Kit Bond

Mr. BOND

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I thank my colleague, the chair of the subcommittee, the Senator from Maryland, for laying out the concerns, first, that the EPA has about it. I am relieved to see I was not the only one confused by the formula. I tried to figure out how the formula in section 2 would work, and I found a lot more questions than answers. The EPA has advised us that they don't know how the formula would work. That is why I said a few moments ago that on these complicated items there needs to be substantive hearings. There should be hearings on how the changes might affect existing water bonding issues, existing water programs in the States. There should be hearings on how these changes would affect the States where the needs are. Most important, we need to sit down with all of the players and make sure we have a formula that everybody understands and that works. So I believe the EPA has given us the reasons that we described in general about the problems in trying to adopt a significant change on the floor. Having said that, I am very enthusiastically a supporter of the suggestion the chair of the committee has made that we join either in a colloquy, letters and instruction, first, to the EPA, to present to us options for revising and updating the formula, if needed, for both the drinking water revolving fund and the clean water revolving fund and the one that deals with wastewater, to give us their best assessment and to actually provide that to the Environment and Public Works Committee so we will have something with which to work. As I have said before, I am a most enthusiastic proponent of revising these formulas and finding ways to put more money into this very badly needed area, for investments for the future health and well-being of our community. With that, I yield the floor.

Mr. BOND. I understand that like so many neighborhoods in large urban cities, the neighborhoods in the city of Philadelphia have been devastated by depopulation and that other Philadelphia neighborhoods are experiencing the initial signs of decline with stagnant or declining property values, rising crime, and a breakdown in public infrastructure. Still, other neighborhoods are largely stable, but are hardly flourishing. I respect what the Senator from Pennsylvania seeks to accomplish with these provisions. The CDBG is a flexible block grant program used by States and communities for critical projects such as affordable housing, economic development, and human service projects. Last year the committee provided approximately $5 billion for the program. While this program is already a very flexible program, I am happy to work with the Senator from Pennsylvania to assist the city of Philadelphia to use CDBG funding to develop a long-term blight removal plan. I understand that the city of Philadelphia is in dire need of neighborhood development and blight removal, and I would be glad to work with the Senator from Pennsylvania in conference to try to secure funding under the Neighborhood Initiative effort for this meritorious program.

Mr. BOND. I rise in support of the statements by my colleagues Mr. Craig and Mr. Harkin, I have a longstanding interest in ensuring that pesticides meet FQPA's safety standards based on factual, reliable scientific data. The additional funding discussed by Mr. Craig and Mr. Harkin for strengthening EPA's scientific analysis on worker exposure and drinking water would also help enhance sound scientific decisions by EPA. Moreover, the additional funding for faster review and approval of reduced risk pesticides will enable these products to be on the market sooner, and help ensure that farmers and others have a complete tool box to control pests that attack their crops and threaten public health. I look forward to working with Mr. Craig, Mr. Harkin, and Ms. Mikulski to consider these additional funds in the conference report.

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, let me express my sincere appreciation for the work of the chair of the committee. She has done an excellent job by making sure everybody knows what is going on. We have taken care of many of the problems and challenges that arise in this bill. I thank her for the tremendous cooperation she has provided us throughout. She said some kind words about collegiality, but on this side, what we know about collegiality we have learned from the distinguished Senator from Maryland, which she has shown us in the past, on how to work effectively, both as chair and ranking member. It is my great pleasure to work with her. And I share her enthusiasm for cleaning up the Chesapeake Bay. I assure you, Mr. President, it is one of my highest priorities. I express my appreciation to Senator Mikulski's staff: Paul Carliner, Gabrielle Batkin, Joel Widder; and, obviously, to my staff: Jon Kamarck, Cheh Kim, and John Stoody. They have made a very difficult bill work well. I hope now that we can accept this bill and send it on to conference. I appreciate the work and accommodation of all of our colleagues who were kind and understanding to know why we could not take all 1,600 proposed amendments worth $22 billion to add on to the bill. Amendment No. 1214

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, we have no objection.

Mr. BOND. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. BOND. I agree with everything you have said and I am embarrassed for these States and their attempt to transfer the responsibility for their own low-income housing responsibilities to the Federal Government through public housing funding. Even more important, unlike the current chairman and ranking member of the House VA/HUD Appropriations Subcommittee, we were responsible as Senate chair and ranking member for the VA/HUD Fiscal Year 1999 Appropriations Act which included this provision that rejected the federalization of these State-developed units as public housing. The law was drafted as a permanent prohibition on the use of Federal funding for these units and I urge both New York and Massachusetts to acknowledge their responsibility to maintain this low-income housing for low-income families. We have been in a period of economic growth and these States should accept their responsibilities to their State residents consistent with their promise to provide affordable low-income housing.

