Kit Bond

Mr. BOND

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I rise today to comment on a series of articles running this week in the St. Louis Post-Dispatch. The series began last Sunday with the headline ``Nation's Nursing Homes are Quietly Killing Thousands'' and anyone with a conscience should pause to consider its opening sentences: Thousands of America's elderly mothers, fathers and grandparents are being killed each year in the nation's homes--frail victims of premature and preventable deaths. This quiet pandemic is rarely detected by government inspectors, investigated by law enforcement, appraised by medical examiners or prosecuted by anyone. These deaths are not at the hands of crazed ``angels of death.'' Most are caused by fatal neglect traced to caregivers upon whom residents depend for food and liquid and for turning them in their beds to prevent the formation of life-threatening sores. . . . In short, elderly nursing home residents are dying in our country today due to failures to provide the most basic and fundamental elements of care. The Post-Dispatch reports statistics from the National Center on Health Statistics, which show that starvation, dehydration or bedsores were the cause of death for 4,138 nursing home residents in 1999, including 138 such deaths in Missouri. However, these appalling statistics may only be the tip of the iceberg. The Post-Dispatch reported that investigators and researchers, who have taken the time to take a closer look and compare patient medical records with their death certificates, conclude that the number of preventable deaths due to malnutrition, dehydration and bedsores is most likely considerably higher. Our colleague, Senator Breaux, believes that the number of avoidable deaths could number in the tens of thousands and research shows that anywhere between 500,000 to 5 million cases of abuse and neglect of our elders occur each year. Personally, I know that Missouri has a terrible problem with some bad apple nursing homes. I know this because plenty of good folks back home have told me about their own horrific experiences with abuse and neglect of their loved ones. Furthermore, the General Accounting Office in recent years has amply documented decades of death and neglect due to the poor quality of care in too many of our Nation's nursing homes. In 1999, the GAO estimated that residents of one in four nursing homes in Missouri suffered actual harm from the care they received. Hearing these staggering stories and statistical figures was a wake-up call. I submit to my colleagues that no one here today can say ``not in my backyard''--abuse, neglect and homicide in nursing homes in truly a national problem. In my opinion, neglecting an elderly, fragile individual is no different than neglecting a child. Both are defenseless, both lack a vibrant voice, both are vulnerable and both suffer at the hands of those who are nothing more than cowards and criminals. Abuse of the elderly should be treated no differently than abuse of children. Many of us on the floor today have taken strong stances with regard to corporate accountability. However, sending corporate titans up the river for cooking the books while excusing nursing home operators and others with fines and a slap on the wrist just doesn't square with me. Surely the lives of innocent folks who are not just suffering, but dying due to neglect should be just as precious under the law as anybody's pension fund. We need to send a crystal clear message that these individuals are criminals who should be wearing orange jump-suits instead of pin- stripes. A criminal is a criminal and, unfortunately, the ``criminal'' actions of some nursing home operators have tarnished the reputations of nursing homes generally and unfairly. There is much that we need to accomplish to improve the plight of those elderly men and women who reside in nursing homes. The unnecessary human toll directly related to the failures in the nursing home industry is nothing short of shameful. There will be no miracle fix to this problem and there is no one obstacle to overcome that will improve the situation. First and foremost, we need to recognize that a revolution is really the only alternative. The powers that be in this area, namely the Department of Health and Human Services and the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid, as well as the corporate honchos in the nursing home industry need to recognize and acknowledge the need for revolutionary change. We as legislators need to summon the will and courage to spur that revolution. Last month, I became an original co-sponsor of the Elder Justice Act of 2002. This bill is the first comprehensive federal effort to address the issue of elder abuse. It is an attempt to combine law enforcement and public health to study, detect, treat, prosecute and prevent elder abuse, neglect and exploitation. It is a successful approach that has been applied to combat child abuse and violence against women. This bill creates Federal leadership and resources to assist families, communities and states in the fight against elder abuse; coordinates Federal, State and local elder abuse prevention efforts; establishes new programs to assist victims; provides grants for education and training of law enforcement; and facilitates criminal background checks for elder care employees. The tragic toll of nursing home deaths in Missouri is so compelling, that I have also sought new ways to approach this seemingly intractable problem. I met with HHS Secretary Tommy Thompson this past summer and discussed with him new bedside technology that can easily and accurately record individual information about nursing home residents and the care they receive. We discussed the success of a program in Missouri called QIPMO--Quality Improvement Program for Missouri, a patient care monitoring system that provides reports on the quality of care delivered by all Missouri nursing homes. This award-winning program is a cooperative project between the Sinclair School of Nursing and the Missouri Department of Health and Senior Services. I urged Secretary Thompson to consider adapting QIPMO's free on-site clinical consultation and technical assistance as an integral piece of a new federal technology demonstration and evaluation program. If enhanced with cutting-edge technology, I believe QIPMO may be a viable platform to help HHS lead nursing homes and state regulators to greatly improve on-site monitoring and clinical care. We urgently need a technogical revolution in nursing home care that can save lives and spare our elders of unnecessary suffering. A groundbreaking technology demonstration and evaluation program has the potential to erect an early warning system to alert care-givers to life-threatening problems before they become widespread or have tragic consequences. I thank Secretary Thompson for working with me and for offering his enthusiastic support and commitment to ensure that the demonstration and evaluation program happens. I think all of us realize that at some point in our lives we may have to take a parent, grandparent, or elderly relative, or even a good friend to a nursing home. Some of us may wind up there ourselves. We know from experience that there are a lot of good nursing homes and there are a lot of homes in Missouri where we are very proud of the care the people receive. On the other hand, there are a few tragically bad apples that need to be picked out so when you take a family member, a loved one to a nursing home, you don't have to be worried that person will die of starvation or dehydration or bed sores. What a horrible way to go. The article points out the need for additional staffing. Many nursing homes are short staffed. That is a problem that needs to be confronted. In some instances, when they have the Medicaid reimbursements, they are not adequate. If the money is not getting there--if it is going to care but there is not enough of it, that is one thing. There are other abuses that have been pointed out in these articles, where too much money that should go to care of patients is being siphoned off to family members who run other businesses on the side. This is an area where continued vigilance, first from State enforcement agencies, and then the Department of Health and Human Services, is warranted. When one reads the stories and the record of the tragedy that has occurred, and it has been documented in this series, I believe all my colleagues are going to want to do something to assure that we separate the good nursing homes from the bad; and properly punish and chastise and charge those who are bad apples. I ask unanimous consent additional material to which I referred be printed in the Record.

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. BOND

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I rise to commemorate the American Indian Heritage Celebration which took place at Frank Vaydik Line Creek Park in Kansas City, MO on October 5th and 6th of 2002, and to recognize the Otoe-Missourina nation. For over 10,000 years, the Kansas City area has been home to several ancient cultures with sites that are recorded with the Archaeological Survey of Missouri and the National Register of Historic Places. In 1673, when French explorers traveled along what is now the Missouri River, they named the indigenous people living in the area, Oumessourit, meaning ``people of the big wooden dug out canoes.'' Oumessourit, later became Missouri and the state of Missouri would subsequently be named after the natives. The Missouria's main village was approximately 90 miles east of Kansas City. A related tribe, the Otoe, lived in the area of Kansas City, particularly the ``Northland.'' Along with the Winnebagos and Loway, the Otoe and Missouria were once part of a single nation living in the Great Lakes area. The Otoe and Missouria would later reunite to become the Otoe-Missouria nation and in the late 1800s were relocated to a reservation in Oklahoma. Lewis and Clark once spoke of the Missouria as ``a remnant of the most numerous nation inhabiting the Missouria''. Today, there are no pure blood Missourias left, only distant decedents which have been absorbed into the Otoe tribe.

