Rhode Island Fishermen's Fairness Act

Mr. President, over the past several weeks, in the wake of two hurricanes, we have felt the heartbreak of Americans forced from their homes with no return in sight. Safe and affordable housing is not something we should take for granted.

Today I am introducing the Affordable Housing Preservation Act of 2005. I am proud to be joined by my colleagues, Senators Paul Sarbanes and Mark Dayton. This bill provides federal matching funds for the acquisition and rehabilitation of existing federally-assisted or - insured affordable housing properties that are in danger of being lost from the affordable housing inventory.

There is a great need for affordable housing. All across the country, housing is becoming less attainable for more and more families. In my own State of Vermont, renting--let alone owning--a home is becoming difficult if not impossible for many families. The minimum wage in Vermont is seven dollars. However, a family must earn almost $28,000 in yearly income to afford a two-bedroom apartment, which requires a wage of over $13 per hour. For example, in Vermont, a two-bedroom apartment costs about $698 per month, and a minimum wage earner can afford no more than $364 for rent. This trend is not unique to Vermont. Nationwide, the wage needed to afford a two-bedroom apartment is over $15 an hour. Approximately one-quarter of the U.S. earns less than $10 per hour. There are some communities where affordable housing was never a concern before, but are now facing a shortage growing ever more severe. I ask unanimous consent to have a chart compiled by the National Low Income Housing Coalition (NLIHC), ``State Ranks Based on Two Bedroom Housing Wage'', inserted in the Record. As my colleagues read this chart, I encourage them to refer to the NLIHC report issued last year, ``Out of Reach'', for a more comprehensive overview of housing prices and diminishing affordability. I found this report particularly alarming and eye-opening.

There are several strategies to consider in combating the affordable housing crisis. A comprehensive plan of economic and community development and revitalization--from public and private sector sources--is one strategy that has proved successful. Some of the increasing need for affordable housing is met with the construction of new units. But in many communities, a stock of affordable housing already exists, and there is a desire among local leaders to preserve it. My bill helps States, localities, and other entities do just that.

The bill I am introducing today, the Affordable Housing Preservation Act of 2005, represents an effort to complement the good work being done throughout the country on Section 8 initiatives, and it strives to preserve existing affordable housing. Specifically, this legislation would conserve federally-subsidized housing units by providing matching grants to states and localities, who then may work with other housing entities, seeking to preserve privately owned, affordable housing.

The Secretary of Housing and Urban Development, HUD, would make determinations for the grants based on a number of factors, including the number of affordable housing units at risk of being lost and the local market conditions in which displaced residents would have to find comparable new housing options. States and localities could use the funds to acquire or rehabilitate housing, which may be done by working with established not-for-profit organizations that specialize in providing affordable housing. They could use the funds, in part, for administrative and operating expenses. Properties with mortgages insured by HUD, Section 8 project-based assisted housing, and properties that are being purchased by residents would all be eligible for the matching grant funds. I believe that flexibility with the funding would make this program more efficient and cost effective, and, most importantly, more helpful to the recipients themselves.

What's more important to a family than a place to call home? Affordable, quality, and safe housing is the foundation, literally and figuratively, that communities are built upon. As the Senate crafts a comprehensive federal response to the housing crisis, including emergency housing assistance for those affected by the hurricanes Katrina and Rita, I am eager to work with my colleagues to integrate the principles of housing preservation into affordable housing, economic and community development and revitalization initiatives.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Gulf Coast Infrastructure Redevelopment and Recovery Act of 2005 on behalf of the minority side of the EPW Committee. We have introduced three bi- partisan bills to date in our committee's jurisdiction. One of them even passed the Senate last week. Those bills, which I would characterize as tweaks to existing authorities, were good first steps and are included in the package we introduce today.

But, we feel that the breadth and the magnitude of the damage after Hurricane Katrina demands a more significant response. As I look at the pictures of the damage in the areas hit hardest by Hurricane Katrina, I think of the visitors from Terrebonne Parish that visited me in my office to seek support for flood control projects in Louisiana. At the time, I was struck by the vulnerability of this community to the effects of nature. Today, we are seeing those effects firsthand. I have thought

often in the past month of the strong spirit shown by those who visited my office, and I know, that while it is almost unimaginable today, in a few years, there will be thriving communities in Louisiana, Mississippi, and Alabama once again.