Mr. BOND. I suggest that Senator Hutchison would wish 30 seconds.

Mr. BOND. I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. BOND. No objection on this side.

Mr. BOND. First, let me thank my dear friend from Arizona for his amendment that is going to be in the managers' amendment. It is a pleasure to be working with the Senator from Arizona again. He formerly was on this committee. We regret he is no longer on our appropriations subcommittee. We still miss him, but I assure you, our aim is getting better. I would like to tell the Senator from Arizona that we strongly support his admonition/instruction to the Environment and Public Works Committee to move on the subject which he addresses. That subject, of course, is the equitable allocation and the badly needed funding for our water infrastructure. I cannot emphasize too much how important that is to the health and well-being of all of our people and to the progress of this country. He has done a great service, raising the question about allocation of the revolving funds, and we look forward to working with him. We are going to have to provide more resources than are now available. I assure him and my other colleagues that we want to do that in an equitable manner. I look forward, as a member of the Environment and Public Works Committee, to working with our chairman and ranking member to see that that occurs. Amendment No. 1226, As Modified

Mr. BOND. Is the first time to be taken by the proponents of the measure or by the proponents of the tabling?

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. BOND. Madam President, I assume the Senator from Arizona is controlling the time of the other Senator from Arizona. He is free to utilize such time as he wishes. We will extend him our good wishes.

Mr. BOND. Madam President, I claim such time from the time of the opponents of this amendment as I may require.

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, is this a motion to table?

Mr. BOND. How many families have been identified under the Agent Orange Benefits Act?

Mr. BOND. Is there a reason why less than half of the eligible families have been identified since passage of the Agent Orange Benefits Act.?

Mr. BOND. I, too, am concerned about the effects of this devastating disease and am pleased to stand with two of my colleagues on this important public health issue. I supported the passage of the Children's Health Act last year that created the new birth defects center at CDC and I am pleased that their prevention education efforts have already led to a downturn in Spina Bifida cases. I am also pleased that the identified families to date are utilizing the benefits under the Agent Orange Benefits Act. I, in addition to the distinguished Senators from Kansas and Maryland, support efforts that would improve the quality of life for those suffering from this condition and further support the development of a national registry. Both the CDC and the Veterans Administration are making strides in the study of this disease and I support a collaborative initiative for the two agencies to improve upon existing registries of persons affected by Spina Bifida, and other birth defects, especially for those whose father or mother served our nation during the Vietnam war.

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I yield myself 2 minutes from the time I have remaining.

Mr. BOND. I will use that. Mr. President, again, I commend Senator Kyl, the Senator from Arizona, for bringing to our attention the very important issue of how these vitally important funds are allocated. I have raised my concerns that the allocation he seeks to add in the appropriations bill should go through a thorough process in the authorizing committee because it is very complex. I have looked at the formula that has developed. I find that it has many, many different aspects. He has figured in earmarks that are not included in the allocation. There is a 1-year formula that is extremely confusing. The EPA has already advised us they would not know how to implement it. Certainly the more I see of it the more I believe it must have a thorough discussion, debate, hearings, and the work of the markup in the authorizing committee. I commend him for bringing this to our attention. I urge my colleagues to support our tabling motion. On behalf of the Senator from Vermont, the chairman of the Committee on Environment and Public Works, I move to table the Kyl amendment. I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. BOND. With respect to the amendment by the other Senator from Arizona, Mr. McCain, while I am very sympathetic to the point he has made about the need to improve VA's claim processing, I join with the manager of the bill, the distinguished chair, in opposing it. We have been concerned. We have worked all year long to assist VA in dealing with the unacceptable backlog in VA claims processing. Nobody has been a more forceful, consistent spokesperson about the need to bring up-to-date and up-to-speed VA claims processing than the Senator from Maryland. I have listened to her for hours on end in the Appropriations Committee as she has sought more money, as she has admonished officials of the VA to get with it and get on the ball and get these claims processed. This has really been a crusade she has led. I agree with her 100 percent. We are totally in agreement that VA claims processing is extremely important. It is a matter of justice and fairness to the people who have protected our country, and we have a long way to go. We believe this should be the highest priority. I agree with her, and I thank her for her kind words about Secretary Principi. We are excited to have a man of his background, his commitment, and his dedication at the helm in VA. This is a difficult management problem. It is a resource problem. It is a personnel problem. We are totally committed to supporting Secretary Principi as far as we can. Secretary Principi has set a goal of processing regional disability claims within 100 days by the summer of 2003. That is an admirable and, unfortunately, ambitious goal considering that it now takes VBA more than 200 days to process a claim. Nevertheless, he has set forth a timetable. He has set forth a budget he needs. He has set forth his plan to develop an effective processing operation that will assure that our Nation's veterans receive the service and the compensation they deserve. To address this need, to fulfill our part of the bargain, the bill before us provides significant funding increases to the VA, as requested by Secretary Principi. He said: This is my goal; this is where I want to be, no more than a hundred days. We will get there by 2003. He told us what he needed. Our bill provides $1.1 billion for the administration of benefits. That is $132 million, or a 13-percent increase over the fiscal year 2001 level. And, at the request of the administration, we have already provided the additional $19 million in the recently enacted fiscal year 2001 Supplemental Appropriation Act that gives the VA the ability to hire new claims processors immediately. So that is actually $151 million that we are putting into Veterans Affairs. This funding will increase the VA's budget and allow the VA to hire much needed additional staff, increase training, and modernize and upgrade information technology. Specifically, the VA will be able to hire and train 890 new employees to help resolve the backlog of cases and handle new cases due to legislation, such as the ``duty to assist'' enacted last year. This is a significant hiring increase. Bringing on all these people is a tremendous workload for the personnel section. Therefore, we have questions as to whether they could do more. They have outlined for us what they think is the optimum capacity for hiring new personnel, bringing them on board, giving them the training so they can accomplish the goal that Secretary Principi has sent down the pike for the 100-day limit for the processing of claims. Frankly, the money that the Senator from Arizona has proposed is not in his request. It has not been requested by the person who has to do the job, who has to administer and make sure the money is well spent. Frankly, I believe we need to stay with the responsible work plan that the Secretary has outlined. Finally, let me talk about some of the rhetoric we have heard on porkbarrel. I come from a background of working in State government. One of the most important things we can do for the people in our States is to assure that we have strong communities. That means education, health care, and housing. But it also means strong communities. I spent a great deal of time, when I was Governor, working on how we develop communities, how we bring together the facilities that are needed to make sure we have livable communities. Now, housing, obviously, in this budget is second only in priorities to taking care of our veterans. Veterans are our first priority. Housing is second. Below that, is assuring that the communities have what they need to be strong communities. We need good communities to support good housing so families can raise their children in the proper setting. I am very pleased that we have been able to put money into community development. This is a very important priority. This is something that is recognized across this country and is strongly supported. There is $5,012,993,000 going into the community development fund. These funds go back and are administered by locally elected officials and State-elected officials--except for roughly 2.8 percent of those funds that are allocated here. Now, if you don't think any of these buildings or any community development activities should be carried forward, you could save $5 billion by knocking out community development funds. Given the many, many different objects for spending, I can assure you, as one who lives in a small town and who travels to communities of all sizes in our State, the community development activities are vitally important from a governmental standpoint, from a quality-of-life standpoint, and from an economic development standpoint. They help draw and attract the kinds of economic activities and the kinds of community activities that are beneficial. I believe in them. I believe it works. Community development block grant funds are extremely important, and I will strongly oppose anybody who wants to cut the $5 billion we put into community development block grants. It is easy to pick out a project that has been recommended here and included by an elected Senator--anything you want--that goes to a different State than yours and call it ``pork.'' If it is in your own State, it is a ``strategic investment.'' How is that $5 billion allocated? It is allocated by elected officials. That is what this process of government is all about. It is a republican form of government. They elect people at the local level and State level to make decisions on how to spend the money that is raised in taxes. A small portion of it--$5 billion out of the total budget--goes to community development. Who is best to make these decisions? We say, by and large, the decisions should be made at the local and State level. This is money the Federal Government raises and sends back for community development. But do the people who are elected to serve their States in the Senate know what some of those priorities are? I happen to think they do. I travel around my State, and I know the need and the opportunities that economic development initiative grants and community development block grants can meet. I think those are very important. Do we make decisions on all these funds? No, only about 2.8 percent. I think that anybody in this body who takes their job seriously is going to be seeing needs in their States. They are going to have the ability to identify improvements and projects or buildings that would benefit the communities--particularly the communities most in need, the communities needing a handout. I am proud to have been able to work with the Senator from Maryland and with most of my colleagues. The 1600 requests we had went to communities all over this Nation to try to provide some funds for the top priorities as identified by our colleagues from the 50 States in the Nation. I will be happy to discuss at any length the contention of those who think that community development funds from the Federal Government through the community development block grant are not necessary. They make a great difference, and I do not apologize for the fact that those elected by the voters of the 50 States ought to have a say in allocating 2.8 percent of that. Madam President, I yield the floor and reserve the remainder of my time.