Mr. BOND

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I came to talk about another subject, but I think what my distinguished neighbor and colleague, the ranking member of the Finance Committee, said is very important and bears repeating. Yesterday we passed, 92 to 2, an election reform bill. I think that bill proves what Senator Grassley just said. That was a bipartisan bill. Senator Dodd, the chairman of the committee, worked very closely with Senator McConnell, the ranking member, and with me. We worked for about 18 months. It was not easy. But it was always done in a bipartisan fashion and we got the bill done. The distinguished ranking member of the Finance Committee has pointed out other measures in the Finance Committee where they could work together. Sometimes they do--and then sometimes they bring legislation to the floor, report it out on a bipartisan basis, that the majority leader will not bring up. If we had really wanted a prescription drug Medicare reform bill, we could have relied on the work of the bipartisan group on the Finance Committee. If we had wanted an energy bill, we should have relied on the bipartisan Energy Committee, with interest and expertise in the area, to report out a bill. It was taken away, for political purposes, from the Energy Committee by the majority leader. As a result, we got nowhere. As I understand it, the Banking Committee reported out a good, strong, bipartisan terrorism risk reinsurance bill to provide terrorism insurance, a backup by the Federal Government so buildings and construction could get the insurance they needed to obtain financing to carry forward with some $16 billion of construction in this country. That bipartisan bill was not the one that was brought to the floor. That is the reason we have gridlock. When those people tried to bring up measures purely for partisan advantage, they did not get very far. That is why this Senate is known by everybody who watches it as the most dysfunctional Senate that anybody has seen in recent history. We have not even brought up a budget. I have labored long and hard on the Budget Committee, and we felt the product that came out on a party line, which proposed cutting defense spending and raising taxes in a time where we are at war and coming out of a recession, was not a good thing to do. It has not even been brought up. We could have come to a bipartisan agreement on a Budget Act that would have allowed us to move forward on appropriations. We have inflicted ourselves with the wound of not being effective because, unfortunately, the majority leader has chosen to go with more political and nonbipartisan measures coming to the floor.

Mr. BOND

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I rise to pay tribute to the bravery and courage of Anthony Lamar who saved the life of his schoolmate, fifth grader Walter Britton. While working the tree house, Walter lost his balance and reached back to grab onto a branch, but instead he grabbed a live wire. Anthony pulled Walter off the live wire saving his life and helped Walter home. I commend Anthony for his bravery and courage and hope his example will encourage others to assist those in need.

Mr. BOND

Mr. BOND. The Senator from Kentucky has accurately described the intent and effect of this provision. I would also add, as I am sure the Senator from Kentucky recalls, we learned that many jurisdictions in this country have experienced continual confusion over citizenship questions on registration forms. Some jurisdictions simply discard registration applications or do not process the application when an individual does not answer the citizenship question. Other jurisdictions register individuals even though the individual did not answer the citizenship question. Both of these scenarios threaten the integrity of Federal elections. By requiring that incomplete registration cards be returned to applicants, we help ensure that those who innocently overlooked part of the registration form will be provided a second opportunity to complete it. As previously Stated, Congress has a compelling interest in protecting the integrity of the Federal election process. The conferees on H.R. 3295 believe that through this additional instruction about the citizenship question, both voter registration applicants and elections officials will take the appropriate actions to ensure those who are entitled to register are actually registered. Through this clarification and requirement that individuals affirmatively declare their U.S. citizenship, we help ensure that only eligible voters vote in Federal elections.

Mr. BOND. I agree with the Senator from Kentucky. His understanding of these new voter registration provisions is correct. These provisions were designed to create more accurate voter lists and help ensure the integrity of elections. Recent studies have found that there are more than 720,000 people registered in more than one State. Duplicate registrations provide the opportunity for unscrupulous people to commit fraud and undermine honest elections by, in effect, invalidating legally cast ballots. Voter fraud can occur in many ways: submitting registration forms in the name of deceased or fictitious people is one of the most common. But some folks even fill out registration cards in the name of their pet. In my home State of Missouri and in several other States and localities across the country, we have seen serious documented cases of fraudulent voter registrations. I have spoken many times of the fraud in St. Louis in the 2000 election and this is an ongoing and indeed, a nationwide, problem. Just last week, we learned that the FBI is investigating widespread voter fraud in South Dakota and Pennsylvania. Based on the extensive documentation we have seen, there can be no doubt that voter fraud is a serious and real problem in Federal elections. The use of driver's license numbers and full or partial social security numbers will help elections officials to verify the identity and eligibility of individuals and reduce fraudulent voter registrations from being added to our voter rolls. I should also note that these provisions apply to all registrants for Federal elections regardless of the registrant's race, color or ethnic origin. It is not a burdensome or discriminatory requirement in any way. In fact, several States already require individuals to provide this type of information on voter registration applications. Some States require even more information from applicants, such as their full nine-digit social security number. We have seen that States that require additional identifying information from registrants have substantially fewer duplicate and fraudulent registrations on their voter rolls. So, again, I agree with the Senator of Kentucky and am pleased to report the conferees agreed that voter fraud is a serious problem and included these provisions to help reduce that fraud and clean up the Nation's voter rolls.

Mr. BOND. The Senator from Kentucky is correct. The language ``in a private and independent manner'' was added to the Voting System Standards requirements to underscore the conferees' belief that voters should not be harassed or intimidated at the polling place. Section 301(a)(1)(C) of the conference report also emphasizes that the privacy of the voter and confidentiality of the ballot is paramount. If a voter chooses to review his ballot and or make changes to his ballot, he should be able to do so free from the interference of others.