The bill I am introducing today is not intended to address every need of every person in the Katrina-affected area. It is a bill that seeks to take action for those agencies within the jurisdiction of the EPW Committee to ensure that they have the authority and the direction they need. I am a big believer in a single coordinated Federal disaster response process through the Stafford Act. Our bill complements the single, coordinated approach, yet recognizes the unique conditions in this case.

FEMA has shown itself to be ineffective, in my opinion, largely due to the bureaucracy of the Department of Homeland Security and FEMA's lack of independence. At the time of the creation of DHS, I said: I cannot understand why, after years of frustration and failure, we would jeopardize the Federal government's effective response to natural disasters by dissolving FEMA into this monolithic Homeland Security Department. I fear that FEMA will no longer be able to adequately respond to hurricanes, fires, floods, and earthquakes, begging the question, who will? (November 20, 2002)

Today, unfortunately, we know the answer--no one.

The Federal aid provided for Katrina must be coordinated in a wise, targeted manner. To perform this task, our bill creates a Federal infrastructure Task Force to make spending decisions and establish Federal investment standards.

There have been large storms before--in 1965 Hurricane Betsy hit almost this same area. There will be large storms again. This bill recognizes that and establishes National Preparedness Grants and several readiness studies to update emergency response plans, resolve inadequacies, and identify infrastructure vulnerabilities.

To speed economic recovery, the bill provides 200M to both the Economic Development Administration and the Delta Regional Authority.

Part of the long-term recovery of the region will be the clean-up of the environmental damage. Our bill provides direction to EPA to ensure that adequate sampling is performed, that the public knows the results, that drinking water and wastewater services are restored, and that cleanups are prioritized.

The Army Corps of Engineers has a lot of explaining to do after the levee failure in New Orleans. The Corps also has a lot of clean up to do and a lot of rebuilding to do. The flood control system in place today was built in the wake of the damage caused by Hurricane Betsy in 1965. I believe it is critical that we fully evaluate the entire Corps process to determine what changes should be made. This bill takes only a first step to be sure that we don't simply rebuild what was already in New Orleans without thinking. The bill requires the Corps to assess all projects in the area and repair or modify them with one comprehensive approach.

We establish a National Levee Safety Program in this bill, similar to the Dam Safety Program to be sure our nation's levees can be counted on.

Finally, our bill allows communities that provide incentives for the use of public transportation or ridesharing after a disaster to seek Federal reimbursement.

What doesn't our bill do? Our bill does not waive environmental statutes. Since the Stafford Act was passed in 1974, there have been thousands of declared disasters. Never before have we faced a proposal to haphazardly waive environmental statutes across the Nation in the name of economic recovery in one devastated area. In the last few weeks several proposals have been introduced to give the President or EPA broad waiver authority in the wake of Hurricane Katrina. These proposals put human health and the environment at risk throughout the Nation by allowing permanent waivers to environmental or other laws, anywhere in the Nation, to be granted with few or no criteria, and no public involvement.

The consequences of such an action could be significant. For example, new refineries or power generating facilities could be built while exempt from the Clean Air Act, causing long-term air quality impacts. Congressional offshore drilling bans could be waived to alleviate a fuel shortage. Safe Drinking Water Act regulations could be changed to waive limits on pollutant levels in an effort to speed reoccupancy of hurricane-affected areas, putting public health at risk. Protections for minorities or low-income people such as OSHA safety regulations or the minimum wage could be waived.

I want to help the people of Louisiana, Mississippi, and Alabama. The people of my home State of Vermont are appalled at the state of affairs there and want to help. But, I cannot accept a proposal this broad which will put human health and the environment throughout the Nation at the mercy of one President or appointed official with no time limits, no consideration of human health or the environment, no public participation, and no guidance. Such as effort will only hurt the people of an already devastated region in the long run, not help them.

We must not just act to help the victims of Katrina. We must act in a thoughtful, meaningful, positive way.

The Gulf Coast Infrastructure Redevelopment and Recovery Act of 2005 meets that test. I urge my colleagues to co-sponsor this legislation.

Mr. President, today I join my colleague and the chairman of the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, Senator Domenici, in introducing three bills, by request, to make necessary changes to law regarding the U.S.-affiliated islands. As chairman and ranking minority member of this committee, Senator Domenici and I have a special responsibility for matters relating to our fellow U.S. citizens who live in the territories of the United States. While the people

of the territories are U.S. citizen or nationals, they lack full voting representation in the U.S. Congress. Their problems and concerns are just as deserving of attention as are those of U.S. citizens who live in the 50 States, and it is the committee on Energy and Natural Resources which has the responsibility for considering island issues that are brought to our attention, and for making recommendations, as appropriate, to the full Senate.

The committee is also responsible for authorization and oversight of U.S. financial assistance to the freely associated states of the Republic of Palau, the Federated States of Micronesia, and the Republic of the Marshall Islands--three sovereign nations that were formerly administered by the U.S. as districts of the United Nations Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands. While not under U.S. sovereignty, these nations enjoy a unique relationship with the U.S. which developed following the Pacific battles of World War II and which continues to be based on our mutual interest in security, democracy, and economic development.

The first bill being introduced, the Compacts of Free Association Amendments Act of 2005, would make several changes to the Compact of Free Association Amendments Act, CFAAA, of 2003, (Public Law 108-188) which was enacted in December 2003. That law continued the close relationships that were established in 1986 between the U.S. and the Federated States of Micronesia, FSM, and between the U.S. and the Republic of the Marshall Islands, RMI by revising and extending U.S. financial and program assistance until 2023. Final consensus was not reached in 2003, however, on continuation of U.S. disaster assistance programs and services to the FSM and RMI. Instead, section 105(f)(1)(A) of the CFAAA directed the Secretary of State, in consultation with FEMA, to negotiate disaster assistance agreements with the FSM and RMI, report to Congress on the outcome of the negotiations, and make recommendations to Congress on any necessary changes to law.

On August 19, 2004, the State Department transmitted new agreements regarding disaster assistance to Congress along with the legislative language needed to bring them into effect. Generally, these agreements provide that FEMA and USAID will jointly consult on disaster damage assessments and on disaster declaration recommendations; FEMA will provide all disaster recovery funding consistent with past policy and practice and transfer those funds to USAID which will then administer all disaster response and recovery activities. In addition to approving these new disaster assistance agreements, this bill would make several other conforming, clarifying, and technical amendments to the CFAAA of 2003. The second bill being introduced today would convey submerged lands, out to 3 miles, to the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, CNMI, and hopefully resolve a long standing dispute between the U.S. and the CNMI over the extent of the CNMI's territorial limit.

The CNMI became a U.S. territory in 1976 pursuant to the covenant between the U.S. and CNMI, as approved by Public Law 94-241. However, interpretation of the covenant regarding the CNMI's territorial limit came into dispute, and then became the subject of discussions under the formal government-to-government consultation procedures of the covenant. The U.S. executive branch took the position that the CNMI had the same territorial limit as the other territories--that is 3 miles-- while the CNMI claimed a 200-mile exclusive economic zone. After discussions deadlocked, the CNMI pursued their claim in Federal court. Earlier this year, the Federal Appeals court upheld, in Northern Mariana Islands v. United States, 399 F. 3d 1057, the district court decision that the CNMI not only did not have 200-mile jurisdiction but did not have a 3-mile limit either. Establishing Federal ownership up to the mean high-water mark has compromised local authority to manage activities in the near-shore areas, such as shoreline permitting activities that are normally handled by State and local authorities. The District Court is allowing the local government to continue to exercise near-shore jurisdiction temporarily.

On June 6, 2005, the attorney general of the CNMI wrote to Chairman Domenici and myself requesting that legislation be enacted to establish a 3-mile territorial limit for the CNMI--the same distance granted the other territories. This bill would grant the CNMI's request without prejudice to their right to further appeal their claim, and would allow the local government to continue management of near-shore areas.

