Saxby Chambliss

Mr. CHAMBLISS

Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. President, what is the pending business?

Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. President, I rise today in support of the amendment offered by my colleague from Maine, Senator Collins, relative to the issue of REAL ID. I was back in my State last week, as most of us were, and I had the opportunity to speak to our legislature and visit with members of both the State house and the State senate in Atlanta, and I cannot tell you the angst and apprehension that I saw among members of my legislature over this issue of REAL ID. When I got back I did not understand why there would be that much concern about the issue. I was not sure how this thing came about. When I checked with my staff I found out, as Senator Alexander said this morning in his comments, that this was a measure that was stuck into the Katrina appropriations bill that did not go through committee, we did not have debate on it on the floor of this body, and I don't think anybody here understood the real consequences of it. When the 19 hijackers came to this country and carried out the horrific attack on September 11, they were in possession of 63 driver's licenses issued by various States around the country. That should never have happened, and we need to make sure it does not happen again. But the fact is, I don't think anybody understood the consequences of this REAL ID Act as it pertains to that particular issue of driver's licenses. In 1994, when I was elected to the House of Representatives, we talked a lot about unfunded mandates. The Presiding Officer was a Member of that body. He remembers well we had a lot of conversations about unfunded mandates coming out of Washington to our State and local officials and organizations that were required to fund those mandates that we passed. There is no bigger unfunded mandate that we have passed lately that is more atrocious than this particular mandate. I applaud Senator Collins for looking at this issue, for deciding that it is a real, practical problem. It is an issue that needs to be dealt with. Her amendment makes a lot of sense. It does not repeal the law. What it does is to say that the law is not going to be implemented until 2 years following the issuance of the regulations. Here we are, with this law supposed to be implemented by our State legislatures this year, and we don't even have the regulations coming out of the Department of Homeland Security yet. They don't know how to carry out the provisions of this law. I support the Collins amendment, No. 277. I think it makes an awful lot of sense. It allows us to go back in and take a more thorough look at this particular issue and decide how we can accomplish the results that the REAL ID Act wants to accomplish but at the same time not burden our States with a mandate that none of us intended to impose upon them. I do support this amendment. I hope when the time comes it will receive not only passage but significant numbers to support the passage of this amendment. I yield the floor.

Mr. CHAMBLISS

Mr. CHAMBLISS. I ask unanimous consent that for the next 30 minutes, I be allowed to speak for up to 10 minutes and that Senator Kyl be allowed to speak for up to 10 minutes and Senator Thomas be allowed to speak for up to 10 minutes.

Mr. CHAMBLISS

Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. President, I rise today to oppose the resolution, S. 574, the Senate will vote in relation to tomorrow. This resolution states simply that: No. 1, Congress and the American people will continue to support and protect the members of the United States Armed Forces who are serving or who have served bravely and honorably in Iraq; and No. 2, Congress disapproves of the decision of President George W. Bush announced on January 10, 2007, to deploy more than 20,000 additional U.S. combat troops to Iraq. Mr. President, the first paragraph of that resolution is a commendable one and one every Member of this body should support, and will. However, the second paragraph is simply inconsistent with a vote every Member has already made and should be opposed by every Member of this body. Therefore, the resolution as a whole should be opposed. Exactly 3 weeks ago, on January 26, the Senate unanimously approved GEN David Petraeus for his fourth star and to be commander of multinational forces in Iraq. No Senator opposed his nomination. In my 12 years in the Congress, I do not think I have seen Members of Congress express any higher confidence or support for a nominee for any position than they have for GEN David Petraeus. I have not heard anyone criticize him, and rightly so. In his nomination hearing, when asked about his opinion of the President's plan for Iraq that he now has the responsibility of executing, General Petraeus said: I believe this plan can succeed if, in fact, all of those enablers and all the rest of the assistance is in fact provided. General Petraeus supports this plan. Now, the same Senate that voted unanimously to confirm General Petraeus is going to vote on whether they agree with the plan he supports and that they confirmed him to execute. That vote has not been taken yet, so obviously we don't know the outcome. Some people would like to mislead the American people into thinking that Republicans are opposed to debating Iraq and the various resolutions in Iraq. In fact, Republicans welcome that debate, and that is why many of us are here today. However, Republicans rightfully oppose the Democrats' dictating what resolutions can be considered. If Senators truly disapprove of this decision, they should be willing to vote for or against a resolution that clearly expresses their convictions, and that is exactly what Senator Gregg's resolution does. However, Democrats are not willing to do that. Senator Gregg's resolution expresses the sense of the Congress that: No funds should be cut off or reduced from American troops in the field which would result in undermining their safety or ability to complete their assigned missions. If Senators truly do not support the mission we are sending General Petraeus and our men and women in uniform to carry out, then they should be willing to have an up-or-down vote on the Gregg resolution. For the record, let me restate my position on the proposed troop increase. Several weeks ago, President Bush addressed the situation in Iraq before the American people, and everyone was anxious to hear his plans for a new strategy. It is clear that Americans want a victory in Iraq; however, they do not want our presence there to be open-ended. I agree, and most importantly, I believe it is time for the Iraqi Government to step up and take responsibility. They need to take control of their country, both militarily and politically. I believe the Iraqis must deliver on their promises. I come from a strong and proud military State, home to 13 military installations, and our service men and women have answered the call of duty and performed courageously. No one questions our troops' performance and unwavering commitment, and we will continue to support them. Many of our troops, including the 3rd Infantry Division based at Fort Stewart, GA, and Fort Benning, GA, are preparing to head overseas, some for their third tour of duty in Iraq, as we speak today. The President's decision to send additional combat brigades to Baghdad and Anbar Province in western Iraq is aimed at defeating the insurgency in those areas and increasing stability for the Iraqi people. However, we must also see an increased commitment from the Iraqis. This is also part of the new strategy, and I am committed to holding the administration and the Iraqis accountable in this area. Those of us in Congress have a responsibility to ask questions and seek answers on behalf of the American people when our strategy and tactics are not getting the job done. I have expressed my concern and frustration with progress on the part of the Iraqis not only to the President and the White House advisers but to our military leadership testifying before the Senate Armed Services Committee as well. In my conversations with the White House and with the Department of Defense leadership, I have made it clear that my support of any increase in troops is conditioned upon those troops being sent on a specific mission and upon the completion of that mission that they should be redeployed. I firmly believe that just a large increase in troops without having a specific mission will only increase insurgent opposition and that a withdrawal of U.S. forces at this time would be detrimental to Iraq's security and extremely dangerous for American soldiers. That particular issue has been affirmed by every single individual in the U.S. military testifying before the Senate Armed Services Committee. Failure in Iraq will result in expanded and intensified conflict in the Middle East, and that kind of instability is clearly not in the best interests of America or the international community. Now that the President has taken serious steps to admit his mistakes, take responsibility, and revise the strategy, Americans do seek positive results. It has been said by many of my colleagues, as well as many of my own constituents, that the situation in Iraq requires a political and not a military solution. I strongly agree with that position. However, it is not possible, in my opinion, to have a political solution or to make political progress if citizens are afraid to leave their homes for fear of being shot or kidnaped or if they are afraid to let their children go to school because it is unsafe to do so. Some level of order and stability must be in place before a political solution can take hold. In America, we take order and stability for granted because we are blessed to live in a country that is extremely safe, secure, and stable. However, Iraq is not the same as the United States. They do not live in a secure and stable society, and order and stability must be in place before there can be any hope for a long-term political solution. The additional troops we are sending are meant to create that order and stability, particularly in Baghdad. Unfortunately, the Iraqi military and Government is not yet mature enough to do that job themselves, so we are partnering with them to help them succeed. There is nothing easy or pretty about war, and this war is no exception. This war has not gone as well as any of us had hoped. Additionally, the President's new plan, which is already being carried out in Iraq, is not guaranteed to work. However, it is my firm conviction that the President's plan deserves a chance to succeed, and we in the Congress should do all we can to help it succeed. The Reid resolution does not do that. That is why I urge my colleagues to vote against cloture on the motion to proceed to the Reid resolution tomorrow. The resolution opposes the President's plan without offering any alternative. It opposes the mission which the Senate has unanimously confirmed General Petraeus to carry out. I urge a vote against the implementation of cloture tomorrow. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. CHAMBLISS

Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. President, may I inquire as to the pending business?

Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in morning business.

Mr. CHAMBLISS

Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Food Stamp Savings and Investment Act of 2007, a bill that would improve the food stamp program which is administered by the U.S. Department of Agriculture. For fiscal year 2005, the food stamp program touched an average of over 25 million people in this country every month. Our nutrition assistance programs, anchored by the food stamp program, play a key role in ensuring that needy Americans have access to the food they need to lead healthy, productive lives. I know from the school teachers in my family the importance of good nutrition, especially for our children's development. Moreover, the food for nutrition programs comes from U.S. farmers which helps agriculture. Finally, food assistance programs are an important part of this country's safety net. Not long ago, the Nation witnessed the food stamp program's effective emergency response to evacuees from hurricanes Katrina and Rita. The U.S. food assistance programs are good for families, good for farmers and good for America. The food stamp program not only helps by providing food and emergency aid, it helps America's needy families on their path to independence and self-sufficiency. The goals of the 1996 welfare reform were spelled out in the title, to increase ``personal responsibility and work opportunity.'' In essence, Congress asked our nation's families on welfare to take personal responsibility for themselves and join the workforce, and many of those families did. In the ten years since welfare reform was passed by Congress and signed by President Clinton, fewer families receive cash welfare, and more welfare families are working. According to the Congressional Research Service, from 1996 to 2005, the number of food stamp households with children who received cash welfare payments decreased by 57 percent, and the number who reported earned income increased 41 percent. Many families have transitioned from welfare to work, and the Food Stamp program should do more to encourage this continuing transition. States have done a great job addressing food stamp error rates. From fiscal year 2000 to fiscal year 2005, while average monthly participation increased to a near historical high of almost 26 million people, the combined error rates of over payments and under payments fell 34 percent to a historical low of 5.84 percent. In the 2002 farm bill, Congress gave States many options to administer the food stamp program easier. Most States have taken advantage of these options and the program serves both taxpayers and recipients better today than in the past. However, there is room to improve. For many working families with low income, there are some aspects of the food stamp program that may reduce their ability to escape the cycle of poverty. For example, food stamp asset rules conflict with families' ability to save for their future. The asset limit of $2,000 for liquid assets for most food stamp recipients has not changed for more than 20 years. When indexed for inflation, the asset limit would be almost $4,000 today. This bill would index the asset limit to inflation. A higher asset limit should help families build up savings in order to achieve financial independence and prepare for a rainy day or get an education and eventually end their need to receive food stamps. In addition, food stamp rules discourage working families from utilizing all the financial investment tools encouraged by the tax code for working Americans. This bill would exempt savings plans for retirement and education from being counted toward the asset when determining eligibility, provisions included in the Bush Administration's farm bill proposal. The core ideas underlying this bill enjoy broad support across the political spectrum. Examples of organizations that have voiced support for reforming asset limits in order to encourage savings include: The Heritage Foundation; the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities; the New America Foundation; the Corporation for Enterprise Development; and, the Center for Law and Social Policy. Reforming food stamp asset limits has the potential to help needy families break the cycle of poverty and achieve long-term financial independence. I urge my colleagues to support this bill.