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I rise today with a sense of relief and satisfaction that we have come to the end of this marathon to do something I believe everybody in this body and in the other body believe is vitally important. We need to change the system to make it easier to vote and tougher to cheat. I begin by offering my sincere thanks and congratulations to Senator Dodd, to Senator McConnell on our side, for their great work, to our good friends on the House side, Chairman Ney and Congressman Hoyer. We have gotten to know them much better over the last months as we have worked together. This has been truly an heroic effort. The 2000 election opened the eyes of many Americans to the flaws and failures of our election machinery, our voting systems, and even how we determine what a vote is. We learned of hanging chads and inactive lists. We discovered our military's votes were mishandled and lost. We learned of legal voters turned away, while dead voters cast ballots. We discovered that many people voted twice, while too many weren't even counted once. This final compromise bill--and it is a compromise in the truest sense of the word--tries to address each of the fundamental problems we have discovered. For starters, this bill provides $3.9 billion in funding over the next 5 years to help States and localities improve and update their voting systems. In addition to providing this financial help, we also provide specific minimum requirements for the voting systems so that we can be assured that the machinery meets minimum error rates and that voters are given the opportunity to correct any errors that they have made prior to their vote being cast. This bill also provides funding to help ensure the disabled have access to the polling place and that the voting system is fully accessible to those with disabilities. A very special thanks to the Senator from Connecticut for this unwavering commitment to those goals. We also create a new Election Administration Commission to be a clearinghouse for the latest technologies and improvements, as well as the agency who will be responsible for funneling the federal funds to States and localities. This reflects a great deal of effort by the distinguished Senator from Kentucky. Then the bill attempts to address one of my key concerns, and that of course is the issue of vote fraud. Now, I like dogs and I have respect for the dearly departed, but I do not think we should allow them to vote. Protecting the integrity of the ballot box is important to all Americans, but especially to Missouri because of our State's sad history of widespread vote fraud. This legislation recognizes that illegal votes dilute the value of legally cast votes--a kind of disenfranchisement no less serious than not being able to cast a ballot. If your vote is canceled by the vote of a dog or a dead person, it is as if you did not have a right to vote. Much has been said about this. We have even heard from some colleagues in groups that vote fraud does not really exist. We have been told by professors and other learned folks in ivory towers that vote fraud really only exists in movies. Well, gang, come down out of your ivory towers. We can explain it to you. We know better. In just the past month we learned of voter scams in Pennsylvania, and now we are learning of an ongoing FBI investigation in South Dakota where the media reports: Every vote counts--unless ballots are being cast by people who don't exist, are dead, or who don't even live in South Dakota. A major case involving those voter fraud issues has been under investigation by the FBI for the past month. If vote fraud is happening in South Dakota, it could be happening everywhere. In fact, in a report just released, which reviewed voter file information across State lines, nearly 700,000 people were registered in more than one State and over 3,000 double-voted in the 2000 election. That is 3,000 vote fraud penalties, felonies, waiting to be prosecuted. I hope local, State, and Federal officials involved will aggressively pursue these crimes. But, as I have said numerous times since I began this quest with Senators Dodd and McConnell many months ago, I believe that an election reform bill must have two goals--make it easier to vote but tougher to cheat. Lets discuss for a moment a few of our registered voters: Barnabas Miller of California, Parker Carroll of North Carolina, Packie Lamont of Washington, D.C., Cocoa Fernandez of Florida, Holly Briscoe of Maryland, Maria Princess Salas of Texas and Ritzy Mekler of Missouri. They are a new breed of American voter. Barnabas and Cocoa are poodles. Parker is a Labrador. Maria Princess is a Chihuahua, Holly is a Jack Russell Terrier, and Ritzy is a Springer-Spaniel. So has our voting system really gone to the dogs? And what can we do about it? This final bill takes this issue square on, and I am very pleased that this final agreement retains and strengthens the anti-vote fraud provisions we spend so much time fighting to include: New voters who choose to register by mail must provide proof of identity at some point in the process, whether at initial registration, when they vote in person or by mail. Among the kinds of acceptable forms of identification: utility bill, government check, bank statement, or drivers license--no dog licenses, please. In lieu of the individual providing proof of identity, States may also electronically verify an individual's identity against existing State databases. This should go a long way toward solving the fraud occuring in South Dakota. States will be required to maintain a statewide voter registration list. Mail-in registration cards will now require applicants specifically to affirm their American citizenship. The bill makes it a Federal crime to conspire to commit voter fraud. Those behind illegal vote fraud activities will be subject to penalties, not just the poor operatives who signed the fraudulent applications. Voters who do not appear on a registration list must be allowed to cast a provisional ballot. Voters without proper identification are also allowed to vote provisionally, but no provisional ballot will be counted until it is properly verified as a legal vote under state law. If a poll is held open beyond the time provided by State law, votes cast after that time would be provisional and held separately. Finally, voters will be required to include either their driver's license number or the last four digits of their social security number on their voter registration form. Again, this reform will also help in uncovering the fraud that is occuring in South Dakota. I believe that these meaningful reforms will go a long way to helping states clean up voter rolls, and thus clean-up elections. Will Rogers once said, ``I love a dog. He does nothing for political reasons.'' Our election laws should keep it that way. Mr. President, the Help America Vote Act contains many important provisions that will improve the equipment voters use to cast ballots at the polls. It also will take major steps to prevent fraud, which disenfranchises voters by cancelling the votes of legal voters with illegal votes. This bill follows in the path of the Voting Rights Act, the National Voter Registration Act and other Federal voting statutes the enhance the voting rights of all Americans and protect the exercise of their franchise. These important provisions deserve further review so their meaning and the intent of Congress in including the provisions in the bill is clearly understood. By passage of this legislation, Congress has made a statement that vote fraud exists in this country. The many reported cases and incidents of registration and vote fraud revealed in testimony before Congress, in our debates and in the press make it imperative that we implement such standards that are clearly within the Constitutional power and prerogatives of Congress. A principle concern of Congress addressed in this bill is the abuse of mail registration cards, created by Congress as part of the National Voter Registration Act, for the purpose of committing vote fraud. The creation by Congress of the mail registration cards opened an new avenue for vote fraud in many States. NVRA requires States and localities to accept registration cards through the mail while limiting the ability of states and localities to authenticate or verify the registrations. Accordingly, the mail-in registration cards have become a means of unscrupulous individuals to register the names of deceased, ineligible or simply non-existent people to vote. In my home State of Missouri, there is abundant evidence of these cards being used for the purpose of getting phony names, the names of the deceased and even the names of pets on voter rolls. Someone even registered the deceased mother of the prosecuting attorney of the City of St. Louis. Names have been registered to drop-houses, businesses, union halls, Mail-box Etc. and vacant lots. From there the people behind the fraud can request an absentee ballot in the name of the voter or attempt to go to the polls and cast a vote under the assumed name. Congress agreed that while the mail-in cards have made registration more accessible, the policy has also created increased opportunities for fraud. To address this, we created an identification requirement for first-time voters who register by mail. The security of the registration and voting process is of paramount concern to Congress and the identification provision and the fraud provisions in this bill are necessary to guarantee the integrity of our public elections and to protect the vote of individual citizens from being devalued by fraud. Every false registration and every fraudulent ballot cast harms the system by cancelling votes cast by legitimate voters. It undermines the confidence of the public that their vote counts and therefore undermines public confidence in the integrity of the electoral process. Under this new Federal requirement, those who choose to register by mail will have to show identification before the first time they vote in that jurisdiction. If the voter is registering to vote in a State that has a statewide voter registration system complying with the requirements of this bill, the voter will have to show identification before the first time they vote in that state. The voter has to show identification at some point between the time they register and the time they vote. To comply with the identification requirement, the voter can include a copy of the identification with their registration card, a copy of the identification can be included with an absentee ballot or it can be shown when the voter goes to the polling place. The option of the voter to vote absentee or to vote at the polls is not limited but the objective of Congress is fulfilled by voters who register by mail verifying the identify of the voter at some point before they cast their first