A second provision in this bill, also requested by the attorney general of the CNMI, would support an alternative process for the resolution of disputes between the U.S. and the CNMI. As mentioned above, there is an existing, but very formal, consultation process established under the covenant which requires the President and the Governor to designate official representatives to hold formal meetings. These procedures have generally been ineffective because their formality makes compromise difficult, particularly for those representing the CNMI. This proposed provision would offer a less formal alternative by indicating that Congress expects the Secretary of the Interior to take initial responsibility for seeking to resolve disputes. It would encourage the Secretary, in consultation with the other agencies involved, to settle any claim arising under the covenant, and it authorizes appropriations for any settlement. It would also allow the Secretary to use other funds that may have been appropriated under the covenant for the settlement of a dispute, if agreed to by the CNMI. For example, article VII of the covenant provides annual direct spending for capital construction projects. Disputes that may arise and be addressed under this new less-formal process include those relating to leases of land for defense purposes, construction of infrastructure, eligibility for Federal programs, or payments due the CNMI.

The third bill being introduced today is requested by the delegate from the United States Virgin Islands, USVI, Donna Christensen, on behalf of herself and the Governor of the USVI. This bill would repeal sections of the United States Code that were enacted in 1936 to determine how real property taxes would be assessed in the USVI. These sections were thought to have been effectively repealed in 1954 with enactment of the Virgin Islands Organic Act--a law that substantially expanded the scope of local self-government. Last year, however, the Third Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that the 1936 law remains in effect. The court ruling has, therefore, effectively overturned 50 years of local tax law. The simple solution to this situation, which this bill proposes, is to repeal the 1936 provisions as soon as possible. This approach is consistent with the intent of the 1954 law, and it is consistent with our general Federal territorial policy of delegating local real property tax policy to the local government.

Consideration of these bills is important to meeting our Nation's responsibilities to the governments and residents of the islands. I look forward to working with Chairman Domenici, the representatives of the island governments, the administration, and the other members of the committee in considering these bills and reporting our recommendations to the Senate.

Mr. President, I am pleased to be introducing the Influenza Vaccine Security Act with Senator Clinton today because I believe this legislation is critical to strengthening our public health preparedness here in the U.S. The experiences of the flu vaccine shortage last year made us all aware that our system needs improvement. This legislation takes a comprehensive approach to addressing the root causes of seasonal flu vaccine shortages by creating stability in the U.S. vaccine market.

Our legislation requires the Department of Health and Human Services to set annual production targets for the flu vaccine, to stockpile up to 10 percent of the vaccine each year in the event of a shortage, and to create a vaccine buyback program to provide market guarantees for our vaccine manufacturers. This legislation also provides a much-needed framework for public health officials to track vaccines and provides increased education and outreach about getting an annual flu vaccine.

I now want to turn to some of the provisions in this legislation that deal with an issue I believe deserves our utmost attention: pandemic influenza. I think we can agree that we all learned a good lesson from Hurricane Katrina: government at all levels must be prepared to deal with a large-scale public health emergency. Unfortunately, our government is not currently not prepared to deal with pandemic influenza. Our legislation seeks to address this by strengthening the underlying public health infrastructure to heighten our ability to respond to both seasonal and pandemic flu.

As Chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee and a member of both the Senate Agriculture Committee and Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions (HELP), I take the threat of an influenza pandemic very seriously. I view it as not only a public health concern, but a national security concern. The timing for a large-scale worldwide influenza outbreak is ripe. Many experts believe the next flu pandemic will come in the form of avian flu.

Unlike the seasonal flu, humans have no natural immunity to avian flu. A routine flu shot for more common influenza viruses won't protect against the deadly avian flu. The Department of Health and Human Services is working with vaccine manufacturers to develop a vaccine, but it is unclear when and how many doses will be ready.

Other than a vaccine, the only defense against a new flu strain such as avian flu is an antiviral medication such as Tamiflu. Currently, the United States currently only has enough pills to treat less than one percent, or about 2.3 million people.

This is why experts believe the effects of avian flu in the U.S. and around the world could be devastating. Some have predicted the loss of life could reach as high as 160-200 million. A pandemic might infect a third of the U.S. population and cost more than $100 billion alone in medical treatments. A pandemic of this sort could also have catastrophic economic or social effects.

It is for these reasons I am pleased our legislation addresses some of the underlying public health infrastructure concerns that can help us effectively respond to pandemic flu. Our vaccine industry here in the U.S. is extremely fragile and our manufacturers need the necessary tools to effectively produce and deliver vaccines in the event of either seasonal or pandemic flu. First and foremost, our legislation ensures vaccine manufacturers and health care providers are not held liable in the event of a public health emergency involving pandemic influenza. Without this necessary liability protection, the ability to develop or deliver a vaccine during an outbreak could be significantly hampered.

