Floor Statements

I announce that the Senator from Maryland (Ms. Mikulski), the Senator from West Virginia (Mr. Rockefeller), and the Senator from Hawaii (Mr. Schatz) are necessarily absent.

Madam President, I rise to speak in support of the nomination of Ronnie White to serve on the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri. I was proud to chair Justice White's nomination hearing before the Judiciary Committee in May.

Justice White has the experience, the integrity, and the qualifications to be an outstanding district court judge.

He came from humble beginnings. He was born in St. Louis to teenage parents and grew up poor in a segregated neighborhood. He has worked since age 11 to help make ends meet and to put himself through college at St. Louis University and law school at the University of Missouri- Kansas City.

Justice White went on to accomplish great things in his legal career--most notably, becoming the first African-American Supreme Court Justice and Chief Justice in Missouri's history. It was a powerful moment when Justice White was sworn in to the Missouri Supreme Court. The ceremony took place at a courthouse where slaves were once sold on the steps.

I am pleased that the Senate is voting today on Justice White's nomination to the Federal bench.

It is not often that the Senate gets the chance to correct a historic mistake, But by confirming Ronnie White to the Federal bench, we will be able to do so.

Justice White's previous nomination to the district court was defeated on the Senate floor in 1999 on a partyline vote. At the time, the claim was made that Justice White was ``pro-criminal.'' This was a grossly inaccurate claim, both then and now.

Over his long career as an attorney and a judge, Justice White has been widely recognized as fair, unbiased, and committed to the rule of law. Just read the letter from the Missouri State Lodge of the Fraternal Order of Police in support of Justice White's nomination. The Missouri FOP said:

As front line law enforcement officers, we recognize the

important need to have jurists such as Ronnie White, who have

shown themselves to be tough on crime, yet fair and

impartial. As a former justice on the Missouri Court of

Appeals and as the Chief Justice of the Missouri Supreme

Court, Ronnie White has proven that he has the experience and

requisite attributes to be a quality addition to the U.S.

District Court. We can think of no finer or more worthy

nominee.

This is a compelling endorsement from the Missouri FOP.

In 2001 I had the opportunity to ask Justice White in a hearing before the Judiciary Committee about the allegation that he was somehow hostile to law enforcement. Here was his response. He said:

That is not true that I was opposed to law enforcement.

Senator Durbin, I have a brother-in-law who is a police

officer in St. Louis. I have a cousin who is a police officer

in St. Louis. I have served on boards and commissions with

police officers in the St. Louis community, and I also, when

I was city counselor for the city of St. Louis, was the

lawyer for the St. Louis City Police Department and we

defended police officers. As a judge, all I have tried to do

is to apply the law as best I could and the way I saw it.

Overall, Justice White's track record shows that his judicial decisions were well within the legal mainstream and were supported by precedent and legal authority. His decisions showed respect for the rule of law, even in hard cases that involved difficult or emotional facts.

The bottom line is that Justice White is a man with integrity, a wealth of judicial experience, and a real respect for the law. He is going to be an outstanding Federal judge.

I urge my colleagues to support this nomination and to put this good man on the Federal bench.

I announce that the Senator from Maryland (Mr. Cardin), the Senator from Maryland (Ms. Mikulski), and the Senator from Hawaii (Mr. Schatz) are necessarily absent.

I announce that the Senator from Hawaii (Mr. Schatz) is necessarily absent.

I announce that the Senator from Alaska (Mr. Begich) and the Senator from Hawaii (Mr. Schatz) are necessarily absent.

I announce that the Senator from Alaska (Mr. Begich) and the Senator from Hawaii (Mr. Schatz) are necessarily absent.

I announce that the Senator from Hawaii (Mr. Schatz) is necessarily absent.

I announce that the Senator from Hawaii (Mr. Schatz) is necessarily absent.

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

Madam President, yesterday I went to Chicago to a residential neighborhood, and I went into a building and saw a piece of American history and an American humanitarian challenge, the likes of which we have seldom seen. In this building were 70 children. They were children who just hours and days ago were at the border of the United States in Mexico. They had turned themselves in to the border officials and they were being processed. Our law says that within 72 hours they need to be moved from the law enforcement world to the world of protection or at least a secure environment. That is the right thing to do. It was a law passed years ago when President Bush was in the White House, signed by him, and I believe unanimously passed by at least one of the Chambers, so it was not controversial at the time. It was thoughtful. It basically said if it is an unaccompanied child at the border, within 72 hours put them in a safe place.

This is one of the safe places across America. It is a shelter in the city of Chicago. It is not the only one. It is protected from the public. If someone went by it in a car, they wouldn't even know it was a shelter with 70 children inside, in a residential neighborhood where for 19 years the shelter has been welcome, because it is clear, secure--no problems.

But now we face a challenge because the number of children unaccompanied coming into the United States is reaching recordbreaking proportions.

America, primarily because of location and other circumstances, seldom has faced anything like a refugee crisis. We can remember efforts by the Haitians or the Cubans, maybe the Vietnamese, the Hmong people, to come to the United States, but our experience pales in comparison to countries such as Jordan. Ten percent of the population of Jordan today is refugees who come to that country from all over the Middle East. With Syria collapsed under the weight of war and all of the horrors that it brought, 2.3 million, maybe 3 million left Syria for countries such as Jordan and Turkey and Lebanon. For these countries, refugees are part of their daily lives. For the United States, it is rare. It is rare to see one. It is rare to speak to one.

That is why yesterday's experience for me was so important. I had heard all of these stories about these children and a lot of speculation about why they are here and what we should do with them, and I wanted to see them firsthand.

Let me tell my colleagues, of the 70 children, there were some who were newborns, babies being held by their mothers. I have reached a point where it is hard for me to guess anyone's age, particularly young people. It is harder still when they are from countries in Central America because they are smaller in stature, many of them malnourished, and they are usually a little older than one might think. They look younger. But five women walked into this dining hall carrying their babies, and I don't believe a single one of them was 15 years old. They had brought these babies, many of them on buses, for 8 days to the border of the United States to try to escape. Cases of rape and assault had led to these pregnancies and these babies, and they were trying to get away from drug gangs and threats on their lives. And here they were, in this neighborhood in Chicago, in a safe place, with others just like them.

Then I went among the children--90 percent of them from Central America;

some from Africa, some from China; 90 percent of them from Central America--and I would speak to them and hear their stories. For many of them, there was a relative in the United States they were hoping to find so they could finally find a safe place. This situation is a terrible humanitarian crisis involving vulnerable children.

The United States is about to be tested. We are going to be tested as a people--our generation--as to how we respond. I hope we pass that test.

Remember, our country--the United States--issues a report card every year. The State Department issues a human rights report card on the world. The United States stands in judgment of the world and their record on human rights, and we take into consideration the way they treat women, how other countries treat children, how they treat refugees, and we grade them. That is a pretty bold position for us to stand in judgment of other countries, but we do, hoping we can set a standard they will follow and hoping we can hold them to those standards. Now we are going to be graded. The United States will be graded as to how we respond to this crisis.

The President has sent a bill to Congress. He is asking for a substantial sum of money so we can not only deal with this issue at the border but beyond, in places such as the shelter I visited in Chicago.

There is a lot of speculation among Senators and Congressmen about how our laws are going to deal with this current flood of children coming into the United States. We know why they are coming. Many are being pushed out of their country by drug gangs and violence--girls who are threatened with sexual assault if they don't give in to a gang leader and then, if they do, killed and left in plastic bags by the side of the road. Young boys are drafted into these gangs at the point of a gun; they are going to comply or be shot and killed. That is the reality, not to mention the horrible poverty which is endemic to these three countries--Honduras, El Salvador, and Guatemala.

So now we have to decide what we will do. There are several things that are obvious. First, I am glad President Obama and Vice President Biden are going to Central America and telling these families: Please, do not send any more children. It is just too dangerous. They don't automatically come into the United States and receive citizenship. If people have heard that, it is wrong.

We have told these countries, begged their leaders to help us in discouraging these children from coming. But in many cases desperate parents, desperate families are doing desperate things.

I asked yesterday at the shelter: Is it true that some of the teenage girls who arrive here--and they all go through a physical exam--are on birth control pills? They said: Yes. Before they start the journey, their families will give the girls birth control pills as a protection from pregnancy because they fear they will be assaulted and raped. I can't imagine--I cannot imagine a family situation so desperate where they would make that decision, but it is happening.