vote. It must be noted, that in drafting the bill, the authors of the Senate bill conducted extensive research. It was the conclusion of the authors based on the research that it is in the capacity of the chief state election official and the overwhelming majority of election jurisdictions to track the names of those who register by mail. With that information, the election jurisdictions will have accurate and ample information to determine which voters will be required under the terms of this statute to present identification at the polls. It has been argued that there is likely to be confusion at the polls because states will not have the information as to first time voters. This concern was carefully weighed by the bill's authors and the conferees and it was agreed that the evidence does not support the assertion. Regarding the numerous criticisms of this section: this provision will not result in voters being denied the right to vote. Voters who do not have the identification required will be given the opportunity to cast a fail safe ballot. Voters who are at the polls will cast a provisional ballot and those who vote by mail will have their ballots subject to additional review to determine validity of the registration. This provision does not single out those who register by mail in an improper manner, rather it builds on the existing structure Congress created in the National Voter Registration Act. When creating mail registration, Congress recognized the potential for fraud and authorized states to require mail registrants to vote in person the first time they vote. The approach proved to be inadequate so in this bill we took additional steps. The approach we took, however, was already paved in the passage of the National Voter Registration Act. This provision is not discriminatory; the documents required for identification are widely available. The Department of Transportation statistics report that more than 90 percent of Americans of voting age have a drivers license. But to be certain no one will be negatively impacted, the conferees included carefully crafted and balanced identification requirements. The required pieces of identification include items widely available to all citizens, including the disabled, the poor, new citizens, students and minorities. For example, positive identification is required to apply and receive food stamps. When applying for food stamps, the required identification is very similar to that required in this bill, including a driver's license or some other identification that allows the state to verify the identify of the applicant for the purpose of preventing fraud. Provision and verification of an existing social security number is required before a person can qualify for Federal temporary assistance. The steps taken in this bill are in line with the steps taken by the Federal Government to prevent fraud in welfare assistance. Surely clean elections, accurate results and faith in the election process is as an important of an objective as preventing welfare fraud. The conferees also agree that the provision is something that can be readily complied with by the disabled. As we know, many of the disabled are in the work environment, therefore will be in possession of a paycheck or tax return or other government document bearing the name and address of the voter. As stated, Federal benefits require an identification. For those who use state or federal services, they again will have identification or another government document related to the provision of the service. Again, great steps have been taken to ensure that all Americans can comply with this provision. The aged, disabled, the poor and members of minority groups are most often the target of fraudulent registration and absentee ballot fraud schemes that take advantage of the lack of security in the system, their ability to register to vote and cast a ballot will be enhanced most by this legislation. The identification requirements do not run afoul of the Voting Rights Act. In fact, Assistant Attorney General for Civil Rights Ralph Boyd in a letter to the Senate stated that the identification provision does not violate the Voting Rights Act. The identification requirement gives the voter choices as to where and at what point in the process to produce identification. The ability of the states to apply this provision in an arbitrary or discriminatory manner is limited by giving the choice to the voter. Furthermore, Congress explicitly provided that the identification requirements are to be administered in a uniform and nondiscriminatory manner. Election officials must ask all people for identification when the legislation calls for it. The first time voter ID requirements for those who register by mail are obviously not discriminatory since they apply to all voters regardless of race, color or ethnic origin and must be applied in a uniform and nondiscriminatory manner. It must be noted that one form of identification required is a current valid photo identification. It is the intent of the conferees that this identification be issued by a government entity or a legitimate recognized employer. The conferees agree that the identification should not be that of a party organization, a political organization, a club or a retail establishment. The conferees intend that the photo identification be something that is extremely difficult to falsify or procure under false pretenses. Congress intends the Help America Vote Act to work along side the National Voter Registration Act. However, the identification provision, section 303(b) Requirements for Voters Who Register By Mail, may be read by some courts or other parties to require action or conduct prohibited by NVRA. It is the intent of Congress that voters who register by mail show identification. If a court reads this obligation to conflict with any other statute, it is the intent of Congress that section 303(b) of the Help America Vote Act control in such a situation. Congressional intent is reflected by the presence of section 906, which clearly states that this section will be controlling. The conferees recognize that many States have taken steps to address fraud. A number of those steps may go beyond that set in this bill. It is the agreement of the conferees that this bill in no way limits the ability of the states from taking steps beyond those required in this bill. For instance, several States require those who register by mail to vote in person the first time they vote. This bill does not limit a State from taking this additional step to address fraud. Each of the steps taken in this bill to address fraud shall be considered to be a minimum standard. This legislation sets an additional Federal mandate. All people registering to vote for a Federal election will be required to provide a driver's license number or the last four digits of their social security number on the registration card when they register to vote. If an applicant has neither, the registrant should indicate so and the State will provide a number at the time the application is processed. No registration can be processed unless this information is included. The authors of this bill found that voter rolls across the country are inaccurate or in very poor order, the condition in many jurisdictions, particularly the large jurisdictions, are in a state of crisis. Voter lists are swollen with the names of people who are no longer eligible to vote in that jurisdiction, are deceased or are disqualified from voting for another reason. It has been found that 650,000 in this country are registered in more than one State. As of October of 2002, 60,000 people were registered in Florida and at least one other state. In St. Louis County, some 30,000 people were registered to vote in the county and at least one other county in the State. The conferees agree that a unique identification number attributed to each registered voter will be an extremely useful tool for State and local election officials in managing and maintaining clean and accurate voter lists. It is the agreement of the conferees that election officials must have such a tool. The conferees want the number to be truly unique and something election officials can use to determine on a periodic basis if a voter is still eligible to vote in that jurisdiction. The social security number and driver's license number are issued by government entities and are truly unique to the voter. They are the most unique numbers available, that is why the conferees require the voter to give the number. Again, it is the intent of the conferees to impose a new Federal mandate for voter registration. Under this bill, the use of the full social security number is not required, a partial social security number is required. That requirement does not conflict with the terms of the Federal privacy act. The privacy act states that people cannot be required to give their social security number except for limited purposes. Registering to vote is not one of the exceptions. But the privacy act protection is limited to the full social security number, there. The conferees do not want this requirement to conflict with the privacy act, therefore, language was included in the bill to clarify the privacy act with regard to the partial social security number. The bill clarifies that the partial social security number is not covered by the privacy act, so asking for four digits will not conflict in any way. Finally, It is important to note that states that utilize full social security numbers for voter registration applicants can continue to do so after passage of this legislation. This new registration requirement is a minimum standard. If a state requires applicants to provide more information--such as their entire nine-digit social security number-- this legislation will not override that state requirement. Section three of the legislation is known as the minimum standards section. It includes minimum standards for federal election to be adopted by the states. The first of the mandates concerns the voting system, which includes the type of voting machine or method used by a jurisdiction. This section will require the voting system to meet minimum standards. However, the legislation does not seek to ban the use of a particular type of system and it does not instruct a jurisdiction as to what type of system to use. The intent of the bill is to improve the system used; it is not the intent of the legislation to prohibit a jurisdiction from using any type of system or to ban a voting system. Under this minimum standard, the voting system in every jurisdiction will have three requirements. First, the voter has to be permitted to verify the votes they cast. This requirement gives the voter the opportunity to review the ballot after it is filled out and before it is cast so that the voter himself can determine if he made a mistake in filling out the ballot. The second