Our legislation also encourages improved technologies for influenza vaccine development by providing additional funding for NIH research into alternative methods of vaccine development, such as cell-based cultures and a permanent flu vaccine. Currently, flu vaccine production is a strenuous process and takes several months, leaving us extremely vulnerable in the event of a large-scale outbreak and a subsequent need for a mass production of vaccines.

Our legislation encourages more companies to enter the U.S. market with domestic-based production facilities and to improve the ability of the current manufacturers to remain in the market. Manufacturers currently do not have the capacity to simultaneously produce enough flu vaccine for seasonal flu and an avian flu vaccine in the event of an outbreak. We must assist our manufacturers in increasing production capacity.

Aside from vaccines, our legislation also requires the government to purchase and store additional antiviral medications, such as Tamiflu, to protect against an influenza epidemic.

Finally, our legislation provides a framework to identify public health professionals that can provide services in the event of a public health emergency through the use of a medical personnel registry linked at the Federal, State and local levels.

I am pleased to introduce the Influenza Vaccine Security Act with Senator Clinton today. We need to fix our seasonal flu vaccine production and distribution problems not only to prevent future shortages, but also to strengthen our public health infrastructure in case of pandemic.

As Senator Clinton knows, the HELP Committee will soon be considering legislation to develop countermeasures to protect the U.S. from deliberate and natural public health threats. This legislation, known as Bioshield II, will present a great opportunity to build on the first steps we take in this legislation to protect against pandemic flu. I look forward to working with Senator Clinton and my other colleagues on the committee to deliver a comprehensive package to ensure we are prepared and can respond to all types of public health threats.

Mr. President, I rise today to discuss an issue that will greatly affect our Nation's aging population, workforce, and economy: the need to expand opportunities for older Americans to continue working into their later years if they so choose.

As older Americans live longer and healthier lives, many are planning to work longer. According to a recent survey, 80 percent of baby boomers expect to work past traditional retirement age. Some may recognize the physical and mental benefits of work, while some may need the additional income to remain financially secure. Whatever the reason people decide to stay on the job, it's time to change the way our Nation thinks about retirement. A one-size-fits-all retirement will no longer match the very different plans that seniors and baby boomers have for their later years.

Rethinking retirement is also vital to our Nation's economic future. By 2030, businesses could face a labor force shortage of 35 million workers, and the projected slowdown in labor force growth could translate into lower economic growth and living standards. However, we can soften the potentially serious impact of these trends if we develop policies that expand opportunities for older Americans to work longer.

Today, we are taking a first step by introducing The Older Worker Opportunity Act. This legislation addresses a variety of issues that affect older workers and employers: workplace flexibility, pensions, health insurance coverage, job training, and caregiving needs. Back in April, as ranking member of the Aging Committee, I chaired a hearing on older workers which identified barriers and disincentives to working longer. This legislation specifically targets those.

First, today's workplace rarely offers flexible and part-time work arrangements for older workers. Most older workers would choose to work past traditional retirement age, but would prefer to gradually transition into retirement instead of fully retiring at a traditional retirement age.

To encourage employers to offer flexible and part-time work arrangements, we propose a tax credit for employers that give their older workers such opportunities while protecting them from the loss of health or pension benefits. Our aim is to encourage more workplace flexibility, which would benefit both older workers and employers through increased productivity and job retention.

Second, the bill provides an extra safety net for older workers who reduce their work but whose employers do not keep them on their health plan. In those cases, of course, the employer would not qualify for the tax credit we are offering. However, we would extend COBRA coverage from 18 to 36 months for their workers from the age of 62 until they are eligible for Medicare.

Third, one major reason why older workers exit the workforce is the need to care for aging family members. Older workers who are also caregivers often face a significant loss of earnings and retirement income, and their employers lose up to $29 billion per year in lost work time and productivity. To help older workers balance the demands of work and caregiving, and to help employers by increasing productivity and reducing turnover costs, we propose expanding the dependent care credit to cover the care of chronically ill family members.

