A bill to designate the Federal building located at 324 Twenty-Fifth Street in Ogden, Utah, as the James V. Hansen Federal Building.

Mr. President, I rise today to offer my strong support for a Senate resolution condemning the abuses in United States detention facilities in Iraq.

This resolution makes clear that the abusive behavior we have seen graphically portrayed in photographs, detailed in the report of MG Antonio Taguba, and described by Secretary Rumsfeld in testimony last week, are unacceptable.

Such conduct is wrong, un-American, and inconsistent with the history and tradition of our military services. It is critical that the Senate voices its absolute rejection of the conduct, and this resolution does just that.

It must be understood that this resolution, however, is narrow and focused. It is confined to expressing our views on the specific conduct at issue. It does not purport to be a comprehensive view

on the implications of this growing scandal, nor a conclusive statement of a congressional investigation into this incident, and its ramifications.

I believe that such an investigation is necessary and should be undertaken as soon as possible. We need to know why the Geneva Convention appears to have been ignored. We need to understand how such a debacle could have happened, and what orders were given by who, and when, which governed the prison at Abu Ghraib. We need to know why the reports of the Red Cross and others were not responded to in a comprehensive and timely manner. And why was this problem concealed for months from the Congress and the American people.

If the conflict in Iraq is seen as a battle for the hearts and minds of the Iraqi people, then it is unfathomable how such a devastating failure in that battle could be allowed to happen. This is not just about personal accountability, or abuse--it is about the conduct of a conflict upon which the future of our security may depend.

It is also important to recognize that planning and implementing a military detention and interrogation operation is a necessary and important part of a competent and professional war plan. There are three reasons why this is so:

First, the information gained from proper interrogation is critical to protect our warfighters--it allows us to deal with the tactical risk on the ground in Iraq. Simply put, military interrogation is part of the overall intelligence-gathering mechanism which is designed to provide timely, accurate information to front line troops and strategic planners. Done correctly, a well-run, properly administered military detention system will yield information that will keep our men and women in uniform alive in the face of an increasingly violent insurgency.

Second, detention and interrogation is inherently risky, and that risk is a moral risk. It is not easy to run prisons, interrogate detainees, and maintain order in a manner consistent with our Nation's moral values. There are certainly some guides to help manage this risk: the Geneva Convention, for instance, provides a well-established set of guidelines that can not only allow American soldiers to adhere to international law, but help them ensure that their conduct is acceptable to Americans and to our moral code.

Third, it should be apparent that the administration of a military prison system inside Iraq is a clear danger point in the context of our strategic goals--prisons pose a necessary, but important, strategic risk. Failure to adhere to the highest standards of conduct will fuel the increasingly hostile view of Americans and American policy in Iraq and the Middle East.

I have reviewed Secretary Rumsfeld's testimony, as well as other information provided in public statements of the administration and private briefings.

I am becoming increasingly concerned that the Secretary, and the Administration, are missing the point of this growing scandal.

Of course there is a need to investigate individual wrongdoing and hold people accountable for their acts according to the Code of Military Justice. But much more needs to be done. I see little evidence that there has been adequate planning for the management and function of military detention facilities in Iraq, and this failure needs to be addressed now.

This is critical for the three reasons I outlined above. In essence, military detention facilities should be looked upon exactly like other elements of war-planning--necessary to fight successfully, but carrying risks to our soldiers and to our mission.

I am concerned that this function has not been adequately planned. It does not surprise me that we see the lack of planning becoming apparent in the revelation of individual misconduct, but I think it is critical that the Department of Defense take on the larger issue, and take it on immediately.

The situation is grim. Each of the three risks I mentioned have come to be.

Some of our soldiers, inadequately supervised and poorly commanded, have succumbed to the moral hazards of running a prison. I do not excuse their actions, and they will be held accountable for their actions. But it is predictable that without adequate command and control such conduct will happen in a prison, and for that Secretary Rumsfeld and senior Army commanders are responsible.

It is clear that the potentially valuable source of tactical intelligence that could have been gained through the competent and professional administration of military detention facilities was wantonly thrown away by allowing those facilities to degenerate into a chaotic and ungoverned free-for-all.

It is my view that there is a place for properly conducted interrogation in the context of a military detention facility.