I looked too at some of the comments that have been made. There are people who have said we need to flood the border of the United States with National Guard troops. It doesn't make sense because these children are not trying to sneak past border guards; they are turning themselves in as soon as they cross the border because they have a little piece of paper with the name of someone in the United States to contact. So more troops and guards on the border won't change those desperate children.

One of them I saw from Guatemala with his little sister. She is a cute little thing but too shy to say anything to me. He, through a translator, said a few words, and he carried her on his shoulders across the Rio Grande River. That is what his responsibility was, and he was going to get across that river with his little sister. He did. That is why we need to look at this in human terms as well.

Before I came to Congress, I used to be a lawyer in Central Illinois, the small town of Springfield. It is not a big city, I guess, by our State's terms, but we are proud of our population--but not a major city. I practiced law there, and I knew what it was like in a small town to practice law. I also knew this: No one in good conscience with an ethical bone in their body would put a 6-year-old kid in a courtroom and say: Good luck. We never did that. It was inconceivable. If there was a child whose fate was going to be decided in a courtroom, there was a guardian ad litem appointed to represent that child's interests-- not the interests of any other party, just that child. There may have been an attorney appointed in addition to represent that child because we realize they cannot make decisions for themselves.

Now we are faced with a suggestion by some that when it comes to these children, within a few days after their arrival in the United States, they will be put in a courtroom. If Members of the U.S. Senate and the House of Representatives came to that shelter in Chicago and saw those little children sitting at the table, they would be embarrassed by that suggestion. We can't do that. It isn't fair to them, and it doesn't reflect well on our values if it is even suggested. We have to have a process that is fair and one that reflects our values in the United States.

This is a human tragedy. These children have made it through this death-defying journey. I can tell my colleagues it broke my heart when I heard them tell their stories. A little girl--she was there with her little brother. She was 12; her little brother was 6. He had Down syndrome, and she brought him from Honduras to the United States. She said she came by bus and she was on that bus for 6 or 7 days before she made it to the border. Can my colleagues imagine turning a child loose to catch a bus ride that would last 6 or 7 days to go to a country in the hopes they might be safer and also take their disabled little brother with her? Every time that little boy would get up and scramble around the room, she was right after him. She wasn't going to let him out of her sight. That is what her life is and what it has been, and it is an indication of the kind of children we are now facing and need to deal with.

This is not a political issue, although politics are involved. It is much more. It is humanitarian--testing who we are, what we believe. It is a challenge to us to deal with immigration in the 21st century. It is a challenge to us as well to make sure that at the end of the day, history writes this chapter about the American people and says they were good and caring people, compassionate and caring people.

Today I received a press release that was put out by a religious group, the Evangelical Leaders of America. This is not my religion, but I respect very much what they had to say. I would like to read what one of the ministers said:

As a former Texan, my heart goes to the border of Texas. As

a born-again Christian, the Gospel of Jesus Christ calls me

to compassionate action for those who are suffering right now

as a result of the immigration crisis, especially the

children.

This was written by Ronnie Floyd, president of the Southern Baptist Convention and pastor of the multicampus Cross Church in northwest Arkansas. His Friday Baptist Press op-ed continues:

This is an emergency situation that requires the best of

each of us in America . . . The gospel of Jesus Christ moves

me to call on all of us to demonstrate compassionate action

toward the immigrant.

As I said, he is not a member of my religion, but I respect very much that he would stand up and speak out and remind people that this really is a test. Regardless of whether one is a Christian or some other denomination or one has no religion, it is a test of who we are and our human values.

When I read the suggestion that these young children need to be placed in a hearing room or a courtroom within a few days with the possibility of someone standing by their side--that is wrong. That is just wrong. We can't let that happen.

Many years ago we signed a refugee convention saying that when it came to refugees, countries in the world should accept and adopt the same humane standards.

Now we are facing our refugee crisis here in the United States. We need to make it clear to these countries that these children are not coming in to be citizens of the United States. That is not in the cards. But we never want to be in a position where these children

are returned to dangerous situations, harmed, and it is on our conscience, on our watch. That is unacceptable.