Mr. BOND

Mr. BOND. Madam President, for the past several months I have been waiting patiently for the opportunity promised me to offer testimony on election fraud before the Senate Rules Committee. The committee has held days of hearings in Washington, and they have been on the road. My concern was that perhaps the committee was not interested in vote fraud, was not interested in hearing the details of the criminal activities that took place in Missouri in November of 2000. Certainly, it was not interested in what election law reforms are necessary to attack vote cheats. Unfortunately, I can wait no longer. I am here in the Chamber rather than the committee because, although I was assured I would have the opportunity to testify about the extraordinary circumstances that occurred around the election in St. Louis, and thus make the case for real vote fraud reform, the committee has decided to move ahead without giving me the opportunity to pursue a voting machinery bill before the recess. It is an understatement to say I am disappointed. But rather than dampening my enthusiasm, that disappointment makes me even more committed to the cause. Simply put, it is imperative that we pass legislation this year that makes it easier to vote but harder to cheat. One without the other will not work and will not be acceptable. Voting is the most important duty and responsibility of a citizen of our Republic. It should not and must not be diluted by fraud, by false filings and lawsuits, judges who don't follow the law, and politicians to try to profit from confusion. At the same time, voters should not be unduly confused by complicated ballots and voter rosters or confounded by inadequate phone lines or voting machinery. One simple point as we begin: Vote fraud is not about partisanship. It is not about Democrats versus Republicans. It is not about the north side of St. Louis versus the south side. It is not about ethnic groups or religious groups or interest groups. It affects all citizens. It is about justice, for vote fraud is a criminal, not a political, act. Illegal votes dilute the value of votes cast legally. When people try to stuff the ballot box, what they are really doing is trying to steal political power from those who follow election laws. There can be no graver example of disenfranchisement. The Missouri Court of Appeals wrote: [E]qual vigilance is required to ensure that only those entitled to vote are allowed to cast a ballot. Otherwise, the rights of those lawfully entitled to vote are inevitably diluted. Let's discuss what is vote fraud; how does it work; how widespread is it; how can we stop it. Vote fraud is, at the core, the practice of illegally adding votes to a candidate's vote total or taking them away. It can be done by simply stuffing the ballot box with extra ballots at the end of the voting day. It can be done by voting in the names of people who are dead or otherwise have not voted. It can be done by creating lists of bogus names and addresses and then voting all those fake identities. It can be done in person. It can be done by absentee ballot. It can be done with a judge, incompetent, inattentive or unlawful, who issues a court order. However, it is done, its design and purpose is single-minded: cheat to win. Fortunately, most of the time it does not work. But unfortunately, there are those who argue that because it fails more than it succeeds, it is not a real problem. To those who make that argument, I recommend they take a few moments to review the comments of an old friend of mine with whom I served when I was Governor of Missouri. He is from the other party but is an active leader. State Representative Quincy Troupe stated this year, after news of the vote fraud came out in St. Louis: In this town, to win in a close election ``you have to beat the cheat.'' That is the cry in St. Louis, people trying to cheat to win. The impulse has been around since the dawn of civilization. Parents, teachers, and coaches tried mightily to instill in us that we should play fair, abide by the rules, and 99 percent of the time their lessons took root. Unfortunately, not everybody has gotten the message. Every day we read stories of consumer fraud, the selling of test scores, point shaving scandals, stock swindles, real estate scams. I suppose we should not be shocked that people also try to steal votes and, ultimately, elections. Because we are a nation of laws and we have basic faith that people will play fair, we simply don't like it when people try to cheat to win. That, of course, is what voter fraud is all about. Unfortunately, we in Missouri saw it in this past election. No one wants his or her State to become a poster child for a problem, the hometown become a laughingstock. So it is with dismay that I come before my colleagues today to describe what has gone on in St. Louis, what is going on, what reforms I believe are vital. