Floor Statements

Madam President, on rollcall vote No. 94, amendment 413, I voted yea. It was my intention to vote nay. I ask unanimous consent I be permitted to change my vote, since it will not affect the outcome of the vote.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bills be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bills be printed in the Record.

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

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

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

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

Mr. President, the war to disarm Saddam Hussein and liberate the Iraqi people has begun. Many Americans feel we have waited a long time for this just war to come; many feel we haven't waited long enough. But the Iraqi people have waited for far too long, suffered for far too long and the world has for too long failed to come to grips with the consequences of Saddam Hussein's acquisition of an arsenal of terror. The wait is over; the liberation of the Iraqi people is underway; and the world is witnessing the end of one of the most horrible regimes in modern history, and with it the end of the threat Iraq has for too long posed to its people, its neighbors, and the world.

There has been no rush to war. That the United States exhausted diplomacy is evident in both the 12-year history of our dealings with Iraq since the first Gulf War and the 6 month effort at the Security Council to build consensus on the need to disarm Iraq. There will be plenty of time to discuss the American diplomatic campaign that preceded the war once military action is over. There is no cause to do so today. We stand united in our support for our armed forces and confident in the swift victory that we pray will be theirs.

One of America's finest traditions is our ability to draw together in support of our men and women in uniform when they are actively engaged in the defense of our freedom. American forces in the Iraq theater fight not for narrow interests or for reasons of national pride. American soldiers, sailors, airmen, and Marines are engaged in combat today so that our people do not live in a world in which tyrants armed with weapons of horror hold free nations hostage, and in doing so threaten freedom itself.

Our armed forces fight to disarm and destroy a regime that has proven not only that it will continue to stockpile weapons of mass destruction, but that it will use them. Our military fights to uphold the demands of the United Nations Security Council for Iraq's disarmament, even though some in that body shirk their own obligations to hold Iraq to account for its defiance. Our men and women fight so that the Iraqi people no longer live in terror but have cause to believe, as Americans believe, that liberty's blessings are not the prerogative of a lucky few, but the inalienable right of all mankind.

The liberty we cherish, and in which we want all people to share, has a price. Young Americans are paying it tonight in Iraq--not out of any grand design for empire, not for oil, not out of dislike for the Iraqi people, but for love--love of America, love for her founding principles, love for her way of life, and love for the greatness that history has judged to be hers not because of riches or power, but because of her abiding commitment to the cause of human freedom.

America is great not because of what she has done for herself, but because of what she has done for others. In another age, we helped liberate Europe from Hitler's tyranny, and ended Japanese imperialism in Asia. In extraordinary acts of generosity, we helped rebuild Europe and Japan and transform

former enemies into the closest of allies. I believe the liberation of Iraq will be judged by history to be of similar nobility.

Many of us remember parents and grandparents who served in the Second World War as our ``greatest generation.'' Another generation of heroes is being forged from the ruins of the attacks of September 11th. Just as Pearl Harbor opened the eyes of America to the grave peril beyond her shores, so have the terrorists who attacked us roused in America the conviction that we will never again suffer such infamy.

Nearly a century ago, President Woodrow Wilson issued a rousing call to make the world safe for democracy. Americans, and the world, did not rise to the challenge, and the bloodiest century in the history of humanity ensued. The President has ordered American forces into action in Iraq to help make America, and the world, safe from another such century, when tyrants are empowered by technology to inflict the sort of devastation from which free nations might not recover--a capability that puts freedom itself in peril. America, the greatest of free nations, will not take that risk.

I wish American forces in Iraq every hope for rapid victory. They fight for love of freedom--a love which is invincible. The world is better for their courage and dedication. Victory will be ours--and all honor will be theirs. God bless them and may humanity honor their sacrifice.

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

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to use time under the resolution.

Madam President, I observed the comments of the distinguished Senator from West Virginia concerning the events which are about to transpire within the next hour or so, or days. I did not really look forward to coming to the floor and debating the issue. It has been debated. It has been discussed in the media. It has been discussed at every kitchen table in America. But I felt it would be important for me to respond to allegations concerning the United States of America, its status in the world, and, in particular, what happens after this conflict is over, which I do not think we have paid enough attention to, perhaps understandably, because our first and foremost consideration is the welfare of the young men and women we are sending in harm's way.