Mr. CHAMBLISS

Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. President, I would like to wish my colleague a happy Valentines Day, also. I am sorry his wife is under all that snow. It is 70 degrees in south Georgia, so you should come south this year. I rise today to bring to the attention of this body once again an amendment Senator Isakson and I filed to the continuing resolution. The amendment is very simple. It is very straightforward. We have a program called SCHIP that everybody in this body is familiar with, and it has been a very valuable program to every State in the country because what it does is provide children all across America who are above the Medicaid limit but not able to afford health insurance the opportunity to be covered by medical insurance. It is called the SCHIP program, and it is exactly what it says it is: health insurance assistance for children. Unfortunately, the money that is block-granted under this program has created some shortfalls in several States. The shortfalls vary with the timing of the shortfalls, and the reasoning for the shortfalls differs in each of the States where we are about to run out of money for these children and then these children will no longer have health insurance coverage. The amendment that Senator Isakson and I have proposed will come up with an alternative that allows those States which have an excess amount of money to put that money into a pool of money from which the 13 States that have a shortfall in the SCHIP program. Mr. President, in this amendment, for the 13 States that will have a shortfall, we take money from States that have an excess amount of money, money they cannot possibly use in their SCHIP program because this program expired at the end of this fiscal year. We allow them plenty of room for any emergency-type situation that might arise between now and the end of the fiscal year, and we give them the funding they need to cover the children in their States. We utilize that money to fund the shortfalls in States such as Georgia, where 273,000 children participate in SCHIP. Frankly, the main reason we have a shortfall in Georgia is because following Hurricane Katrina last year we had an influx of some 40,000 children who came from the hurricane-devastated areas of Louisiana and Mississippi into Georgia. They are now participating in the SCHIP program, and they should be allowed to have that coverage. We now have the opportunity, in this Senate--whether it is today when we vote on the continuing resolution, whether it is tomorrow or whether it is Friday--to look after these children who are very soon going to have this insurance safety net jerked out from under them. I implore my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to encourage the Democratic leadership to allow the amendment to come forward, let us have a vote on this amendment to make sure all of these children who participate in the SCHIP program in Georgia as well as the other 13 States that are going to experience a shortfall between now and the time we reauthorize this program before the end of the year, can continue to have that health care coverage they deserve and that they so badly need. It is a very simple request we are making of the Democratic leadership that we allow this amendment to come forward.

Mr. CHAMBLISS

Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. President, I rise to thank the majority leader for his cooperation on an issue regarding an amendment that I had on the continuing resolution relative to the SCHIP problem that exists not just in my State of Georgia, but in 13 States where we have a shortfall in Federal funding that is going to require, if we don't take action, a number of children all across America to be removed from the SCHIP rolls, and their health insurance will be terminated. The majority leader has agreed that during the break we are going to work among our staffs--Senator Isakson and I have been in conversation with his staff already--and we are going to continue to work with him, as well as with others. This is not a problem unique to Georgia. We are going to seek to come to a compromise on this issue. In about 10 days to 2 weeks or so, we will have a cure or a fix for this problem that exists out there regarding the shortfall on SCHIP. To Senator Reid, I say thank you for his cooperation on this and his commitment to working together with us to find a solution for the children all across America to make sure these children do remain insured. I say to my colleague from Georgia, Senator Isakson, thanks for his hard work and commitment on this issue as we have worked very closely together. I yield back the remainder of my time, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. CHAMBLISS

Mr. CHAMBLISS. Madam President, I thank my friend and colleague from Georgia for those very generous and kind words about our mutual friend. I rise today to pay tribute to a guy who has been a great inspiration not just for the last 3 years when he has so bravely fought the deadly disease that ultimately got him--cancer--but Charlie Norwood and I were elected to Congress together in 1994. Charlie was one of those individuals who came to Congress for the right reason; that is, to make this country a better place for our generation as well as for future generations to live. Charlie worked every single day to make sure he could personally do everything he could as a Member of the House of Representatives to make this country better. Charlie grew up a Valdosta Wildcat. Now, to people in this body that may not mean a whole lot, but to anybody who lives in our great State, growing up a Valdosta Wildcat and playing for the Wildcat football team is a very special asset. Valdosta is a very unique town down in my part of the State, down in the very southern part of our State. The football lore of Valdosta is second to no other community in the country. Charlie loved his Valdosta Wildcats. He and I used to sit on the floor of the House every now and then, particularly during football season, and talk about his days of growing up. My hometown of Moultrie is the biggest football rival of Valdosta. Charlie loved life. He loved things like football. He also loved his family. He was the proud husband of Gloria Norwood, who is one more great lady, and he had two sons and several grandchildren. Charlie used to take his grandchildren to Atlanta every year at Thanksgiving, used to take the girls. He would let those girls have the run of a very nice hotel in Atlanta to do whatever they wanted, including Charlie Norwood, a mean, gruff, old dentist from Augusta, GA, sitting down in the afternoon and having tea with his granddaughters. He was, indeed, a very special person, a guy who loved his country, loved his State, loved his family, and really cared about what is best for America. One anecdote about Charlie I will never forget. He and I became good friends during the 1994 campaign. We both signed the Contract with America. We ran on the Contract with America. One provision in there was requiring an amendment to the Constitution calling for the Federal budget to be balanced. Charlie and I both felt very strongly about that. We were sitting on the floor of the House of Representatives one night together, as we were debating and voting on the amendment to the Constitution calling for a balanced budget, and as the numbers in favor of the bill grew and grew, the roar within the Chamber itself got louder and louder. It took 397 votes to reach the point where the balanced budget amendment would pass, and when it hit 350, the roar got louder. It hit 360. Finally, it hit 397. Charlie looked over at me and said: Sax, that is why we came here. He was that kind of person who truly cared about his country and the principles for which he stood. He was a man who will truly be missed, as my colleague, Senator Isakson, said, for his ideas on health care. He truly believed that every person who received health care treatment in this country ought to have the ability to look their physician in the eye and make sure they had the right to choose the physician from whom they were receiving medical services. It is only fitting that Charlie's Patient's Bill of Rights was reintroduced in the House in the last several days. I look forward, hopefully, to Congressman Dingell taking up that bill and debating that bill. It was a controversial bill then. It will be controversial again. But just because Charlie Norwood felt so strongly about it, I am hopeful we will see some movement on that bill. As I wind down, I have such fond memories about Charlie from a personal standpoint. But most significantly, the great memories I will always have about Charlie Norwood are about his commitment to America, his commitment to freedom, his commitment to the men and women who wear the uniform of the United States, of which he was one--he was a veteran of Vietnam--and about the great spirit Charlie Norwood always brought to every issue on the floor of the House of Representatives. He was a great American. He was a great Member of the House of Representatives. He was a great colleague. He was a great friend who will be missed. I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. CHAMBLISS