I want to say one thing in closing. We need to solve this problem, but God forbid that is the end of the conversation. We passed an immigration bill, a comprehensive immigration bill, to clean up this broken immigration system over a year ago on the Senate floor. Democrats and Republicans agreed on it, and we sent it to the House of Representatives. But for over a year they have refused to even call the bill, refused to even debate the bill, refused to even come up with a substitute to the bill. They are ignoring the broken immigration system in America and criticizing this President when the breakdown is obvious.

The President is ready. He has said over and over he will step aside and let them work it out and come up with a congressional answer. But there is no excuse for this. For Congress to refuse to accept its responsibility when it comes to immigration reform is just wrong. I am glad the Senate met its responsibility, and now I call on my colleagues over in the House to do the same.

(Mr. DONNELLY assumed the Chair.)

Mr. President, on June 30, five conservative Justices of the Supreme Court held that certain for-profit corporations--closely held corporations--could refuse to provide their female employees with coverage for health care benefits that are guaranteed by law. This Hobby Lobby decision, some estimates suggest, would apply to as many as 90 percent of American businesses, depending on what the courts define as a ``closely held'' corporation.

This was an activist decision by an activist Supreme Court. Congress never intended for for-profit corporate entities to claim religious beliefs or to use religious objections to deny their employees rights guaranteed by law.

For-profit corporations, for the record, are not people, and they are not created for a religious or charitable purpose. They are created to make a profit while giving their owners protections from liability under the law. I have been to a lot of churches. I have yet to see a corporation in a pew in a church.

Moreover, previous cases ruled on by the Supreme Court have established a tradition of privacy--one that permits women, not the government or their employers, to make their own decisions about birth control and family planning.

The ruling in Hobby Lobby violates that tradition by empowering for- profit corporations to claim religious objections to a law that guarantees access to cost-free contraceptive coverage. As a result of this decision, women across America are at risk of losing access to elements of their health care coverage, including coverage for prescription birth control pills and more.

Birth control is an important part of a woman's health care, and millions--99 percent of child-bearing-age women--rely on these benefits.

The Affordable Care Act and its regulations provide for insurance coverage for birth control, allowing for a woman, her family, and her doctor to decide what is best. As a result, about 30 million women have gained access to cost-free insurance coverage for contraceptive services, including 1.1 million in my State of Illinois--almost 10 percent of the population.

This is coverage that nearly all women use. In 2013 the Centers for Disease Control reported that 99 percent of sexually active women between the ages of 15 and 44 have used birth control at some point in their lives.

So here is the bottom line: No for-profit corporate entity should be allowed to discriminate against women and take away an insurance benefit that a woman is entitled to just because the owner of the company does not agree with it. A woman's personal health choices are none of her boss's business.

Last week my colleagues and I introduced legislation that would ensure that women affected by this decision can continue to get contraceptive coverage they need and that the law provides regardless of who signs their paycheck.

Importantly, this bill being offered by Senators Patty Murray and Mark Udall prevents any corporation from using the Supreme Court decision to deny women access to services guaranteed to them under Federal law.

Although the Supreme Court ruling focused primarily on contraceptive coverage, it left the door open for future litigation challenging other basic health care benefits--vaccines, blood transfusions. This is unacceptable, and the legislation before us would stop this discrimination once and for all.

This legislation is not about overriding the religious beliefs of any living person or any nonprofit charity. Our legislation respects and accommodates the beliefs of individuals and nonprofits. Remember, the Hobby Lobby case involved for-profit companies which are not human beings but are legal entities that are incorporated for a profit-making purpose.

When people decide to incorporate a for-profit entity, they agree that the entity will be subject to basic laws that protect the rights of their employees, including laws that prevent discrimination and laws that enable women who work for them to access adequate health care.

The decision of the activist Hobby Lobby majority suddenly allows these for-profit corporations to declare themselves exempt from these basic laws and discriminate against women's health care coverage. That is a significant change in the law and, as a result, untold thousands of American women will end up losing access to affordable health care that they had been guaranteed.

This is a problem, and it is a challenge. We need to protect women's access to affordable prescription contraception and prevent corporate entities--for-profit corporations--from interfering with their employees' health care decisions.