But to allege that somehow the United States of America has demeaned itself or tarnished its reputation by being involved in liberating the people of Iraq, to me, simply is neither factual nor fair.

The United States of America has involved itself in the effort to disarm Saddam Hussein, and now freedom for the Iraqi people, with the same principles that motivated the United States of America in most of the conflicts we have been involved in, most recently Kosovo and Bosnia, and in which, in both of those cases, the United States national security was not at risk, but what was at risk was our advocacy and willingness to serve and sacrifice on behalf of people who are the victims of oppression and genocide.

We did not go into Bosnia because Mr. Milosevic had weapons of mass destruction. We did not go into Kosovo because ethnic Albanians or others were somehow a threat to the security of the United States. We entered into those conflicts because we could not stand by and watch innocent men, women, and children being slaughtered, raped, and ``ethnically cleansed.'' We found a new phrase for our lexicon: ``ethnic cleansing.'' Ethnic cleansing is a phrase which has incredible implications.

The mission our military is about to embark on is fraught with danger, and it means the loss of brave young American lives. But I also believe it offers the opportunity for a new day for the Iraqi people.

Madam President, there is one thing I am sure of, that we will find the Iraqi people have been the victims of an incredible level of brutalization, terror, murder, and every other kind of disgraceful and distasteful oppression on the part of Saddam Hussein's regime. And contrary to the assertion of the Senator from West Virginia, when the people of Iraq are liberated, we will again have written another chapter in the glorious history of the United States of America, that we will fight for the freedom of other citizens of the world, and we again assert the most glorious phrase, in my view, ever written in the English language; and that is: We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal and endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights, and among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

The people of Iraq, for the first time, will be able to realize those inalienable rights. I am proud of the United States of America. I am proud of the leadership of the President of the United States.

It is not an easy decision to send America's young men and women into harm's way. As I said before, some of them will not be returning. But to somehow assert, as some do, that the people of Iraq and the Middle East are not entitled to those same God-given rights that Americans and people all over the country are, that they do not have those same hopes and dreams and aspirations our own citizens do, to me, is a degree of condescension. I might even use stronger language than that to describe it.

So I respectfully disagree with the remarks of the Senator from West Virginia. I believe the President of the United States has done everything necessary and has exercised every option short of war, which has led us to the point we are today.

I believe that, obviously, we will remove a threat to America's national security because we will find there are still massive amounts of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.

Although Theodore Roosevelt is my hero and role model, I also, in many ways, am Wilsonian in the respect that America, this great Nation of ours, will again contribute to the freedom and liberty of an oppressed people who otherwise never might enjoy those freedoms.

So perhaps the Senator from West Virginia is right. I do not think so. Events will prove one of us correct in the next few days. But I rely on history as my guide to the future, and history shows us, unequivocally, that this Nation has stood for freedom and democracy, even at the risk and loss of American lives, so that all might enjoy the same privileges or have the opportunity to someday enjoy the same privileges as we do in this noble experiment called the United States of America.

I yield the floor.

I ask that I be yielded time under consideration of the amendment.

Mr. President, as Senators begin debate on the budget, I want to briefly discuss why, at this time, I cannot in good conscience vote in favor of tax cuts, irrespective of their size or to which segment of the population they are targeted, nor can I support any substantial spending increases that are not related to improving our Nation's defense from the obvious and serious threats facing us today.

Let me stress, however, that I am, like my colleagues, concerned with the weakened state of our economy, and I do not dismiss lightly arguments in support of stimulating our economy with tax cuts. I know the negligible growth in our economy today has left many Americans without work, their investments and saving diminished, with lower standards of living, and that their elected representatives are expected to do something to help alleviate their suffering. I may have concerns that some parts of the administration's proposed tax cuts would not provide the near term stimulus necessary to strengthen our obviously anemic economic recovery. However, I am certainly willing-- even inclined--to consider tax cuts that would provide a more immediate stimulus, such as, for instance, a reduction in payroll taxes. But not at this time.

The United States is currently engaged in a global war against terrorism, and will, in all likelihood, soon commence a necessary war to disarm Iraq by destroying the regime of Saddam Hussein. The costs of these enterprises are not known with any degree of certainty at this time. Nor are the costs we will incur after what I believe, what I fervently hope, will be a brief, successful war in Iraq, as we week to establish the foundations for a peaceful, stable and democratizing Iraq. The administration has not provided the Congress with a realistic estimate of how much this worthwhile endeavor will cost the U.S. Treasury. I don't fault them for that. The costs are simply not knowable at this time.

I believe the war in Iraq can be concluded successfully in a relatively brief time. But it is surely possible that the conflict won't meet our best estimates for its probable duration. It might take longer than we hope or it may exceed our hopes. As any responsible war planner will tell you, it is always wise to expect the unexpected in war. Few battle plans have realized in their execution the planners' every assumption.

Moreover, we do not know at this time how great will be the costs of meeting our responsibilities in a post war Iraq or with how many other countries that burden will be shared. The answer to those questions will depend, more than anything else, on how quickly and how thoroughly this military action succeeds.

Also, if terrorist organizations use our action in Iraq as the occasion and the excuse to initiate new attacks against Americans, at home and abroad, that too will put new pressures on our treasury. What is already clear to me is that we will need to spend substantially more on our national defense--in the long term--that is currently envisioned, according to recent reports, in the budgets being marked up by the House and Senate budget committees. How much more will depend, of course, on the war's costs. But it will also depend on challenges from the continued threat from al-Qaida and other associated terrorist groups, and from the aggressive actions by states hostile to the United States and our allies, which are intent on acquiring weapons of mass destruction, such as North Korea.

In addition, the costs of our security at home are great, and certain to increase over the next few years. Our war against al-Qaida has been significantly successful. The President and his administration deserve great credit for that. But the enemy in our global war against terrorism is not yet vanquished. Speaking as a border state senator, with the challenges to better protect our borders so evident to Arizonans, I am acutely aware of how much more needs to be done to secure our homeland.

Even without assuming the costs of these various contingencies, particularly the war in Iraq and the responsibilities we will have in that country following the cessation of hostilities,

the increase in the Federal budget deficit envisioned over the next 10 years ought to concern greatly every member of Congress. In the first 5 months of fiscal year 2003, the United States Government has already run up a $195 billion deficit. The Congressional Budget Office estimates that even without the President's tax cuts and without further increases in spending for the remainder of the fiscal year, the total budget deficit for 2003 will reach $246 billion. If we add the projected costs this year of the President's tax cuts the deficit would reach $287 billion. Most alarming, are the deficit projections for the next 10 years, incorporating the President's proposed tax cuts, released by CBO last week: $1.8 trillion. That's a pretty staggering sum, and it does not include any of the costs of our imminent actions in Iraq.

We should be concerned about deficits. They limit economic expansion by reducing the amount of national savings available for investment. This raises both interest rates and interest payments on the national debt. Deficits constrain our ability to respond effectively to unanticipated fiscal events. If we do not reduce them, projected long term deficits will reach dangerous levels, lowering the national income and standards of living for future American generations.

That said, I would still be open, at some point, to proposals to stimulate the economy with tax cuts. But not now. We should take a pause in our efforts to increase spending on nondefense needs and to reduce taxes.

However, I will not support the amendment by me friend from North Dakota to create a 60-vote budget point of order against any legislation that contains tax cuts or spending increases that would increase the deficit until the President submits to Congress a detailed report on the costs of our operations in Iraq. The way to address legitimate concerns with this budget resolution is not by creating new, complicated points of order, containing numerous exceptions and subject to very discretionary judgments about what is significant economic stimulus, and what is an adequately detailed report on the costs of war and reconstruction in Iraq. The Senate should speak directly to these concerns now, and vote for or against tax cuts and nondefense spending increases in this budget resolution. Should continued negligible economic growth require the stimulus offered by tax cuts later in this Congress, after, for lack of a better metaphor, the dust has settled somewhat in our operations in Iraq, and Congress and the administration have a better understanding of the costs of war and peace incurred by the United States, Senators can consider changes to fiscal policy at that time.

However, while I don't foreclose future consideration of a tax cut to stimulate the economy, no one can be expected to make an informed decision on fiscal policy at this time with so many uncertain contingencies possibly on the horizon, and with the near, mid- and long-term costs of defending this country unknown and presently unknowable. Let us wait until we have succeeded in Iraq, and until we have some idea of what percentage of the costs of the aftermath of those hostilities we will have to bear. The best thing that can be done for the economy today is to win the war in Iraq quickly, completely, and to attract the coalition of partners necessary to help us meet our postwar objectives in that country. That is a far more necessary, and responsible stimulus to our economy at this time. And it is far sounder statesmanship than cutting taxes in the dark, or running up spending, without due regard to our primary responsibility to the American people: their physical security.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation has adopted rules governing its procedures for the 108th Congress. Pursuant to rule XXVI, paragraph 2, of the Standing Rules of the Senate, on behalf of myself and Senator Hollings, I ask unanimous consent that a copy of the Committee Rules be printed in the Record.

Rules of the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation

I. meetings of the committee

1. The regular meeting dates of the Committee shall be the

first and third Tuesdays of each month. Additional meetings

may be called by the Chairman as he may deem necessary or

pursuant to the provisions of paragraph 3 of rule XXVI of the

Standing Rules of the Senate.

2. Meetings of the Committee, or any Subcommittee,

including meetings to conduct hearings, shall be open to the

public, except that a meeting or series of meetings by the

Committee, or any Subcommittee, on the same subject for a

period of no more than 14 calendar days may be closed to the

public on a motion made and seconded to go into closed

session to discuss only whether the matters enumerated in

subparagraphs (A) through (F) would require the meeting to be

closed, followed immediately by a record vote in open session

by a majority of the members of the Committee, or any

Subcommittee, when it is determined that the matter to be

discussed or the testimony to be taken at such meeting or

meetings--

(A) will disclose matters necessary to be kept secret in

the interests of national defense or the confidential conduct

of the foreign relations of the United States;

(B) will relate solely to matters of Committee staff

personnel or internal staff management or procedure;

(C) will tend to charge an individual with crime or

misconduct, to disgrace or injure the professional standing

of an individual, or otherwise to expose an individual to

public contempt or obloquy, or will represent a clearly

unwarranted invasion of the privacy of an individual;

(D) will disclose the identify of any informer or law

enforcement agent or will disclose any information relating

to the investigation or prosecution of a criminal offense

that is required to be kept secret in the interests of

effective law enforcement;

(E) will disclose information relating to the trade secrets

of, or financial or commercial information pertaining

specifically to, a given person if--

(1) an Act of Congress requires the information to be kept

confidential by Government officers and employees; or

(2) the information has been obtained by the Government on

a confidential basis, other than through an application by

such person for a specific Government financial or other

benefit, and is required to be kept secret in order to

prevent undue injury to the competitive position of such

person; or

(F) may divulge matters required to be kept confidential

under other provisions of law or Government regulations.

3. Each witness who is to appear before the Committee or

any Subcommittee shall file with the Committee, at least 24

hours in advance of the hearing, a written statement of his

testimony in as many copies as the Chairman of the Committee

or Subcommittee prescribes.

4. Field hearings of the full Committee, and any

Subcommittee thereof, shall be

scheduled only when authorized by the Chairman and ranking

minority member of the full Committee.

II. Quorums

1. A majority of members shall constitute a quorum for

official action of the Committee when reporting a bill,

resolution, or nomination. Proxies shall not be counted in

making a quorum.

2. Eight members shall constitute a quorum for the

transaction of all business as may be considered by the

Committee, except for the reporting of a bill, resolution, or

nomination. Proxies shall not be counted in making a quorum.

3. For the purpose of taking sworn testimony a quorum of

the Committee and each Subcommittee thereof, now or hereafter

appointed, shall consist of one Senator.

III. Proxies

When a record vote is taken in the Committee on any bill,

resolution, amendment, or any other question, a majority of

the members being present, a member who is unable to attend

the meeting may submit his or her vote by proxy, in writing

or by telephone, or through personal instructions.

IV. Broadcasting of Hearings

Public hearings of the full Committee, or any Subcommittee

thereof, shall be televised or broadcast only when authorized

by the Chairman and the ranking minority member of the full

Committee.

V. Subcommittees

1. Any member of the Subcommittee may sit with any

Subcommittee during its hearings or any other meeting but

shall not have the authority to vote on any matter before the

Subcommittee unless he or she is a Member of such

Subcommittee.

2. Subcommittees shall be considered de novo whenever there

is a change in the chairmanship, and seniority on the

particular Subcommittee shall not necessarily apply.

VI. Consideration of Bills and Resolutions

It shall not be in order during a meeting of the Committee

to move to proceed to the consideration of any bill or

resolution unless the bill or resolution has been filed with

the Clerk of the Committee not less than 48 hours in advance

of the Committee meeting, in as many copies as the Chairman

of the Committee prescribes. This rule may be waived with the

concurrence of the Chairman and the ranking minority member

of the full Committee.

Mr. President, when Zoran Djindjic was assassinated in Belgrade yesterday, Serbia and the world lost a champion of freedom who gave his life in service to it. We mourn his death and condemn his assassins' attempt to destroy democratic rule in a country that was only recently liberated from Slobodan Milosevic's tyranny, but had already come so far.

I first heard about Zoran Djindjic in 1996 when he took to the streets of Belgrade with hundreds of thousands of Serbs to force Milosevic to accept local election results. He was victorious in that battle. It took him four more years of hard and dangerous work to defeat Milosevic at the polls and in the streets.

The Serbian revolution of 2000 showed the world that democracy can succeed, in the Balkans as elsewhere, if leaders are wise, persistent, and courageous. The Milosevic government was the last Balkan dictatorship to fall. Zoran Djindjic was the person pushing hardest at the pillars of the authoritarian state. Once he became Prime Minister, he made the tough decisions to transform Serbia from dictatorship to democratic republic. He sent Milosevic to The Hague, despite fierce internal opposition; he implemented critical economic and political reforms; and recently he had begun to aggressively fight organized crime. It was one battle too many.

Those who would corrupt and destroy democracy in Serbia presumably hope by their actions to extinguish the Serbian people's aspirations to live under rule of law and in liberty as part of a secure and prosperous Europe. They have failed. Killing one man will not stop reform or diminish the passion of Serbs to be part of the European family of free nations. I hope it will only invigorate Zoran Djindjic's many followers to carry on the struggle they began together in the dark days of Milosevic's rule.

Our prayers are with the Djindjic family, his colleagues in the Democratic Opposition of Serbia, and the Serbian nation. To the people of Serbia, we say: Please continue to fight for those principles your Prime Minister represented with honor, skill, and courage. He will be written into the history of a very difficult time. His name will be known for the freedom he helped bring to a long-suffering people. America salutes a fallen hero.

Mr. President, I rise today to honor a great American, a man whose tireless efforts on behalf of needy people everywhere are an inspiration to us all. February 21 of this year marked the 80th birthday of my constituent, John van Hengel, who has become known as the ``Father of Food Banking.'' His vision for feeding the hungry and his work making that vision a reality has made a tremendous difference in the lives of millions of people.

John van Hengel's work is a testament to the ability of one person to change the world for the better. In 1965, John was a businessman who volunteered some of his spare time to the St. Vincent de Paul Society in Phoenix, AZ. In the course of his volunteer work, John saw there was a need for additional food for the Society's soup kitchen. In the course of his work, John met a woman who had to collect food from grocery store garbage bins to feed her 10 children. That needy mother told John that there should be a place where surplus food could be stored and available to people who needed it, instead of being thrown out and wasted. As he looked around for ways to better serve the needy people he met, John noticed that fruit was being left unpicked on suburban backyard trees around Phoenix. John recruited volunteers to gather fruit that remained in area fields after harvesting. He then delivered these much needed fruits and vegetables to various local churches. With John's leadership, one of the Nation's first ``gleaning'' projects became a reality.

John recruited the local grocery stores and asked them to donate surplus food. John also approached his local church, and the church responded by loaning John $3,000 and an abandoned building. In 1967, John van Hengel founded the world's first food bank, named St. Mary's in honor of the church that housed it. Thus was born the first food bank and the concept of food banking--a central source for food donations and distribution to a wide range of local charitable agencies that feed the hungry.