Fourth, as GAO has found, job training programs are often discouraged

from enrolling older workers because their effectiveness is measured in part by participants' earnings. Older workers tend to seek part-time work and receive lower earnings when they get new jobs. As a result, older workers do not have access to the training services they need to develop their technological skills and increase their productivity. We propose adjusting older workers' lower earnings when measuring the success of job training programs in order to more accurately reflect the value of job training programs to the older workforce. We also ask states to collect more data on the success of our current job training programs in meeting the unique needs of older workers.

Fifth, it is clear that the barriers this bill addresses are not the only barriers facing older workers. This bill is just the beginning. Therefore, we propose a ``Task Force on Older Workers,'' composed of experts from all relevant federal agencies, to further identify barriers and disincentives in current law, and recommend solutions.

We face an historic challenge, and with it, an historic opportunity. We need a 21st century workplace that is a win-win for both older workers and their employers--and an effective strategy for retaining our competitive advantage against other countries facing the same demographic tidal wave. We need to usher in a new age of work and retirement in which seniors are not limited to a choice between one or the other. We need to empower seniors to make the continued contributions we all know they can to our economy and our communities.

Many older Americans and employers have already begun to pave the way. More older Americans are willing and able to continue making a contribution to the workplace and our economy, and more employers are beginning to recognize the value of older workers. We must incorporate this new mindset into our national culture, and develop policies that reflect this reality. Our seniors deserve it, and our economic future may well depend on it.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record, and that the attached letters of endorsement also be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I rise to make a statement regarding an important bill I am introducing today. It is a bill that is meant to provide a straightforward and commonsense fix to a nettlesome problem that plagues communities throughout the west: pollution from abandoned mines.

The bill simply says that we should make life easier for Good Samaritans. Surprisingly, that is not currently the case.

The Western United States is pockmarked with old mines and mining residues, and many of these sites continuously pollute the water, the land, and the air. Our rivers and streams suffer particularly from this type of pollution.

In many cases, no one alive is legally responsible for cleaning these sites. In other cases, those who are legally responsible lack the money or other resources necessary to clean them up, and the pollution continues.

Fortunately, some people and some companies are willing to clean up mine sites in whole or in part, even though they are not legally responsible. These are Good Samaritans.

They act for many reasons. Some are people who live nearby and suffer directly from the pollution. Others are companies that want to perform a service to the community and to address less fortunate aspects of the history of the mining industry. Still others act for other reasons.

Unfortunately, though, our environmental laws create great risks of broad, long term, and very expensive liabilities for anyone who acts at a mine site, even if they act only as Good Samaritans. This problem understandably dissuades Good Samaritans from cleaning mine sites.

My bill is designed to fix this problem. It is written to encourage meritorious projects to proceed provided they have the full approval of the governments involved and full participation by the public--all to benefit the environment.

This bill intentionally is simple and intentionally straightforward. No Good Samaritan project will proceed unless it creates a true, overall environmental benefit. No project will gain approval unless the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, the state involved, and local authorities affected agree that it is a good thing. The public will be fully involved in the process from the very beginning.

And, finally, the permit system and the standards in the bill are intentionally uncomplicated, so that permits for simple projects can be issued using simple proceedings.

My idea is to make clear that the work of Good Samaritans is very welcome. Some cleanup of the environment in these circumstances is far better than none at all.

The bill encourages Good Samaritans to clean pollution by freeing them from the large environmental liabilities that ordinarily burden anyone who acts to fix the pollution.

The bill applies to the cleanup of non-coal inactive and abandoned mines anywhere in the United States.

Its approach--which wraps all environmental requirements for a Good Samaritan project into a single permit that must be agreed to first by the Federal Government, the affected State, and local communities--is straightforward.

Its inclusion of the states and local communities as well as the affected publics--including by assuring that State and local authorities have a say in the provision of any permit--are based on the best traditions of the west.

And its impact is clear--only projects that benefit the environment will be permitted, and the work done pursuant to that permit will be afforded clear legal protection.

I am proud of this bill. It is the result of a series of meetings I held around my state earlier this year. And it is endorsed by the National Mining Association, the Colorado Mining Association, and the Great State of Colorado.

It is the right thing to do, and I look forward to working with my colleagues to ensure its enactment.

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

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