This week in the Senate my colleagues and I will have a chance to vote on it. I think it is a critical vote. I might add another element here. Many people want to discuss the issue of birth control in the context of abortion, a hot-button issue, and it has been for years across America. The record is pretty clear. If there are more unplanned pregnancies, there are more likely more abortions. Reducing the number of unplanned pregnancies reduces the number of abortions. It is simple math. There are some who disagree on theological grounds. They cannot disagree on biological grounds. So standing up for family planning and birth control to avoid unplanned and unwanted pregnancies is going to reduce the incidence of abortion in this country--something I hope all of us feel would be a positive development. I certainly do.

So I hope we can stand together this week on a bipartisan basis and tell the Supreme Court they are wrong and pass this new law that takes away the power of bosses to determine the health care of the women who work for them.

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

I do. I am sorry; I did not see my colleague.

Today, we mourn the loss of a Southern Illinois legend, Congressman Ken Gray. Kenny had many roles in his lifetime. He was a licensed auctioneer, a pilot, and a magician. But he made his greatest mark serving the people of Southern Illinois in the U.S. House of Representatives for nearly a quarter of a century.

Kenny was a World War II veteran who served with the Army and Air Force in North Africa, Italy, Southern France and Central Europe. After the war he operated an air service in Benton, IL.

He was elected to Congress in 1954 at the age of 30 and went on to serve 10 consecutive terms. When he first went to Washington, Southern Illinois was an impoverished, rural area. Congressman Gray took great pride in the regional improvements he helped steer to his region. His work made a real difference in the daily lives of Southern Illinoisans.

His constituents loved him and the House entrusted him with increasing responsibilities. Speakers of the House Sam Rayburn and Tip O'Neil regularly called on him to preside over the chamber.

You could never forget Kenny Gray. With his rainbow of sport coats and personal helicopter, Kenny was a legend. He even had a pink Cadillac. His repertoire of jokes borrowed heavily from Red Skelton and hometown stories from Little Egypt.

Among his notable achievements in Congress: Ken helped write the 1956 Federal-Aid Highway Act, which created America's interstate highway system. Kenny kept the pen that President Dwight D. Eisenhower used to sign the historic legislation.

With president Deltye Morris, Kenny Gray helped to put Southern Illinois University Carbondale on the map as a leading university in America.

Today the section of Interstate 57 between milepost 0, at the Illinois State line, to milepost 106, at the Marion/Jefferson County line, is known as Ken Gray Expressway in honor of his role in the creation of America's highway system.

You can also see Kenny Gray's legacy in Rend Lake, which was created by the Army Corps of Engineers and supplies 15 million gallons of water per day to 300,000 people in more than 60 Southern Illinois communities. Rend Lake has saved more than $100 million worth of property downstream during flood years and it would not exist without Kenny Gray's leadership.

Congressman Gray stepped away from Congress in 1974. My mentor Paul Simon succeeded him in Congress. When Paul ran for the Senate in 1984, Kenny Gray returned to Congress to serve two more terms. In 1988, Kenny left Congress for the last time to come home after developing a muscular disorder caused by a tick bite on a congressional visit to Brazil.

Ken Gray passed away just days after we lost another Illinois political giant with whom he served in Congress, Senator Alan Dixon.

Alan Dixon once said of Kenny Gray, ``A true political legend, Gray never was defeated. He just quit.''

Congressman Gray remained a voice in the community after leaving Congress. We will miss that voice, but we won't forget his achievements.

I want to express my condolences to Kenny's family, especially his wife Margaret ``Toedy'' Holley-Gray, his daughters: Diann, Becky and Candy, and his grandchildren and great-grandchildren.

Mr. President, I rise today to mark a troubling anniversary--that of the 40th year of the division of the island of Cyprus.

U.N. peacekeepers first came to Cyprus in 1964 due to intercommunal fighting.

Since 1974, Cyprus has been divided into the government-controlled two-thirds of the island and the remaining one-third of the island which is administered by Turkish Cypriots and occupied by Turkish military forces. The Republic of Cyprus, which joined the European Union in 2004, continues to be the only internationally recognized government on the island.

Tragically, Cyprus has been divided now for four decades, with a U.N. buffer zone separating the entire island--the so-called green line. Violence today is rare, but the long-term impacts of the separation are stark--displaced people, memories of family members killed in earlier violence, and lost property rights. Quite simply, a people who share a common island have been unnecessarily divided for far too long.

Over the last decade there have been signs of hope that the island would be reunified and the Turkish occupation brought to an end. In 2009, for example, I visited Cyprus and met with then Cypriot President Demetris Christofias and Turkish Cypriot leader Mehmet Ali Talat. Christofias and Talat, at considerable political risk, had undertaken negotiations that showed real promise--talks that I and the international community hoped would succeed. Unfortunately, they did not, and several years have passed without a resolution.

Meanwhile, the situation in Cyprus has left an island and a region divided. People have died. Families have been separated. An entire coastal area, Varosha, remains an occupied ghost town. There has been a great deal of pain inflicted on the people of this island.

While I am saddened by this 40th anniversary, I am also encouraged that a new group of leaders in Cyprus has undertaken talks that show some promise. After Vice President Joe Biden visited Cyprus in May, Cypriot President Nicos Anastasiades and Turkish Cypriot leader Dervis Eroglu agreed to meet at least twice a month and undertake confidence building measures aimed at easing the many years of mistrust between the two sides.

I hope the leaders of Turkey will also step forward and bring an end to the military occupation of a third of the island. Such military seizure of territory has no place in today's modern Europe.

While this is a Cypriot-led process and negotiation, I wish to express my strong hope and support for the current negotiations to bring peaceful and enduring settlement to the island.

I announce that the Senator from Maryland (Mr. Cardin), the Senator from Maryland (Ms. Mikulski), and the Senator from Hawaii (Mr. Schatz) are necessarily absent.

I announce that the Senator from California (Mrs. Boxer), the Senator from West Virginia (Mr. Rockefeller), and the Senator from Hawaii (Mr. Schatz) are necessarily absent.

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

Madam President, I wish to take a moment to congratulate two long-time friends.

Sixteen years ago, after moving to America, Billy Lawless and Anne O'Toole Lawless today became citizens of the United States of America. This is a cause for celebration, not just for Billy and Anne but for the entire city of Chicago. You see, the Lawless family is part of the restaurant royalty in Chicago.

Billy and Anne and their four grown children--Billy, Jr., Amy, John Paul, and Clodagh--own and operate three of the best-loved--and my favorite--restaurants and pubs in Chicago. They are going to open another set very soon. Good food, good fun, great people, that is what the Lawless restaurants are all about. Billy Lawless is also a tireless and eloquent advocate for immigration reform.

One of the great heroes of Irish mythology is a benevolent giant by the name of Finn McCool, a great defender of Ireland.

In his younger days, Billy Lawless was a championship rower. At 6- foot-2, with a broad rower's chest and strong arms, he looks a little bit like Finn McCool. And he is chairman of the group called Chicago Celts for Immigration Reform.

But it is not just Irish immigrants Billy cares about. Billy Lawless understands that America's history of welcoming immigrants from across the globe--and he knows; he is part of it--is what makes our Nation great. He is a great defender not just of the rights of Irish immigrants but all immigrants. So it was perfect that he and Anne swore their citizenship oaths today with 137 other new Americans from 39 different countries and 5 continents.

Billy grew up on a dairy farm in Galway, a city in the west of Ireland. In the late 1970s, he sold the farm and went into the pub business. Over the next 20 years, Billy and Anne had four children, and they owned and operated several well-known pubs and restaurants in Galway. Life was good.

Then their daughter Amy--an excellent athlete herself in rowing--won a full college scholarship to Amherst College in Massachusetts.

For years, it had been Billy's dream to open a business in America. At the age of 48, when his daughter headed off to America, he decided to give it a shot. His friends thought he was crazy. Anne waited several months before she followed Billy to the States for this venture. She wanted to make sure this wild idea had a possibility of success.

Billy looked at opportunities in Boston and Philadelphia. But on December 31, 1997, New Year's Eve, Billy arrived in Chicago. He knew he had found a new home.

Today, Chicago is home to Billy and Anne Lawless, all four of their children, and their seven American-born grandchildren. As Billy says:

I can think of no other place in the world where our family

could have achieved what it has in America.

Billy and Anne, thank you and all your family for what you have given to Chicago, to Illinois, and to our Nation. You have waited a long time and worked hard for this day. Now it is here. I am proud to call you not only my friends but my fellow Americans. Congratulations on becoming citizens of the United States.

Madam President, I yield the floor and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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.