taking part in the Girls State program. Mr. Speaker, I applaud Dr. Bonner for her continued commitment to inspiring and motivating young women in Alabama and across the United States to reach beyond ordinary expectations and never give up on their dreams.

Mr. BYRNE

Mr. BYRNE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize the retirement of a great American and my dear friend, Coast Guard Captain Samuel Duke Walker. Captain Walker has served as Commander of Coast Guard Sector Mobile since July of 2013. Before coming to Southwest Alabama, he served as Chief of Response for the Eighth Coast Guard District, where he also served as the Federal On-Scene Coordinator for the Deepwater Horizon Spill of National Significance Response. Captain Walker graduated from the U.S. Coast Guard Officer Candidate School in 1987. He is a graduate of Rhode Island College with a degree in Electronic Design, and he also holds a Master of Business Administration degree from the University of South Alabama's South of Business. During his time with the Coast Guard, Captain Walker has earned many accolades. Captain Walker was promoted to the rank of Captain on July 1, 2008, and he served as President of the Class of 2009 at the National War College. His decorations include the Legion of Merit, Bronze Star, Meritorious Service Medal, Coast Guard Commendation Medal, Coast Guard Achievement Medal, and Combat Action Ribbon. Captain Walker has been a leader in the Coast Guard, but he has also been a leader in the local community. Captain Walker has called Mobile home for much of his life, and he is a 2001 graduate and Class President of Leadership Mobile. During a recent boating tragedy in Mobile Bay, Captain Walker acted as a steady leader and reassuring voice to members of the community. It is safe to say that Captain Walker has truly become a member of the Southwest Alabama community. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank Captain Walker, his wife, and their three children for their dedicated service to the United States Coast Guard, the Gulf Coast, and the entire nation. So on behalf of the people of Alabama's First Congressional District, I want to wish Captain Walker all the best in his retirement. We will miss his service to the Coast Guard, but I am happy to know Captain Walker will continue to call Mobile home.

Mr. BYRNE

Mr. BYRNE. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 274 and ask for its immediate consideration.

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