After the creation of the St. Mary's Food Bank, John founded Second Harvest in 1976. With the help of private donations and State and Federal grants, John helped to set up and develop Second Harvest food banks in other nearby communities in Arizona, California, and other States. The success of these new food banks led to Second Harvest becoming formally incorporated in 1979. Today, it is known as America's Second Harvest, the Nation's largest hunger relief charity and a nationwide network of more than 200 regional food banks and good rescue organizations that provide food and other services to more than 50,000 local charitable agencies.

In 1982, John van Hengel stepped down from his full-time role at Second Harvest to pursue his work of spreading food banking internationally. In 1984, John van Hengel founded Food Banking, Inc., a nonprofit food bank consulting organization. John helped spread the notion of food banking and volunteerism in an international capacity, first in Canada through the creation of the Canadian Association of Food Banks, then to France, and to Belgium. Today, the Federation of European Food Banks meets regularly to discuss experiences and ways to expand the work of its members. Recently, the idea of food banking has spread to Brazil, Israel, Mexico, and Japan. John van Hengel's vision, first articulated

and acted upon in Phoenix in 1967, is the first link in an international chain of food banks and compassion for the neediest among us.

John van Hengel's food banking idea is simple, but like all truly great ideas, it took the efforts of one man working for a lifetime to reach fruition. Because John van Hengel was the need to help hungry people, he created a concept to address that need. Dozens of countries and millions of people now have a powerful weapon against hunger.

In the wake of his 80th birthday, it is a privilege in honor John van Hengel for his noble dedication to feeding the hungry. His vision and leadership continue to greatly impact the lives of millions throughout the United States and the world.

Mr. President, for the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation I report favorably the following nomination lists which were printed in the Record on the dates indicated, and ask unanimous consent, to save the expense of reprinting on the Executive Calendar that these nominations lie at the Secretary's desk for the information of Senators.

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

Mr. President, I rise to introduce legislation to designate the Director of the Indian Health Service as an Assistant Secretary for Indian Health within the Department of Health and Human Services. I'm pleased that my colleagues, Senators Bingaman, Campbell, Murray, Johnson, and Domenici are joining me in this effort as original co-sponsors.

The purpose of this legislation is simple. It will redesignate the current Director of the Indian Health Service, IHS, as a new Assistant Secretary within the Department of Health and Human Services to be responsible for Indian health policy and budgetary matters.

The Indian Health Service is the primary health care delivery system and principal advocate for Indian health care needs, both on the reservation level and for urban populations. More than 1.6 million Indian people are served every year by the IHS, yet the agency has not had the necessary resources to fully meet tribal health care needs. The IHS will continue to be challenged by a growing Indian population as well as an increasing disparity between the health status of Indian people as compared to other Americans. Thousands of Indian people continue to suffer from the worst imaginable health care conditions in Indian country--from diabetes to cancer to infant mortality. In nearly every category, the health status of Native Americans falls far below the national standard.

The purpose of this bill is to respond to the desire by Indian people for a stronger leadership and policy role within the primary health care agency, the Department of Health and Human Services. The Assistant Secretary for Indian Health will ensure that critical policy and budgetary decisions will be made with the full involvement and consultation of not only the Indian Health Service, but also the direct involvement of tribal governments.

This legislation is long overdue in bringing focus and national attention to the health care status of Indian people and fulfilling the Federal trust responsibility toward Indian tribes. Implementation of this bill is intended to support the long-standing policies of Indian self-determination and tribal self-governance and assist Indian tribes who are making positive strides in providing direct health care to their own communities.

Tribal communities are in dire need of a senior policy official who is knowledgeable about the programs administered by the IHS and who can provide the leadership for the health care needs of American Indians and Alaska Natives. We continue to pursue passage of this legislation as many believe that the priority of Indian health issues within the Department should be raised to the highest levels within our federal government.

I look forward to working with my colleagues on both sides of the aisle and the Administration to ensure prompt passage of this legislation. I ask unanimous consent that the text of this bill be printed in the Record.