Mr. CHAMBLISS. Madam President, first, I thank my dear friend from Oregon for letting us have some time here to talk about this issue that is so critical to 17 States, which my colleague so eloquently stated. I appreciate that. I say to my colleague from Georgia, he and I have worked on this issue so closely together, and the authorship is a combination between the two of us. He has been very generous with his time on this issue and, most importantly, very generous with the thought process he always puts into the most difficult issues we face up here. Without Senator Isakson, we would not be where we are today on this amendment. Today I wish to speak to a critical piece of legislation. It is my hope that this legislation will remedy a situation currently facing hundreds of thousands of hard-working families in Georgia who depend on the State Children's Health Insurance Program--or what we know as SCHIP. In Georgia, some 273,000 previously uninsured children are now receiving health insurance provided by our State's Peachcare Program. Georgia is one of several States facing a projected funding shortfall for fiscal year 2007. Last week, the Georgia Department of Community Health that runs Peachcare announced that it will stop enrolling new children into the program effective March 11, 2007. Senator Isakson, Congressman Nathan Deal, and I have been working relentlessly with our Governor, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, Senator Grassley, and the Finance and Budget Committees to find a short-term solution for the children of Georgia who are dependent upon this program. Unfortunately, to this point there has been no resolution. Senator Isakson would like to introduce an amendment today to the continuing resolution that would redistribute fiscal year 2005 and 2006 funds from States that have an excess of more than 200 percent in Federal SCHIP funds to cover the shortfall for States in need for the remainder of fiscal year 2007. Congress has already passed legislation in an attempt to continue to cover children in States that are running out of funding for SCHIP. H.R. 6164, which became public law on January 15, 2007, required a redistribution of SCHIP funds in an attempt to delay State shortfalls until May of 2007. The estimated remaining shortfall is approximately $750 million for 14 States. According to recent estimates there is about $4 billion in unspent funds which have accumulated in other States. Hard-working Georgians who qualify for this program don't need to wonder how they are going to pay for their children's health care. We must bridge the gap so that these children can continue to be insured, and I hope the Democratic leadership will allow this amendment to be considered. Time is running out on this funding issue for Georgia's children and children in other States. The continuing resolution is an important funding vehicle that will allow us to solve this problem for the remainder of the year until Congress can reauthorize this program. Georgia's Peachcare Program is providing health insurance to the children of hardworking Americans. They are the kids of the mechanic who works on your car at the local service station, the woman who checks you out every week at the grocery store, or the teacher who is providing your children with the basic knowledge they will use throughout their life. SCHIP programs are for the men and women who make too much money to receive Medicaid yet cannot afford to provide premium insurance for their children at the level of care that they need. I read in the Atlanta Journal-Constitution recently about Sylvia Banks, a mother of 3 from Ringgold, GA, who is a parent that is concerned the Peachcare Program will soon run out of money. Her 13- year-old son, Benjamin, wears a $7,000 insulin pump, and supplies for him are around $300 a month, paid for by Peachcare. In a recent news article, Ms. Banks, whose husband is a minister, states, ``We can't do without the insurance. We are taxpayers trying our best to earn an honest living. We are not trying to suck up the government's money. We see this as a benefit and blessing.'' Peachcare, and other programs funded through SCHIP throughout the country, allow families to bridge the gap between Medicaid and high priced premium insurance that many families cannot afford. The importance of this program is too vital to our country's working class not to find a solution to this problem, and find a solution soon. Mr. President, let me just briefly read some excerpts from a letter written to President Bush from Majority Leader Reid and Speaker Nancy Pelosi, who have echoed our sentiments about this critical funding issue: As you consider the emergency needs of our Nation, we respectfully request that you not forget the millions of low- income Americans who are insured under the State Children's Health Insurance Program (SCHIP). We ask that you submit a separate spending proposal to cover shortfalls in SCHIP for fiscal year 2007 which have been estimated to be $745 million. Unless we act quickly to provide additional funds to this important program, we are putting the health coverage of thousands of Americans in jeopardy. As you know, over 46 million Americans are without health insurance. We can ill afford to increase the rolls of the uninsured for failure to adequately fund a successful and efficient insurance program such as SCHIP. Yet we know that at least fourteen States will face a shortfall of SCHIP funds within months. The Governor of Georgia has written to us stating that ``it is vitally important to our most needy citizens that Congress act expeditiously.'' The letter goes on to say: SCHIP has become a vital part of our safety net, providing health care coverage to millions of Americans who otherwise would be uninsured. Including funds to address fully the looming SCHIP shortfall would assure that States can continue to provide this important coverage while we work to address the longer-term success of the program. So again, we have introduced our amendment today because Georgia's children are waiting. This is about them--our children. They are our Nation's future--and their health care needs must be met. The people in Georgia want a solution to this problem. Hard working Georgians and Americans across the U.S. don't need to wonder how they are going to pay for their children's health care. These are our middle class citizens who work to find a solution and that is what we have been doing and what we will continue to do. I urge the Democratic leadership to allow consideration of this amendment, and I urge my colleagues to support this amendment. I yield the floor.

Mr. CHAMBLISS

Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. President, let me say to my friend from Oklahoma, as well as to my colleague from Texas, we appreciate their leadership on this issue, restoring this funding for the transition as required under BRAC. The Senator from Oklahoma and I both went through some very difficult times under BRAC. Now, to not be able to carry out the direction of the Commissioners with the difficult decisions that were made is simply not right. Without his leadership, we would not be where we are today.

Mr. CHAMBLISS. I yield.