requirement gives the voter the right to a replacement ballot. The intent of this provision follows on the verification provisions; if a voter finds that he has made a mistake he can ask a poll worker for a replacement ballot for the voter to fill out and cast. The first ballot, of course, will be invalidated by the poll workers. This provision also applies to mail-in voting and absentee voting. It does not require a state or jurisdiction to do anything other than provide a voter the opportunity to get a replacement ballot. It is incumbent upon the voter to do so before any deadline for submitting the absentee or mail ballot. The next voting machine related requirement has to do with over votes, voters who cast more than one vote in a single race and spoil their ballot. Certain voting technologies, such as the DRE, precinct- based opti-scan and lever machines, notify the voter that they have voted more than once in a single race. If the technology can notify the voter, this section requires that it is employed and voters be notified. There are certain technologies that do not notify the voters of overvoters, such as paper ballots, central count systems, punch-card systems and absentee ballots. To satisfy the requirement, jurisdictions that use this system will be required to have in place a voter education system to inform the voter of the consequences of overvoting and the remedies that are available should they overvote. This is a compromise and it is consistent with the clear intent of the authors of this bill not to eliminate any type of voting system and allow jurisdictions to choose the system that is best for that jurisdiction. The legislation also requires every jurisdiction in every State to offer voters who claim to be registered in a jurisdiction but do not appear on the voter rolls for that jurisdiction the right to cast a provisional ballot. If the voter provides the required information and attests to their belief of being properly registered, the voter will be given a provisional ballot. No voter will be turned away from the polls because of a mistake or oversight at the administrative level. There are several points I want to make as to how the provisional vote is to operate. I also want to clarify the intent of the authors as to the extent and limit of the right conferred on the voter by this section. The provisional ballot will be extended to those who arrive at the polls to find that their name does not appear on the register of voters. The statute states that the poll worker shall inform the voter of the right to vote by provisional ballot. That right, however, is extended to those who believe that they are registered to vote and are registered to vote in that particular jurisdiction. It is not the intent of the authors of this bill to extend the right to vote by provisional ballot to everyone who shows up at the polls and is not registered or for those who are not eligible to vote in the election. The intent is to provide protection to those who in fact registered but do not appear on the register because of an administrative mistake or oversight. Before one can get a provisional ballot, the voter must sign an affidavit attesting to the fact that he believes he registered to vote in that jurisdiction and that he is eligible to vote in that election. So in addition to the registration question, the voter must also state that he is not disqualified from voting in the election, such a reason may include felony status or the voter has already cast an absentee vote in the race. Once the voter turns over his ballot, it will not be tabulated until the information provided by the voter as to his registration status is verified. In verifying the information about the voter, the language of the statute states that the information provided shall be transmitted to a state or local election official for verification of the information. This language reflects the intent of the authors of the bill that the registration and eligibility of the voter be verified by an election official before the ballot is counted. It is also the intent of the authors that the verification be done by someone other than the poll workers and that the ballot be segregated from other ballots until that information is verified. The authors went to lengths to ensure that the ballot is not simply counted once cast, rather a review of the information is to be conducted on the status of the voter. Furthermore, ballots will be counted according to state law. If it is determined that the voter is registered in a neighboring jurisdiction and state law requires the voter to vote in the jurisdiction in which he is registered, meaning the vote was not cast in accordance with State law, the vote will not count. It was contemplated by the authors of the statute that under such circumstances, the vote will not count. It is not the intent of the authors to overturn State laws regarding registration or state laws regarding the jurisdiction in which a ballot must be cast to be counted. Additionally, it is inevitable that voters will mistakenly arrive at the wrong polling place. If it is determined by the poll workers that the voter is registered but has been assigned to a different polling place, it is the intent of the authors of this bill that the poll worker can direct the voter to the correct polling place. In most States, the law is specific on the polling place where the voter is to cast his ballot. Again, this bill upholds state law on that subject. The legislation also speaks to efforts, through litigation or otherwise, to extend polling hours beyond those set by law. Under this bill, those who vote in an election as a result of an order extending polling hours, they will be required to cast a provisional ballot. This section only covers those who vote as a result of the order, it does not cover those who are in line before the polls close but cast their ballot after the closing time. Those who vote as a result of the order will cast a provisional ballot and the ballots are to be held separately from other provisional ballots cast in that race. As we have seen before in elections, lower courts have issued orders to extend polling hours only to have their order overturned later in the day. But prior to passage of this bill, once ballots are cast, we have no way of retrieving those ballots and candidates will be credited with votes that should never have been cast. With the method required by this legislation, the ballots of those voting based on the order will be segregated and identifiable. If the order is overturned, the parties involved in the election and perhaps the courts can then determine how to reconcile those ballots. It only seems fair that if the order is overturned and a higher court decides that the polling hours should not have been extended, then the ballots cast as a result of that order should not count for or against any of the candidates. The legislation also requires states to set up a computerized, statewide voter registration system to maintain the names of all registered, eligible voters. It has been discovered that in states across the country, registration lists contains the names of people who have left the jurisdiction, who are not eligible to vote because of their status as a felon, who are deceased or who are not eligible to vote in that jurisdiction for any number of reasons. As I prepared to draft this legislation, I reviewed the voting lists in two jurisdictions in my State, St. Louis City and St. Louis County. In the city, I found that one in ten voters were also registered somewhere else in the State and at the time of the November 2000 election, there were more registered voters than there were city residents of voting age. In St. Louis County, I found nearly 35,000 people who were registered somewhere else in the State. It was not unusual to find people who were registered four times in the state. It is well documented that registration lists around the country as in disarray; they are bloated and contain the names of thousands of people that no longer belong on the list. In part, this is because we live in an increasingly mobile society. It is also because congress made it more difficult for localities to maintain clean lists when Motor Voter was passed. Under this law, States will be required to maintain a State system and therefore the central database of information containing the names of all registered voters in the state. In most States, registration will be maintained for the first time on a statewide basis rather than jurisdiction by jurisdiction. This will not affect the obligation on the States to conduct list maintenance according to the provisions of the National Voter Registration Act. First, for those States who are exempt from motor voter, this will not affect that exemption and it will not affect the way they maintain their voter lists. All other States must comply with NVRA maintenance provisions. This legislation does not limit the circumstances under which States can remove names from voter lists. The notice provisions must still be complied with, although they have been altered by the terms of this legislation. The requirement for a state-wide registration system will enhance the integrity of our election process, making it easier for citizens to vote and have their ballots counted, while clearing ineligible and false registrations from the voter rolls. The Help America Vote Act also includes two new crimes directed at those who commit vote fraud. This should be taken as further evidence of the extent of the concern of the conferees and Congress at large about voter fraud and the lengths that should be gone to stop voter fraud. One section in particular section, 905(a), requires additional clarification. This section is as well intended to work with NVRA. Under NVRA, people who use the mail registration card for the purpose of committing vote fraud are subject to a criminal penalty. The reading of NVRA appears to limit that to the person who actually commits the act, whether it be sign the false card, mail the false card or turn it in to the election officials. Section 905(a) of the Help America Vote Act, is intended to extend that reach of the statute to cover those who organize the fraudulent use of mail registration cards or who conspire with others to use the mail registration cards to commit vote fraud. Therefore, it is clear it is the intent of Congress to extend the reach of the law to get the conspirators and the ring leaders in committing vote fraud. Mr. President, I close expressing my sincere appreciation to the staff. On Senator Dodd's staff: Shawn Maher, Kennie Gill, and Ronnie Gillespie. On Senator McConnell's staff: Brian Lewis, Leon Sequeira, and Chris Moore. On the staff of Congressman Ney: Paul Vinovich, Chet Kalis, Roman Buhler, Matt Peterson, Pat Leahy. On Congressman Hoyer's staff: Keith Abouchar, Lennie Shambon, and Bill Cable.

Mr. BOND. I agree with the Senator from Kentucky, Mr. McConnell.

Mr. BOND. That is correct. The Voting Rights Act requires certain voting materials to be available to the language groups delineated in the Voting Rights Act statute. The language in the bill simply States that the statute should be enforced. It is the intent of the authors to display our belief that enforcement of the Voting Rights Act is important but it is not the intent of the authors to expand that right.

Mr. BOND. I agree completely with the Senator's description of this provision. Congress has said only that voters in Federal elections should be given a provisional ballot if they claim to be registered in a particular jurisdiction and that jurisdiction does not have the voter's name on the list of registered voters. The voter's ballot will be counted only if it is subsequently determined that the voter was in fact properly registered and eligible to vote in that jurisdiction. In other words, the provisional ballot will be counted only if it is determined that the voter was properly registered, but the voter's name was erroneously absent from the list of registered voters. This provision is in no way intended to require any State or locality to allow voters to vote from any place other than the polling site where the voter is registered. Further, as the Senator from Kentucky correctly pointed out, if State law permits the challenge of provisional voters by someone other than election officials, this legislation does not prevent that particular State practice.

Mr. BOND

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I take this opportunity to discuss the very serious matter that is before us today and this week. This is, I trust, going to be a very somber discussion as we had approximately 11 years ago when this body approved the actions which led to Desert Storm. Unfortunately, at that time we did not solve the problems confronting us as a result of Saddam Hussein and his murderous regime in Iraq. As we move toward a resolution authorizing the use of force against the threat posed by Saddam Hussein, let us be clear about the intent. This resolution we will send a clear message to the world community and to the Iraqi regime that the demands of the United Nations Security Council must be followed. Saddam Hussein must be disarmed. For over a decade now we have tried every means of diplomacy, sanctions, and inspections to encourage Saddam to keep the promises that he made after the gulf war. Nothing has worked. Saddam has made a mockery of the United Nations resolutions and the threat he now poses to the world is significant and growing. President Bush stated last night that Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein is a ``murderous tyrant'' who could attack the United States ``on any given day'' using unmanned aerial vehicles loaded with chemical or biological weapons. Iraq is unique. By its past and present actions, by its technological capabilities, by the merciless nature of its regime, Iraq is unique. Iraq is a true present danger to the United States. As a former chief weapons inspector of the U.N. has said: The fundamental problem with Iraq remains the nature of the regime, itself. Saddam Hussein is a homicidal dictator who is addicted to weapons of mass destruction. The Iraqi regime possesses biological and chemical weapons, is rebuilding the facilities to make more and, according to the British Prime Minister Tony Blair, could launch a biological or chemical attack in as little as 45 minutes after the order is given. The regime has long-standing and continuing ties to terrorist groups, and we now know that there are al Qaeda terrorists inside Iraq. In fact, senior members of the Iraqi government and members of the al Qaeda network have been in contact for many years. This regime is seeking a nuclear weapon and the delivery capability to go with it. There have been reports in the past from Desert Storm that rather than having the acquisition of a nuclear weapon years in advance, it could have been within a year that they could have developed a nuclear weapon. Had he waited until he had that nuclear device before he invaded Kuwait, we would have been in a far different position as we attempted at that time to expel him from Kuwait. The Iraqi dictator has answered a decade of resolutions with a decade of defiance. In the Southern and Northern No-fly zones over Iraq, coalition aircraft continue to be fired on and coalition pilots continue to put their lives on the line to enforce these resolutions. There is an ongoing war that Saddam Hussein has carried out against the coalition which is seeking to enforce United Nations resolutions. Just this year alone, coalition aircraft have been fired on over 400 times. Since Saddam Hussein made what I believe, from past experience, will be shown to be a hollow promise to cooperate with the United Nations, they have fired on coalition aircraft more than 47 times. Saddam Hussein is a master at saying one thing and doing another. As President Bush has stated in the past: The Iraqi regime is led by a dangerous and brutal man. We know he is actively seeking the destructive technologies to match his hatred. And we know that he must be stopped. The dangers we face will only worsen from month to month and year to year. To ignore these threats is to encourage them--and when they have fully materialized, it may be too late to protect ourselves and our allies. By then, the Iraqi dictator will have had the means to terrorize and dominate the region, and each passing day could be the one on which the Iraqi regime gives anthrax or VX nerve gas or someday a nuclear weapon to a terrorist group. The mantle of leadership requires this body to act. We have seen the results of a decade of speaking loudly and carrying a soft stick. We have pointed out, in past years, the danger of this regime. We have called for changes. We have asked the United Nations to strengthen its resolutions. We have asked Saddam Hussein to readmit inspectors to assure us there are no deadly weapons of mass destruction being stockpiled. We have been rejected at all points. Let us act now and pass this resolution in support of our President. This resolution is needed to send an important signal to our allies and to the United Nations. With our leadership, I am convinced the President will build a robust coalition to say no to Saddam Hussein. It will tell the world we are serious about disarmament, and it will reaffirm our message to Saddam Hussein. Approving this resolution does not mean military action is imminent or unavoidable. The resolution will tell the United Nations and all nations America speaks with one voice and is determined to make the demands of the civilized world mean something. If we do not act, then we face the terrible dangers of an attack with weapons of mass destruction. If the United Nations does not act, it faces the prospect of joining the League of Nations on the dustbin of history: an international organization, organized with the highest purposes, and by its inaction shown to be ineffective. I believe and I trust we will give a strong vote, a bipartisan vote, in support of this resolution. I believe building on that resolution we will build a coalition, and our world will be a safer place, even though we have to take the risks that are necessary and that come with this resolution in order to secure that safety and that peace for ourselves, our children, and our future. Mr. President, I urge my colleagues to support this resolution. I look forward to working with them on this matter. I thank the Chair and yield the floor.

Mr. BOND

Mr. BOND. I appreciate that.

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I thank my colleagues for giving me the opportunity to rise today in support of the unanimous consent request to consider and pass S. 724, the Mothers and Newborns Health Insurance Act of 2001. I believe the bill is essential to the health care of children and pregnant women in America. Thus, I am proud to be an original sponsor of the legislation with Senator Breaux and Senator Collins. The goal of the legislation is quite simple: To make sure more pregnant women and more children are covered by health insurance so they have access to the health care services they need to be healthy. This legislation would simply give the States the option and flexibility to cover low-income pregnant women in the State Children's Health Insurance program, which we call SCHIP, for the full range of necessary prenatal, delivery, and postpartum care. Let me reiterate, this is a choice for the States, should they choose to exercise it. No State, under this bill, is required, or forced, to expand coverage to additional pregnant women. This bill merely provides States the option. This bill will complement the administration's final rule that allows States to expand SCHIP coverage to an ``unborn child'' by covering additional vital health care services for the pregnant mother that the rule, unfortunately, does not cover. The rule attempts to treat the unborn child without treating the mother. This approach is in direct conflict with the clinical guidelines set forth by the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists and the American Academy of Pediatrics, which state a pregnant woman and the ``unborn child'' must be treated together. It certainly makes common sense to a layperson, but there is a professional opinion that the two cannot be treated separately. It is simply counterintuitive to deny coverage for disease management, medical emergencies, accidents, broken bones, mental illness, or surgeries for the mother during pregnancy. Failure to treat the mother in such circumstances will have a direct and profound effect on the health and development of her unborn child. In addition, under the rule, during delivery, coverage for epidurals is a State option and is justified only if the health of the child is affected. On the other hand, anaesthesia is covered for Caesarean sections. The rule would wrongly push women and providers toward performing more C-sections to ensure coverage for epidurals--a choice which is more expensive and, in most cases, a much harder road to recovery for the mother. Finally, after delivery, women would be denied all health coverage from the moment the child is born. Important care and treatment, including the treatment of hemorrhage, infection, episiotomy repair, C- section repair, and the treatment of complications after delivery would not be covered. This bill will work hand in hand with the administration's rule by giving States the flexibility and option to treat the mother and child together and provide the full range of necessary prenatal, delivery, and postpartum care--care which is essential to the health and well- being of both the mother and the baby. No health care program that ignores this fact can fully address the issue of children's health care. This bill will eliminate the illogical disconnect between pregnant women and babies. This bill has strong bipartisan support in both the Senate and the House, as well as the endorsement of the National Governors Association and 25 other national organizations, including the March of Dimes, American Academy of Pediatrics, American Public Health Association, National Association of Children's Hospitals, American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, and the Catholic Health Association. In addition, Secretary Thompson, in the past, has voiced his strong support for this legislation. In fact, in a January 31, 2002, press release on the administration's rule, Secretary Thompson congratulated Senators for ``bipartisan leadership in supporting S. 724, a bill that would allow States to provide prenatal coverage for low-income women through the SCHIP program.'' He went on to say, ``We support this legislative effort in Congress.'' All women need prenatal care. Young or old, first baby or fifth, all mothers-to-be benefit from regular care during pregnancy. Studies have shown that an uninsured pregnant woman is much less likely to get critical prenatal care that reduces the risk of health problems for both the woman and the child. Babies whose mothers receive no prenatal care or late prenatal care are at-risk for many health problems, including birth defects, premature births, and low birth- weight. We know prenatal care improves birth outcomes and can save money. According to the National Center for Health Statistics, infants born to mothers who receive no prenatal care or late prenatal care are nearly twice as likely to be low birth weight. Moreover, low birth weight and pre-term births are one of the most expensive reasons for a hospital stay in the United States with hospital charges averaging $50,000--an especially serious financial issue for families without health insurance. A report by the IOM entitled Health is a Family Matter notes, ``Infants of uninsured women are more likely to die than are those of insured women. In one region of West Virginia, the fetal death rate dropped from 35.4 to 7.0 per 1,000 live births after introduction of a prenatal care program for the uninsured.'' In addition to ensuring better health outcomes, research and state experience suggests that covering pregnant women is a highly successful outreach mechanism for enrolling children. I thank Senator Bingaman for his leadership in the Finance Committee on this issue. With his help, this bill passed the Finance Committee in the beginning of August by unanimous consent. Madam President, studies have shown time and time again that babies born to mothers receiving late or no prenatal care are more likely to face complications--which results in hospitalization, expensive medical treatments and ultimately increased costs to public programs. We must close the gap in coverage between pregnant mothers and their children to improve the health of both and to address more fully the issue of children's healthcare. This is crucial legislation, and urge my colleagues to join me in support of it so that we can pass this bill. I yield the floor.

Mr. BOND. Reserving the right to object, I did not hear that.

Mr. BOND

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

Mr. BOND. Madam President, we have talked some about our fragile economy and the problems we are facing. Growth, which began slowing in 1999, coupled with the tragic impact of September 11, has resulted in hardship for many. We have seen unemployment, reduced value of market securities, more problems with health care, and other difficulties. There are measures pending in this body I believe would do a great deal to help the economy. They are such things as passing a terrorism risk reinsurance bill, which could get our building trades back to work; passing an energy bill, which has the potential of employing more than three-quarters of a million people, and securing our energy independence. We have not been able to work on those. But now we face a further challenge, which is a self-inflicted attack on our economy by our own people; and that is the contract dispute which has closed the West Coast docks, providing a terrible bottleneck for crucial exports and imports. This is the line of commerce: Trade going out, agricultural products being sold; inputs, goods coming into the United States; and it is shut down by this dispute. Many Missouri constituents are asking us what can be done. Retailers are asking where their goods are for them to be able to make sales and continue to employ their people. Agricultural producers, who have meat for export rotting on their docks, are saying something must be done. According to the Wall Street Journal, goods valued at more than $300 billion move annually through these ports. According to the New York Times, these ports handle half the Nation's imports and exports. Further estimates are that this shutdown could cost our economy $1 billion per day and grow further as the shutdown continues to $2 billion per day. The longer it goes, the worse it gets. Regrettably, the State of Missouri has the highest unemployment growth rate in the Nation, and we cannot afford economic homicide of this nature. This affects jobs upstream and downstream throughout the entire economy. It affects truckers and railroad workers and farm workers and retail clerks and consumers and others. These are real workers who are real people and have real families. They are hurting. I am not an expert on the specific grievances of these several hundred workers and their unions and the employers at the docks, but this major facility is nothing to toy with. I don't care if the grievances are moderate or petty, it is not worth the harm that could be done to thousands of other working people and our economy. The parties have to be brought together. One would think that workers reportedly earning $106,000 per year for less than 40 hours a week could resolve the grievances on the job without hurting other workers in my State who earn far less. While they sit on their chairs at the docks, people around the country are the ones suffering. This power play will have too much collateral damage to be allowed to continue. One company, National Cart Company, in St. Charles, MO is a manufacturer that employs 140 people. They manufacture material handling equipment and rely on some components from Asia. This is the busiest time of their year because their customers need their products to stock shelves for Christmas. Unless this is resolved, they will be laying off workers in 2 weeks or slightly more. Another company, TRG, located in St. Louis, with 80 employees, can't stock their shelves with recreation and travel accessories that they sell. When they shut down, their employees are out of work. Another St. Louis company, Donelly and Associates, manufactures telecommunications products. They only have seven employees, but if they do not get supplies in a week to 10 days, they will shut down, and those workers will be laid off. The president of that firm told my office that for every day the supply is disrupted it takes as many as 5 days to get it back on line. He told us that the airlines have already stopped taking bookings out of Asia. Another plant manager from Magnet LLC in Washington, MO said they are unable to get supply, and he predicts that if this is not resolved, they may be forced to lay off workers in 2 to 3 weeks. They have 375 employees and are urgently trying to make product to satisfy Christmas demand. There is a story in the Washington Post this morning about how people in Hawaii are stockpiling goods, and perishable food products are at risk of rotting on the docks. The retailers are trying to get winter and Christmas goods inventoried. Over 60 percent of beef exports and 50 percent of pork exports and one quarter of our chicken exports travel through these ports. Meat is rotting on the docks. Many freezers in the country are at capacity and inventories will become further backed up and prices will be depressed below levels that are already low. Yesterday, according to the Los Angeles Times, ``picketers tried to prevent a banana-carrying ship from leaving the dock, provoking a confrontation that brought out police in riot gear.'' The Los Angeles Times has another story about how ``the labor dispute is putting a strain on independent truckers who move port-related cargo.'' They quote a truck driver named Jose Louis Martinez who ``doesn't care whether labor or management is to blame in the dispute * * * he cared only that the wallet he would bring home to his wife and two daughters would be empty for the third time in four days.'' There are over 10,000 truckers--the majority of them independent--who normally make as many as three visits a day to the ports, according to the California Trucking Association. Burlington Northern-Santa Fe said it has suspended shipments of marine containers to all West Coast ports and grain to ports to Washington and Oregon. I can't speak to the fairness of the labor negotiations, but I can speak to the unfairness of a few people being willing to injure many people to get their own way and to destroy a vital sector of our economy. I can't see how a dispute about bar code readers--they are objecting to bringing in bar code readers, things that they use in every supermarket I have been in, and most retail stores--should cost the economy billions of dollars and intentionally throw people out of work. Frankly, my constituents don't understand the approach being taken, which seems to be: We will tear down everyone we can until we get our own way. I think it is outrageous. I think these matters should be resolved immediately. They should be resolved with the docks open for business. This is extortion, where the hostages are ordinary working families, many of whom will never earn in any year as much as the dock workers earn in three-quarters of a year. If they were only hurting themselves, I would advise that we stay out of it and have at it. But they are dragging everyone else with them. Since when is the economic leader of the world closed for business? This is an outrage. Here our President and his team are working vigorously to open foreign markets. We gave them the power. But why? So labor disputes can have export products rot on the docks? We can all have disagreements about whether raising taxes or lowering taxes will help our economy. I have some strong views on that. People in this body disagree with me. But one thing we certainly ought to be able to agree on is that a tactic of this nature is bad for the economy, bad for working families, and should be resolved yesterday. I have asked the President--and sent a letter to him--to use his authority to intervene. I hope he will do that. I have read that some in this body object to his intervening. I know the President has agreed these people should get back to work. He expressed that view in strong terms and made mediation services available. Working families in my State cannot wait. It is a terrible shame it would come to this. It is a shame that people haven't worked this out on their own, as they should. But our economy is too fragile for self- interested, shortsighted, and self-inflicted wounds of this nature. I urge the President to take further steps to stop this dispute, to get commerce flowing, and to get people back to work. Whether it be truckers and railroad workers in California or retail clerks throughout the Nation or agricultural producers in our heartland or other industrial workers who are making products for export to the Southeast Asian market, they are being denied a livelihood because of a dispute over bar code readers, something that is not really that advanced a technology but is in use every day in stores we visit. I yield the floor.

Mr. BOND

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, October 6-12, 2002 is National Osteopathic Medicine, NOM, Week, a week when the nation's 49,000 osteopathic physicians, D.O.s are focused on increasing the public's awareness of access to care issues for patients across the nation. For almost 25 years now, the American Osteopathic Association, AOA, and its members have celebrated the osteopathic medical community's unified effort to educate the nation about issues influencing the American health care system. I am especially pleased the theme of this year's NOM Week is ``Access to Care.'' When osteopathic physicians, medical students, interns, residents and supporters of osteopathic medicine travel to Las Vegas, NV to attend the AOA's 107th Annual Convention and Scientific Seminar, nearly 8,000 will receive the latest information on issues impacting patients access to care quality and timely health care. The program covers such topics as professional liability insurance reform, rural health, the uninsured, SCHIP and other access to care programs for children, bioterrorism and mental health. I applaud the osteopathic medical community for emphasizing patient access issues, so important to my home state of Missouri and the nation. Take for example, rural health. Many citizens of my home state face limited availability of health care services in their communities. Access to health care can be established only when medical professionals are available to provide quality health care. We must do more to ensure that all Americans have access to timely health care and part of the solution is to place physicians in rural communities. Let's not forget the access to care barriers facing minority populations, children and the elderly. Over the past few years, medical liability premiums have escalated out of control causing health care quality, access, and cost problems. While some states have passed professional liability insurance (PLI) system reforms, not every state has effective laws in place. The osteopathic medical community recognizes many states face critical PLI system problems. For more than a century, D.O.s have made a difference in the lives and health of my fellow citizens in Missouri. I am proud to say that the birth of this profession took place in Northwest Missouri. Overall, more than 100 million patient visits are made each year to osteopathic physicians. D.O.s are committed to serving the needs of rural and underserved communities and make up 15 percent of the total physician population in towns of 10,000 or less. Similar to requirements set for M.D.s, D.O.s must successfully complete four years of medical education at one of the nation's 20 osteopathic medical schools; a one-year internship; and a multi-year residency program. Throughout this education, D.O.s are trained to understand how the musculoskeletal system influences the condition of all other body systems. Many patients want this extra knowledge a part of their health care. Individuals may call (866) 346-3236 to find a D.O. in their community. In recognition of NOM Week, I would like to congratulate the over 1,700 D.O.s in Missouri, the 616 students at the Kirksville College of Osteopathic Medicine, 871 students at the University of Health Sciences College of Osteopathic Medicine and the 47,000 D.O.s represented by the American Osteopathic Association for their contributions to the good health of the American people.

Mr. BOND

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I rise to pay tribute to Mr. Charlie Myrick and his over 25 years of service to children across this country. Over the years, Charlie Myrick has performed magic tricks in schools across the nation and has spoken to over 6 million school children. Resisting drugs and gang pressures as well as the importance of leadership and studying diligently in school are a few of the points Charlie emphasizes in his program. He inspires and motivates children to pursue their dreams while challenging parents to support and encourage their children in this pursuit. Charlie has been beaten and held at knife point by disgruntled students but his dedication to children has not wavered. Many children claim Charlie's encouragement and motivation changed their life. One child stated, Charlie motivated him to persistently strive to achieve his dreams. I commend Charlie for his years of service to children in need.

Mr. BOND

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I rise to celebrate the 50th anniversary of the Lee Mace's Ozark Opry. The Lee Mace's Ozark Opry has entertained audiences for years and is a tribute to Lee's dream to share country music with the public. Lee and his wife, Joyce Mace began the Opry in an effort to preserve the real flavor of the Ozarks though music and dance. Giving talented young people from nearby towns the opportunity to perform was a dream of Lees and many performers have stood on stage as a result. The format developed for the show has been emulated in Branson, Missouri and over the years has spread to opry houses across the country. Although, Lee Mace passed away several years ago, the sounds of the Ozarks can still be heard at Lee Mace's Ozark Opry. Today, we honor Lee Mace's dream of preserving the tradition of country music in the Ozarks.

Mr. BOND

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, might I ask if Members on my side come, we could intersperse them in the makeup?

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, the unanimous consent request, as modified, is objected to.

Mr. BOND. I didn't hear the request.

Mr. BOND

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, on one point I agree with my colleague from Iowa: This Senate is dysfunctional. We have not done our work. It is a new year. It has already begun. We have not passed and sent to the President a single appropriations bill. But I have to differ very strongly with his accusation, which is totally unfounded, that the objection I raised was for political purposes. The objection is raised because this body has before it an appropriations bill. We have the Interior appropriations bill before us, and it has been stalled by my colleagues on the other side. We need to vote on that bill. One of the reasons we are in this problem is because we have not passed a budget, the first time since 1974 we have not passed a budget. I serve on the Budget Committee. I happen to believe that the budget that was reported out by the majority, on a party-line vote, was and is indefensible. The fact that the majority leader has not brought it up tends to confirm my suspicion. But when you do not have a budget, you have a great difficulty trying to pass appropriations bills. We have passed good bills out of the Appropriations Committee. And I happen to have not only a great interest in the Labor, Health, and Human Services bill, but in the VA- HUD and independent agencies bill. We have to get those done. And we are going to get those done. It looks as if we are going to have to wait for a new Congress to do it. We are going to get those funds out there because they are vitally needed. And we have, in all of these bills, incorporated many important projects and programs that need to be funded. But we are stuck. We have been almost, I guess it is, 5 weeks now on Interior. Why haven't we voted on and passed out an Interior bill? Why not? Because Senators from the West--and I include myself in that; it is close; we are on the west side of the Mississippi River--want to have the same protection for our forests, for the neighbors of the forests, for the people who work in the forests--the firefighters--for the people who live by the forests, for the trees themselves, the wildlife in the forests, we want to have the same protection from devastating catastrophic forest fires. Senators Craig, Domenici, and Kyl offered an amendment which I was proud to support. Very simply, that amendment gave, with many more limitations, the same kind of flexibility to the Forest Service in other States that it has in South Dakota, which is desperately needed. The Senator from South Dakota included a provision nobody knew about in the Defense bill that said you could go in and clean out the high- density fuel and the volatile compounds lining the floors of the forests in South Dakota, but he made it just for South Dakota. Fires are raging in the West, in California, Arizona, Colorado, Utah. They are threatened in Missouri. We said: We want the same protection for our forests. We want to be able to use sound forest management, which means getting the dead, diseased logs out of the forest before a spark from lightning or a manmade spark or some kind of machine sets them on fire and causes a catastrophic fire that outraces the wildlife, that burns old-growth trees, that kills people. Over 20 firefighters are dead in the West from these catastrophic fires. It is burning up property. Do you know what the result is? The environment suffers tremendously because wildlife cannot escape from these fast-moving fires. The forest floor is baked so hard that nothing will grow for decades. What we are saying is, sound forestry management demands that you clean out the high-fuel areas to prevent catastrophic fires. It makes common sense. Except there are special interest groups, specifically the Sierra Club and others, that say you cannot vote for that bill. They have too much political clout. If we are talking about politics, holding up the appropriations, let's look at the politics holding up the Interior appropriations bill. That is where the politics are being played. That is why people throughout the West and anywhere where there are national forests are in danger of catastrophic forest fires, because the majority refuses to make their Members vote between cleaning up the forests, preventing the fires, protecting their people, and the Sierra Club. They don't want to make that choice. That choice is easy. If we can get a vote on it, one way or the other, you may beat us. You may have enough votes to say, no, we don't want to give you that protection. But at least we want to have a vote. Then we can pass the Interior bill. We could get to Labor-HHS. We could get to the CJS bill on which my colleague from South Carolina has worked so hard. We can get to the VA-HUD-independent agencies bill on which I have worked with my colleague from Maryland. There is politics in the holding up of the appropriations. The politics are not on this side. I yield the floor.