But it seems to me that what we have seen is not overly aggressive interrogation, but wanton cruelty and abuse, unconnected with any doctrinally acceptable method of prisoner interrogation.

We will never know what potentially valuable tactical intelligence was lost in the chaos of Abu Ghraib prison, but I am confident that whatever intelligence was there was unlikely to have been elicited in that environment.

Again, Secretary Rumsfeld and senior commanders are responsible for this failure, and I call upon them to immediately remedy this situation.

We have troops on the ground, under fire, and we cannot afford to abandon a mechanism for gathering intelligence which could help make our troops safer.

Finally, the failure to run this element of our war effort competently has resulted in a catastrophic setback to our strategic interests.

It should have been self-evident that failure to run U.S. detention facilities in a professional, competent and lawful manner would, when made public, adversely affect our prospects in Iraq and in the region.

Simply put, American soldiers will come under increasing fire because of the failure to run the prisons correctly, and whatever prospects remain for peacefully transferring power to an Iraqi government have been diminished.

In sum, it is important to recognize that planning for detention and interrogation of prisoners is as much a part of war planning as making sure that there is enough gas for tanks, enough ammunition for guns and armor for our soldiers.

I am concerned that the failure to plan for this aspect of the war is consistent with a general pattern at the Pentagon--an unwillingness to plan for the realities of Iraq and the Middle East. We will all pay for that failure.

One key part of the resolution speaks to the roll of the Congress, noting that ``the best interests of the United States and the American people will be served by a full investigation by the appropriate Committees of the United States Senate exercising their oversight responsibilities.'' This is a critical point. This body must immediately begin its task of addressing this issue.

There are a few particular questions upon which I hope we will focus:

Whether, and to what extent, the conditions and procedures in Abu Ghraib and other prisons came about because of particular policy decisions by senior officials. For instance, who made the decision, reported in the media, to use prison guards to ``set the conditions'' for interrogations?

Why was the critical task of administering Abu Gharaib entrusted to soldiers without adequate training or guidance?

Who in the command structure is responsible for maintaining and administering our military program to detain and interrogate prisoners in Iraq and elsewhere?

I hope we can answer these, and other questions, and make the changes necessary to make our nation safer.

Madam President, I am pleased we have this resolution before us. I think all of us share the same thoughts about this whole Iraqi prisoner abuse issue. We are all very disappointed and very troubled about the events in the prison. We need to move forward to resolve this issue. We need to do what needs to be done as a followup. We do not need to make it into a political operation for the next week because we have other things to do in Iraq. But we must take care of this issue because we, as Americans, hold ourselves to a higher standard.

These are appalling actions of those responsible for the treatment of the detainees in Iraq. It falls far short of any of those standards. Our credibility has been called into question in the eyes of those we are trying to help, as well as the rest of the world. These incidents of cruelty and mistreatment at the hands of American service men and women are inexcusable, and certainly it is a very small group of our service people. Unfortunately, the foolish actions of a few have cast a pall on thousands of our military. All of us know that is not the case, and all of us who have served in the military know these are not the kinds of activities we are ordered to do.

There have been mistakes, and we need to determine how those happened and see they do not happen again so our folks can continue at the very hard job they have.

These terrible events have dealt a blow to what we are seeking to do. I want to say again our task is to win in Iraq, and this is a deterrent from that, but we can overcome it and move on with the task.

This also makes it more important that we win at home. With the media and the emphasis that has been put on this issue, it detracts from our job. We cannot let that happen. If we are really as strong in our feeling about our service people overseas, we ought to make sure we support what they are doing and continue to give them that support.

We as a nation must deliberately correct the situation and ensure it does not happen again. All of us want to do that.

Democracies hold themselves accountable. That is our task. We can do

it, and we will do it. We acknowledge we have done wrong, and we will move to correct it. That is what this resolution is about. That is what the hearings are about. That is what holding people in authority responsible is about. We need to move on that initiative. We need to get the facts. We need to make the whole effort more transparent in the future, of course, as all Government activities should be transparent.

The process needs to move swiftly and decisively. We need to do this job and get on with the rest of the job.

For those who committed the acts and those who enabled them, we need to do all we can in determining if there is involvement in the chain of command.

I do not think anyone denies that is what we need to do. These things that have happened are certainly fundamentally contradictory to American values. The eyes of the world are focused now on how we will react, and we have reacted. The President has reacted. The Secretary has reacted. The Congress will react. We need to ensure that it continues, but I do warn that we ought not divert all of our attention to this issue, taking it away from the overall issue that still exists. We need to be there. The stakes are simply too high to play politics with this issue, and unfortunately that might well happen.

So we need to proceed. We need to make everyone understand that these are not the kinds of things that the United States will live with and let happen. We will do something about it. We need to bring those to justice who were involved. We will go forward and we will win in Iraq. First, we must win in the United States.

Energy Policy

Earlier, I listened to the assistant minority leader talk about energy and say that the things we are doing now have nothing to do with an energy bill. I think that is absolutely wrong. What we are talking about is an energy policy that will last somewhat over time but is designed to change some of the things that we are doing in energy and energy use that are causing us part of the problems today. Will they reflect some change in the next day or two? Of course not. But we need to be working forward at doing something about the long-term impact of energy.

I will briefly talk about a few of the things that need to be done because it is just impossible to say they do not have an impact. Keep in mind that we have had an energy bill now last year and this year, and we tried to bring it up on the Senate floor. It passed here, went to conference, came back, and would not be accepted again. We have been obstructed and cannot move forward in doing something with the broad energy bill that has to do with energy efficiency. Again, it is going to take some time to do that, but it is very clear that consumption has gone up faster than has production. If we continue to do so, this will be the case. Even more importantly, our consumption will grow and our production--if we keep it as it is--will soon be overcome and will not grow. So we have to talk about issues like renewable energy. We have to talk about alternative energy. Those things are in the bill. That is what we are talking about doing, seeing if we can do some things differently than we have in the past.

We also have some incentives to continue like in marginal wells. Marginal wells, even with the price as high as it is, if there is not some incentive for a well that only delivers two, three, or four barrels a day, we do not produce them, but in total they still have a large impact on what we are doing.

We need to make some changes in the way we use energy. We are using oil, for example, to heat homes. We are using oil to do a lot of things other than make gasoline. We have other energy sources that could be used for that purpose. The same is true with natural gas. We are using natural gas for many things. For instance, the electric-generating plants that have been built in the last 10 or 15 years have all been natural gas plants. Natural gas is so much more flexible for other uses: we ought to be using coal; we ought to be using nuclear for the generation of electricity so we can use natural gas for other purposes.

So to say this bill has nothing to do with our problems with energy is absolutely without merit. It does have a great deal to do with it.

We talked about some things that would have a pretty immediate impact, such as doing something on the Indian reservations to promote production. They would like to do that, but we have not really been able to make it happen. We are talking about doing something with hydrogen, fairly short term, to make hydrogen part of automobile fuel, and use coal and make hydrogen for automobiles.

We can talk about the price of gas next week. I would love to be able to do something about that, and hopefully maybe we can, but the real thoughtful question is, where are we going to be in 5, 10, or 15 years from now to meet the needs which will constantly be growing? We need to have a plan. We need to have a policy. This Congress has absolutely refused to move forward with the policy, along with many other things, and has strictly been obstructed from moving forward. So every week we are going through the same things because we cannot get them passed. Something needs to be done.

I think we have some very important issues before us. First of all, we have this resolution. I favor the resolution, which says very clearly how we feel about what happened in the prisons in Iraq. It says very clearly what we ought to be doing about those responsible for those acts. It says very clearly that we ought to make sure that does not happen in the future and that we can go back to doing what we are supposed to be doing. I hope we do not make such an issue in terms of accomplishing things that we detract from the real purpose of our being in Iraq, and that is to win freedom for the Iraqi people, do something about terrorism, and be able to bring our men and women back to the United States after the victory.

I yield the floor and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

I ask unanimous consent that the time in the quorum call be equally divided between the two sides.

Mr. President, from time to time the Judicial Conference and the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts recommend legislative proposals to improve the efficiency and enhance the operations of the Federal courts. I believe that, out of comity to the judicial branch, the Senate should have the judiciary's specific proposals on record so that we can give those suggestions proper consideration.

Today, joined by Senators Leahy, Chambliss, Clinton, Durbin, and Schumer, I am introducing the Federal Courts Improvement Act of 2004. This bill contains both technical and substantive changes in the law. These recommendations made by the judicial branch will improve the judicial process and enhance judiciary personnel administration, benefits, and protections. Some proposals have been carried over from previous Congresses, but the legislation also contains some new proposals which the Federal judiciary believes will improve its operation. I appreciate the support of my cosponsors, and encourage the entire Senate to support this legislation.

Many provisions contained in this bill streamline the operation of the Federal court system or otherwise facilitate judicial operations. The bill authorizes some realignments in the composition or the place of holding court of specified district courts. For example, section 120 would grant emergency authority for circuit, district and bankruptcy courts, as well as magistrate judges, to conduct court proceedings outside the territorial jurisdiction of the court. The need for this legislation has become apparent following the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, and the impact of that disaster on court operations, in particular in New York City. In emergency conditions, a Federal court facility in an adjoining district (or circuit) might be more readily and safely available to court personnel, litigants, jurors and the public than a facility at a place of holding court within the district. This is particularly true in major metropolitan areas such as New York, Washington, DC, Dallas and Kansas City, where the metropolitan area includes parts of more than one judicial district.

Other sections of the bill contain provisions that would improve resource management within the judiciary. The bill would improve the procedures for recouping technology costs and also would broaden the courts' investment options and offer an improved procedure for investing court registry funds in Treasury securities. Other provisions increase the approval thresholds for payment vouchers or expand the delegation authority of respect to approving vouchers. These improvements will reduce the amount of time judges must devote to non- judicial matters.

Provisions in this bill also clarify existing law to better fulfill Congress's original intent or to make technical corrections. For example, sections 113 and 114 clarify diversity jurisdiction rules as applied to resident aliens and foreign corporations. Section 117 repeals references to obsolete sections of the U.S. Code.

In addition, the Federal Courts Improvement Act of 2004 also contains provisions designed to improve personnel administration, benefits and protections for employees working for the Federal judiciary. These provisions, in some cases, bring the Federal judicial system in line with the executive branch and other governmental bodies. Other provisions are designed to improve the ability of the judiciary to recruit and retain personnel.

Several sections improve the judicial system in other ways. The bill offers protection of certain information contained in bankruptcy case files, such as Social Security account numbers, from public disclosure. The proposed legislation provides protection against malicious recording of fictitious liens against Federal judges. The bill provides for improving the process for determining Federal court security requirements.

I ask unanimous consent that the text of the legislation, along with a section-by-section analysis of the bill, be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I am introducing legislation along with Senator Bennett to designate the Federal building located at 324 Twenty-fifth Street in Ogden, Utah, as the James V. Hansen Federal Building.

I am pleased to introduce this measure today to honor my friend from Utah, former Congressman Jim Hansen. I am joined by my colleague Senator Bennett, who has also worked extensively with Congressman Hansen on issues important to the people of Utah.

Congressman Hansen retired last year after serving in the United States House of Representatives, representing Utah's First Congressional District, for 22 years. Before his 11 terms in Congress, he served in the Utah State Legislature for 8 years, where he ascended to the role of speaker of the Utah House of Representatives. For 12 years, he served on the Farmington City Council. He is a veteran of the Korean War and served in the United States Navy.

Congressman Hansen has served the people of Utah with great distinction in the House of Representatives. He served as the Chairman of the House Resources Committee, as a senior member on the Armed Services Committee, and as a member of the House Ethics Committee,. He is one of the three founders of the Western Caucus and served as its chairman from 1988 to 1999.

While serving as the Chairman of the Resources Committee, Congressman Hansen guided hundreds of difficult and complex bills through the legislative process. He sponsored numerous pieces of legislation to protect land in Utah and the Arizona Strip, and designate wilderness lands in Wyoming and Montana.

Congressman Hansen proved to be an effective broker in the Congress, as he crafted numerous agreements that provided sensible policies to encourage multiple use of public lands, preservation of the environment, and sound economic principles. As the Resources Committee Chairman, Congressman Hansen facilitated compromises and negotiated many agreements among diverse parties.

Congressman Hansen also rose to the role of the ranking member of the House Armed Services Committee. He was instrumental in helping preserve Hill Air Force Base through three rounds of base closures. While on the Committee, he led the effort to stop President Clinton's attempt to transfer work being conducted at Hill Air Force Base to California. He came to be known as an expert leader on defense issues, and he has a distinguished reputation for speaking with authority on intricate military topics.

Congressman Hansen served longer than any member to date on the House Committee on Standards of Official Conduct. His colleagues in the House reappointed him three times, and in the third term he served as Chairman. When Hansen was a freshman in Congress, he worked with President Ronald Regan to establish the Presidential Commission on Drunk Driving. In the first year of the program, the number of deaths resulting from drunk driving declined by 4,700.

Over the course of his life, Congressman Hansen has built a reputation as a decent, commonsense, hard-working public servant. He is respected by members on both sides of the aisle as a straightforward, rational lawmaker who works hard to reach sensible solutions.

Mr. President, it is only fitting that the Federal building in Ogden bear Congressman Hansen's name. He devoted time, energy, and talent to improving the State of Utah. The name of Jim Hansen will bring a level of trust, a level of fairness, and a level of understanding to all who enter this building. His name will continue to be synonymous with excellence in public service in Utah.

Congressman Hansen advocated what was best for his constituents and what was best for the Nation. I thank Congressman Hansen, and I wish him the best in the activities he chooses to pursue.

Senator Bennett and I are pleased to introduce this companion legislation in the Senate. I note that Representative Cannon has introduced a companion bill which has been passed by the House of Representatives. I hope this measure will be approved by the Senate in short order.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. President, I just returned from my home State of Florida, and I cannot state the number of people who came up to me over the course of the weekend to ask me about the situation in the prison in Baghdad and the question of what should be done with Secretary Rumsfeld.

My reaction is, we have an ongoing investigation. I would like to see some more results of that investigation, in addition to what we have already been shocked with in the graphic photographs--although I understand we have ``not seen nothing yet,'' that we are going to get more graphic photographs, including some videos that are fairly descriptive of behavior that is clearly not behavior approved in the normal course of the standards of Americans.

Of course, offensive conduct by Americans is made all the more difficult as we are in unsettled parts of the world in a place of Arab culture and the Muslim religion.

Often, my response has been specifically about Secretary Rumsfeld; that this issue is much greater than any one Secretary of Defense. The issue comes down to how America has planned for the postwar occupation. We did not do a very good job of planning for the postwar occupation.

This Senator happens to be a Democrat from Florida, but that does not have anything to do with this. What I am about to say is very bipartisan, or nonpartisan. One of the committees on

which I have the privilege of serving is the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. The chairman is a Republican and his name is Dick Lugar of Indiana. He has been saying very similar things to what I am about to say, as has his ranking Republican member, Senator Chuck Hagel of Nebraska, and certainly the ranking Democrat and former chairman, Senator Joe Biden of Delaware. It is this: We had a brilliant military campaign in Afghanistan and again in Iraq, led, by the way, by a Floridian, GEN Tommy Franks.

To give credit where credit is due, I include Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld. He ought to be given credit. It was a brilliant military campaign, blending the use of military forces--specifically, special operations forces in Afghanistan--with other agencies, such as the CIA. The CIA was first in Afghanistan. The first American killed in Afghanistan was Mike Spann, a CIA agent detailed out of Uzbekistan.

So, too, in the runup to the military campaign in Iraq, a brilliant military planning in the war effort. We took Iraq in much fewer days than General Franks had ever planned. Of course, that is what he is supposed to do as a combatant commander, plan for the worst and be very conservative in the planning. The military campaign was spectacular.

The problem was, before the war in Iraq, in the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, over and over we asked the administration--who is ``we''? It is all of those Senators I just talked about, the bipartisan leadership of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee--asking over and over, peppering the administration with questions: What are your plans? Well, we do not have them. Well, bring them to us. And they would come back with some cursory plan.

Of course, we are now seeing the results.

The prison problems are a manifestation of just one element of the lack of a plan, of what it is to be an occupier in a Muslim country and then not planning for the sensitivities of being an occupier in a Muslim country.

What do we do now? The criminal investigation will go forward. The rest of the reporting is going to go forward, and we will find out what to do with regard to the prisons. But what we ought to be doing, and I think we are hearing this chorus from a number of Members in a bipartisan way, coming out of the several committees--not the least of which is the Foreign Relations Committee--the President ought to convene the major countries of the world, along with the Arab neighbors of Iraq in the region, and they should forge consensus. When somebody says that consensus cannot be reached, all you have to do is explain to those countries it is in their naked self-interest to try to get a stabilized Iraq.

France, for example, has a Muslim population somewhere between 8 and 12 percent. Convene those nations and then invite in a NATO force led by the United States. Go to the United Nations, get a senior international diplomat to come in and start working after June 30 to build Iraq with the institutions so it can go to elections.

We will be there a long time. Anyone who doubts that, we are in the ninth year in Bosnia. It will take a lot of troops. Eventually, we will see our troops will have to be more than what we are planning for now with the 130,000 that we have there.

With those few short comments prior to the voting on this resolution, I thank the Senate for the privilege of addressing the Senate.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Healthy Lifestyles Act of 2004 with Senator Kennedy. This bill places the crafting of the Dietary Guidelines for Americans squarely on the shoulders of the independent Institute of Medicine of the National Academies of Sciences. This bill also establishes several grant programs to help curb the obesity epidemic that plagues more than one- third of Americans.

In the United States, approximately 300,000 of our citizens die each year as a result of being overweight or obese. This information becomes even more dire when you consider that 64 percent of adults and 13 percent of children and adolescents are overweight, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. More staggering, twice as many children and three times as many adolescents are characterized as overweight today as in 1980--when the Federal Government, through the U.S. Department of Agriculture, first published the Dietary Guidelines. In 1990, Congress took a larger role in the establishment of these Guidelines and passed legislation requiring the USDA and HHS to review, and, if necessary, revise the Guidelines every 5 years.

According to the CDC, in 1985, in no State in the union were more than 14 percent of the resident's obese, but in 2001, in every State but Colorado more than 15 percent of residents were obese. My own State of Illinois dramatically demonstrates this disturbing trend. According to CDC, in 1985, less than 10 percent of Illinois residents were obese. By 2001, between 20 and 24 percent of Illinois residents were obese.

Furthermore, according to the CDC, the medical expenses of the overweight and obese accounted for 9.1 percent of total U.S. medical expenditures in 1998 and may have reached as high as $78.5 billion. Approximately half of these costs were paid by Medicaid and Medicare.

It is time to fix this dysfunctional system. By placing the IOM in charge of drafting the Dietary Guidelines, we can help to ensure that the Guidelines

are based upon unbiased, sound, scientific evidence rather than which organization has the greatest influence. When dealing with the health and welfare of Americans, we can expect no less.

Additionally, this measure directs the IOM to examine nutrition programs run by the Federal Government, an important step to discern whether USDA, HHS, and other Federal agencies are properly conducting nutrition research.

While many factors contribute to this growing health crisis, the problem, in part, may be attributed to a lack of nutrition and fitness information available to the public, especially among low-income groups. This bill will help our communities to a better job of educating Americans about proper nutrition and the serious risks associated with obesity. The Federal Government can fund all the research that it wants, but that research will do no good unless it is properly communicated to the public.

This legislation empowers schools, local and State governments, and employers, through grant programs, to establish obesity-prevention initiatives. We can only limit the prevalence of obesity in America by empowering the individual through grassroots and community programs to change their eating and exercise behaviors. Obesity is not only a preventable disease, it is a curable disease. By encouraging more physical activity and better eating habits, we can help reduce the size of waistbands in America and help curb heart disease, type II diabetes rates, and other obesity-related diseases.

In communities at risk for poor nutrition, this legislation provides grant funding to help promote the consumption of foods that are consistent with the Dietary Guidelines and to promote water as the main daily drink choice for people. The measure provides grants to train health professionals and health science students in identifying, preventing, and treating obesity-related conditions.

With 64 percent of the people in our country classified as overweight or obese, it is obvious that the Dietary Guidelines and Federal nutrition monitoring programs have failed. I thank Senator Kennedy for joining me today to introduce the Healthy Lifestyles Act of 2004. We owe it to the American people to disseminate unbiased, sound, scientific nutrition information. I urge my colleagues to support this important piece of legislation.

I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.