Mr. CHAMBLISS. The Senator is exactly right. I will address that in my comments in a few minutes. It is not fair to the taxpayers in general but specifically those communities that are affected, as communities in Oklahoma and Georgia are, that we now come back and say: I know you have made these plans and you were preparing to receive additional infrastructure, but now it will not happen because the folks in the Senate have decided they want to spend that money on social programs as opposed to spending it on our military. I do rise today to support my colleagues in restoring funds for the Department of Defense fiscal year 2007 BRAC requirements in the continuing resolution. The fiscal year 2007 President's budget requested $16.7 billion for MILCON, which included $5.7 for fiscal year 2005 base realignment and closure actions required to meet a statutory deadline of September 15, 2011, to complete all realignments and closures. The fiscal year 2007 Defense authorization bill authorized MILCON appropriations of $17.4 billion after accounting for $278 million in prior year rescissions proposed by appropriators in both Chambers. The final authorized amount was $17.1 billion--$400 million above the President's budget for fiscal year 2007. The Senate passed a fiscal year 2007 MILCON appropriations bill at $434 million below the fiscal year 2007 President's budget by cutting the BRAC request and accounting for additional rescissions. The House version of the fiscal year 2007 MILCON appropriations bill is $803 million below the President's budget, and it cut BRAC and $500 million in projects requested in the President's budget. No conference allocation was provided and a conference agreement was never reached. A continuing resolution was enacted through February 15, 2007, at levels equaling the fiscal year 2006 appropriations, but currently does not allow for military construction new starts in fiscal year 2007. In addition, the fiscal year 2006 BRAC appropriation is $4 billion below the request for fiscal year 2007. Therefore, over 90 percent of the authorized fiscal year 2007 MILCON projects will not be able to be constructed. The new CR language proposed by House and Senate appropriators on January 30 would provide fiscal year 2007 MILCON funds at levels requested in the fiscal year 2007 President's budget, but would underfund BRAC in fiscal year 2007 by $3 billion, seriously jeopardizing the ability of the Department of Defense to carry out all BRAC actions by 2011. Senator Inhofe offered a bill in early January that I cosponsored along with several other Members of the Senate that would appropriate funds for all MILCON projects authorized in the fiscal year 2007 Defense authorization bill. The administration issued a Statement of Administration Policy on January 30, strongly opposing the reductions that are in the continuing resolution we are considering. The Secretary of Defense and the service chiefs and Secretaries have met with many of us to provide an assessment of the impact on military programs as well as military readiness. By cutting $3.1 billion in the fiscal year 2007 BRAC request, the proposed continuing resolution does not allow the Department to carry out the investments and the timing required to complete all BRAC initiatives by 2011. That is a statutory requirement established to assist communities affected by BRAC by mandating an accelerated transition to aid in economic recovery. Deferring funds will result in higher contract costs as construction will be delayed and ultimately compressed in a tighter execution timeframe, forcing a greater demand for limited resources. Resolving this issue has the support of key members of the Senate Appropriations Committee, as well as many military and local community advocacy groups. I understand the chairman of the Senate Appropriations Committee intends to attempt to restore BRAC funding in the supplemental appropriations bill. But what kind of solution is this? Supplemental funds have been requested by the President for military operations in Iraq as well as Afghanistan. The funds requested in the supplemental are critically needed to purchase equipment for force protection and IED defeat initiatives. These funds would be used to train and equip Iraqi security forces. The funds will be used for military intelligence, coalition support, and other regional operations in the global war on terror. Since when do base realignments and closures qualify as an emergency directly supporting the global war on terror? How do we explain to the American taxpayer that BRAC should be considered along with body armor, additional military end strength, and vehicles being used in Iraq and Afghanistan? Furthermore, we are having this discussion because my colleagues who developed the resolution share with all of us the common goal to reduce overall Government expenditures. In that spirit, what critical warfighting requirement do we cut in the supplemental to pay for the BRAC increase that is proposed? What do we deny to our frontline fighting troops? While I heard the idea of funding BRAC in the supplemental, I have not heard one idea on how we pay for it. Do they instead advocate for an increase in the supplemental? Why not just add funds to the resolution we have in front of us, as this is proper? Could it be they want to hide the additional funds they have inserted for domestic programs by pushing BRAC to an inappropriate method of funding? Is this how we propose to manage military appropriations for the future? By using budget gimmicks and shell games which will have devastating results for the military and for local communities? We must address full fiscal year 2007 funding for BRAC in this continuing resolution. Including funds for BRAC in the CR is critical to modernizing and increasing the readiness of our Armed Forces. The current CR provides $2.7 billion for Base Realignment and Closure programs, which is $3.1 billion below the President's request, as I previously stated. These reductions are inconsistent with congressional emphasis on force and readiness. Such a severe reduction to BRAC funding will force the Department to rephase BRAC implementation plans. This will have a negative ripple effect on the movement of troops and missions throughout our global defense posture restructuring. This planned approach could delay force rotations to Iraq and Afghanistan, as well as the Army's overall readiness posture, which relies on completing the Modular Force conversions on time. This move will impact readiness. And soldiers at Fort Campbell, Fort Drum, and Fort Stewart will not have adequate places to train, work, or sleep. This move will devastate the Department's ability to complete BRAC actions within statutory deadlines. It will stymie efforts to construct facilities and move equipment and people to receiver locations, thereby impeding our ability to realize savings and organizational efficiencies. Over 82 percent of the fiscal year 2007 BRAC request is for construction that is required before these moves can occur. The current continuing resolution cuts funding for family housing by $300 million below the President's request. This will directly and adversely affect the quality of life of our servicemembers by perpetuating the continued use of inadequate facilities where they work, train, and live. Regarding my home State of Georgia, the following projects will be in jeopardy--and these are going to have very serious consequences to the ability to train and give quality of life to the soldiers, which they deserve--a child development center at Fort Benning; two trainee barracks complexes at Fort Benning; training brigade complex at Fort Benning; fire and movement range at Fort Benning; modified record fire range at Fort Benning; brigade headquarters building at Fort Benning; stationary gunnery range at Fort Benning; Marine Corps Reserve center at Robins Air Force base; Marine Corps Reserve center in Rome, GA; three facilities to prepare Moody Air Force Base to receive A-10 aircraft; and relocation of a vehicle maintenance complex at Robins Air Force Base. None of these improvements can be made for our fighting men and women without this funding. It is imperative we do so in this CR. Mr. President, I inquire as to how much time I have remaining?

Mr. CHAMBLISS

Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. President, in that remaining minute 55 seconds, I will very quickly say a word of commendation about a good friend of mine, a good friend of all Members of Congress, who is now serving in the other body, Congressman Charlie Norwood. Congressman Norwood has been in a severe battle for his life for the last 3 years, and he is having a tough time. He has made a decision to now go back to Augusta, GA, and spend the rest of his time with his family. And, boy, what a great warrior Charlie Norwood has been. It was my privilege to be elected to Congress with Congressman Norwood in 1994. He is an avowed conservative. He does not back away from any of his positions in supporting conservative values. He is a strong supporter of our men and women who wear the uniform of the United States. He is a Vietnam veteran. He is a very professional dentist. And he is one of the greatest guys I have ever had the privilege of being associated with. As Charlie and his wife Gloria return to Augusta to spend the rest of his time there, I want to say it has been a privilege to know him. It has been a privilege to serve with him. I hope to have the opportunity to spend some more time with him in the next several weeks, months, whatever it may be. But he is a great trooper. He is a great American. And I hope all Members of this body, as well as all Americans, will keep Congressman Norwood and his wife Gloria in their thoughts and prayers. Mr. President, I yield back.

Mr. CHAMBLISS

Mr. CHAMBLISS. Madam President, I have amendment No. 118 which is under consideration. After consultation with the Senator from Massachusetts, I am going to withdraw that amendment, but as I withdraw it, I want to say, as we move into the immigration debate, which we will do on the floor of the Senate hopefully sooner rather than later, this amendment will come up again. The importance of this amendment cannot be overstated. There are farmers and ranchers all across America who use a legal workforce versus an illegal workforce. Between now and the time this debate comes up on immigration, I am afraid that by not moving ahead with the adoption of this amendment, we are going to encourage farmers and ranchers in the use of illegal immigrants. But the fact is, we have been debating this minimum wage bill now for 2 weeks or more. It is time to conclude it. This amendment has stirred up some controversy--for the right reasons, because we do need to talk about the amount of money we pay to our workforce in the agricultural sector. But I do appreciate the Senator from Massachusetts, in his conversations and his commitment to me, that as we move into the immigration debate we will talk about this once again, as we did last year. Madam President, at this time I withdraw that amendment. I ask unanimous consent to do so.

Mr. CHAMBLISS

Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. President, today I wish to honor the recent accomplishments of a successful business that is headquartered and was founded in my home State of Georgia, Flowers Foods. Flowers Foods is a leader in the baking industry with fresh products distributed throughout the Southeast, Southwest, and Mid-Atlantic States. Flowers Foods frozen products can be found nationwide. Forbes magazine recently named Flowers Foods to its prestigious list of the 400 Best Big Companies in America. In addition Flowers Foods was also named the best-managed food company among the list of 400 Best Big Companies. It should also be noted that this is the third time that Flowers Foods has been named to Forbes' prestigious list. In creating the most recent list, Forbes reviewed the financial metrics, Wall Street forecast, corporate governance ratings and other public information of over 1,000 of the largest publicly traded companies in America. Once Forbes narrows this list down to 400 then they select a best-managed company from each of the 26 industry areas that are represented in the Best Big Companies list. The selection of the best-managed company for each represented industry is based on financial performance, leadership, innovation and execution. Flowers Foods has continued to be on the cutting edge of bakery products and technology since William Howard and Joseph Hampton Flowers opened Flowers Baking Company in Fitzgerald, Georgia in 1933. When the company first opened in 1933 they had the capacity to produce 30,000 loaves of bread each day. In 1999, Flowers Foods became the first wholesale baker to offer a sugar-free bread and they later became the first commercial baker to introduce a low-carb bread selection. Through the years Flowers Foods has produced and marketed a variety of fresh and frozen bakery foods under name brands such as Nature's Own, Cobblestone Mill, Sunbeam Bread, ButterKrust, Whitewheat, Bunny Bread, BlueBird, Mrs. Freshley's, European Bakers, Mi Casa and Tesoritos. It is no wonder that they are a market leader with this varied mix of brands and products that ensures that there is something tasty for everyone. Not only has Flowers Foods product line grown since its founding in 1933 but their expansive operation has also grown. Their operations now include thirty-six bakeries that stretch from the Southwest to the Mid- Atlantic regions. These efficient and technologically advanced bakeries allow Flowers Foods to supply retailers throughout a large portion of the United States with a constant supply of fresh products. I am extremely proud of the recognition that Flowers Foods has received from Forbes magazine. I thank my colleagues for giving me the opportunity to recognize Flowers Foods.

Mr. CHAMBLISS

Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Hunting Heritage Protection Act of 2007. I cannot stress how important this piece of legislation is to ensure that our Nation's rich hunting heritage is passed on to future generations. This legislation preserves and protects the rights and access to Federal public lands that are vitally important to the sportsmen and women of America. I have been an avid outdoor sportsman for the better part of my adult life and I must say that the times I have spent hunting with my son or with friends have been some of the best times of my life. Recreational hunting provides numerous opportunities to spend time and share valuable experiences of some of life's lessons with children, family and friends. It is hard to put a price tag on seeing the joy and excitement in a child's eyes during their first hunting experience. It is one of the reasons that I decided to introduce this legislation. I believe that recreational hunting should be an activity that everyone has the opportunity to experience. One thing that all sportsmen and women have in common is that they are also conservationists. I, like my fellow hunters, understand that without wildlife conservation our Nation's rich hunting heritage will end with this generation. Sportsmen and women have continued to support sound wildlife management and conservation practices since the time of President Theodore Roosevelt who many consider to be the father of the conservation movement. Each year millions of hunters purchase licenses, permits, and stamps that contribute a significant amount of money to wildlife conservation. These hunters also contribute billions of dollars to the U.S. economy from other hunting related activities. Hunting is a rural development activity. It is quite understandable how hunting provides an important supplement to the income of many farmers and ranchers, and even though this legislation pertains to Federal public lands many people overlook the related rural job opportunities that are created by hunting. These include guiding and increased hotel and restaurant activity to name just a few. As our rural population decreases and our urban/suburban increases, hunting is an activity that allows many families to stay connected to the land and in so doing; it creates economic activity for our rural areas. Recognizing hunters for their role in conservation efforts throughout the U.S. is very important. The Hunting Heritage Protection Act not only recognizes hunters for their conservation efforts but it also requires that Federal public land and water are open to access and use for recreational hunting when and where hunting is appropriate. It is important to note that this bill does not open all Federal public land to hunting. Another crucial piece of this legislation is that it creates a policy that requires Federal government agencies to manage Federal public land under their jurisdiction in a manner that supports, promotes, and enhances recreational hunting opportunities. As I mentioned before, sportsmen and women have contributed greatly to wildlife conservation over the years and it is important that Congress acknowledge this contribution by ensuring that the amount of Federal public land open to recreational hunting does not decrease. That is why this legislation requires that actions related to the management of Federal public lands should result in a ``no net loss'' of land area available for recreational hunting. It is vitally important that we, as Members of the Senate, do all we can to protect and preserve the tradition of hunting so that future generations will be able to experience this great outdoor recreational activity. I believe that the ``Hunting Heritage Protection Act of 2007'' meets these goals. I want to encourage my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to join me in supporting and preserving our Nation's rich heritage of hunting by supporting this legislation. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. CHAMBLISS

Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Hunting Heritage Protection Act of 2007. I cannot stress how important this piece of legislation is to ensure that our Nation's rich hunting heritage is passed on to future generations. This legislation preserves and protects the rights and access to Federal public lands that are vitally important to the sportsmen and women of America. I have been an avid outdoor sportsman for the better part of my adult life and I must say that the times I have spent hunting with my son or with friends have been some of the best times of my life. Recreational hunting provides numerous opportunities to spend time and share valuable experiences of some of life's lessons with children, family and friends. It is hard to put a price tag on seeing the joy and excitement in a child's eyes during their first hunting experience. It is one of the reasons that I decided to introduce this legislation. I believe that recreational hunting should be an activity that everyone has the opportunity to experience. One thing that all sportsmen and women have in common is that they are also conservationists. I, like my fellow hunters, understand that without wildlife conservation our Nation's rich hunting heritage will end with this generation. Sportsmen and women have continued to support sound wildlife management and conservation practices since the time of President Theodore Roosevelt who many consider to be the father of the conservation movement. Each year millions of hunters purchase licenses, permits, and stamps that contribute a significant amount of money to wildlife conservation. These hunters also contribute billions of dollars to the U.S. economy from other hunting related activities. Hunting is a rural development activity. It is quite understandable how hunting provides an important supplement to the income of many farmers and ranchers, and even though this legislation pertains to Federal public lands many people overlook the related rural job opportunities that are created by hunting. These include guiding and increased hotel and restaurant activity to name just a few. As our rural population decreases and our urban/suburban increases, hunting is an activity that allows many families to stay connected to the land and in so doing; it creates economic activity for our rural areas. Recognizing hunters for their role in conservation efforts throughout the U.S. is very important. The Hunting Heritage Protection Act not only recognizes hunters for their conservation efforts but it also requires that Federal public land and water are open to access and use for recreational hunting when and where hunting is appropriate. It is important to note that this bill does not open all Federal public land to hunting. Another crucial piece of this legislation is that it creates a policy that requires Federal government agencies to manage Federal public land under their jurisdiction in a manner that supports, promotes, and enhances recreational hunting opportunities. As I mentioned before, sportsmen and women have contributed greatly to wildlife conservation over the years and it is important that Congress acknowledge this contribution by ensuring that the amount of Federal public land open to recreational hunting does not decrease. That is why this legislation requires that actions related to the management of Federal public lands should result in a ``no net loss'' of land area available for recreational hunting. It is vitally important that we, as Members of the Senate, do all we can to protect and preserve the tradition of hunting so that future generations will be able to experience this great outdoor recreational activity. I believe that the ``Hunting Heritage Protection Act of 2007'' meets these goals. I want to encourage my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to join me in supporting and preserving our Nation's rich heritage of hunting by supporting this legislation. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. CHAMBLISS

Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. President, this amendment is an attempt to remedy a wage issue that is a tremendous burden for some of our Nation's agricultural employers. There are about 1 million agricultural workers in the country today, and roughly half of them are illegal workers. As we expand the Border Patrol's presence on the border and the efforts of our men and women on the Border Patrol become more successful, farmers and ranchers who have historically relied on an illegal workforce have started to feel the squeeze, and they should. A labor shortage has resulted in a number of areas. This labor shortage occurs because agriculture is a traditional gateway of illegal immigration into the United States. Many illegal immigrants come to the United States, work for a while on a farm, and, as they integrate into our society, they find different jobs, such as those in hospitality or construction. Therefore, the illegal agricultural workforce has continuously relied upon new workers crossing the border illegally and starting out on the farm. As a result of these events, a number of Senators and advocacy groups have argued for a greater urgency in immigration reform in the agricultural sector. I have spoken with farmers and ranchers all across America advocating immigration reform, and I always ask them: Do you use the H-2A program? This is the legal temporary worker program in law today that allows for an unlimited number of temporary agricultural workers to come to the United States and work and then return to their home country and return again and again as needed. The primary response to my question is, they don't use the existing program, that it is too costly, and it is too bureaucratic. There are several other issues they have with the H-2A program that I attempted to remedy in the context of the immigration debate last year, and I will continue to work on those efforts when the Senate takes up the issue of immigration reform this Congress. However, the largest prohibitive cost of using the H-2A program is its mandated artificially inflated wages. If we are truly looking for ways to make sure our agricultural workforce is legal, then addressing this and obtaining legal agricultural workers is something that should be fixed on this legislation. If the Senate passes this amendment, we will see an immediate increase in the number of legal workers on our Nation's farms and fewer crop losses resulting from the lack of labor. The high cost of the H-2A program increases every year, and it will increase even more with the passage of the minimum wage legislation we are considering today. Agricultural employers who utilize the legal program are mandated to pay the adverse effect wage rate to all their workers, in addition to providing free housing, paying all visa and consular fees, and paying for the transportation and meal costs of those workers traveling to their farms. Historically, approval for an employer to use nonimmigrant temporary workers was predicated on the following conditions being met: First, no U.S. workers were available to fill the specific job, and, second, that wages for that occupation would not be depressed by the hiring of foreign workers. The imposition of a prevailing wage requirement as determined by the U.S. Department of Labor approved surveys in each State for specific occupations generally filled by temporary nonimmigrant workers would ensure three things: First, that available U.S. workers would not be discouraged from applying for a job because it paid lower than usual local wages; second, all workers, both foreign and domestic, would be paid a wage that was competitive in the local area, thus avoiding depressing wages for that occupation; and third, that the use of foreign workers would not be more financially attractive to employers than employing U.S. workers. Prevailing wages are determined by the U.S. Department of Labor through its State partners, using a methodology that is designed to capture a fair wage that reflects the local standards peculiar to a particular occupation. At the present time, prevailing wages are required for H-1B, H-2B, and permanent work-related visas. However, employers of H-2A workers, temporary nonimmigrant agricultural workers, are required to pay a different wage rate called the adverse effect wage rate. Unlike prevailing wages which are established for a local area for specific jobs and determined by the level of experience, skill, and education which those jobs require, the adverse effect wage rate is an average of all wages, including incentive pay, bonuses, and seniority, for all farm jobs in a multi-State region. Additionally, the adverse effect wage rate is not determined by the U.S. Department of Labor, the agency charged with determining wages for all other industries and occupations. Rather, the U.S. Department of Labor has chosen to use a survey conducted by the U.S. Department of Agriculture. Officials in the U.S. Department of Agriculture's National Agricultural Statistics Service readily admit that the wage survey used for the adverse effect wage rate was never designed to set specific wages, only to describe them in general. Therefore, the National Agricultural Statistics Service's survey creates an artificial, multi- State wage floor, one that significantly increases annually, regardless of the economy, the agricultural market and competitive factors within a product line or local area. For instance, while the minimum wage remained constant for entry- level jobs for the 10-year period starting in 1997 until today, the average adverse effect wage rate has increased 40 percent over that same period. As the National Council of Agricultural Employers noted in an alert to their membership: The increase in the Federal minimum wage is likely to result in a larger than normal increase in the adverse effect wage rate for several years after the new minimum wage becomes effective as the upward adjustment in the wage rates works its way through the agricultural industry. This is because the adverse effect wage rate is set at the average field and livestock worker hourly earnings, and upward adjustment in wages at the lower end of the agricultural wage distribution resulting in the increase from the minimum wage will, of course, raise the average hourly earnings for agricultural workers, generally. Furthermore, the lower wage jobs that disappear as a result of the increase in the minimum wage will no longer be part of the average, forcing the adverse effect wage rate up even higher. Increased wages in agriculture will only hasten the movement of agricultural production to foreign soils. Maybe the reason we have upward of 500,000 illegal foreign workers in agriculture today is because of the prohibitively high cost of using the legal H-2A program or maybe it is because we don't pay Americans who work on our farms and ranches enough. While we guarantee a minimum of the adverse effect wage rate to temporary foreign workers, U.S. workers in agriculture are guaranteed only a minimum wage. So in my home State of Georgia, a temporary H-2A worker today is guaranteed $8.37 an hour, while an American worker is guaranteed only $5.15 an hour. My amendment is very simple, and it attempts to remedy the two possible causes of the lack of legal workers on our Nation's farms and ranches. This amendment changes the Fair Labor Standards Act to ensure that all farm workers, regardless of whether they are temporary foreign workers or U.S. citizens, be paid a prevailing wage. Adoption of this amendment will attract more legal workers to agricultural employment by allowing more farmers to access the Legal Temporary Worker Program and by guaranteeing U.S. workers higher wages on our Nation's farms. Prevailing wages reflect geographic location, occupation, and skill level. The use of prevailing wages will improve competition within the United States without negatively affecting workers and will keep agricultural jobs at home. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. President, I am pleased to have the support of Senator Burr and Senator Isakson on this amendment. I ask unanimous consent that Senator Dole be added as a cosponsor of my amendment.

Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending amendment be set aside.

Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 118.

Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. CHAMBLISS

Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. President, I rise today to discuss the connection between energy production and agriculture. Agriculture and energy policy are converging and unlike anytime in the past, farmers and ranchers are producing food, fiber, and fuel. As the country recognizes the danger of relying on imported oil, we need to develop an energy policy that is aggressive while at the same time thoughtful. Renewable fuels like ethanol and biodiesel are not the total solution to our problems, but they can help reduce our dependence on imported oil from unstable regions of the world. In 2005, the Congress passed, and President Bush signed, the Energy Policy Act that established the Renewable Fuel Standard, RFS. The RFS requires minimum volumes of renewable fuels be used in America's motor fuels market annually, from 4 billion gallons in 2006 to 7.5 billion in 2012. On January 1, 2006, the Renewable Fuel Standard went into effect and since then, the United States has used more than 5 billion gallons of ethanol, outpacing RFS requirements by more than 25 percent. According to the Renewable Fuels Association, in the next 18 months the industry will add nearly 6 billion gallons of new production capacity. In short, in 2008, new capacity will exceed the minimum level as called for in the RFS. This progress is astounding. However, the expansion has not come without some cost to the rest of the agriculture sector. For the first time in memory corn prices increased during the 2006 harvest season and exceeded a critical threshold of $4 per bushel on the Chicago Board of Trade and continue to do so. If corn prices continue to set new highs over the next year, the broiler industry in my home State of Georgia and across the Southeast will come under increasing pressure. I fear continued price spikes will force some producers out of business. This is not unique to the poultry industry, but will also impact swine and cattle operations across the country as ethanol outbids livestock for corn. We find ourselves in the position of encouraging an industry that directly competes with another that is important in all our States, and I hope the end result is not policy that encourages livestock operators to further integrate and consolidate. We need to continue to support the biofuels sector, but also do it in a way that has the least disruption on existing markets as possible. For this reason, I am introducing the Cellulosic Ethanol Incentive Act of 2007. This act builds upon the success of the RFS and increases the target from 7.5 billion gallons in 2012 to 30 billion gallons in 2030. Central to the bill is a set-aside that will help commercialize cellulosic ethanol much faster than under current law. This is important in order to ensure Federal policy does not erode the profitability of the U.S. livestock sector by encouraging additional competition for available corn. The bill meets the challenge set forth by President Bush last night and mirrors the renewable fuel targets in his proposal. Furthermore, the legislation promotes regional diversity in the production of biofuels. This is important in order to spread the benefits of renewable energy policy more evenly across all regions of the country. By recommending a minimum level of consumption within a particular region, we will provide a needed economic boost to rural areas, a new income stream for farmers and ranchers and a further acceleration in the production of cellulosic ethanol from a diverse resource base ranging from wood chips in the Southeast to wheat straw on the Great Plains. Ever since the founding of our great country, farmers and ranchers have been an integral part in growing the safest, most affordable food supply in the world. Now we can build upon their success and we ask them to help grow an abundant source of energy. I am confident they are up to the task and the Cellulosic Ethanol Incentive Act is an important step to help promote this goal. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting the bill and I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.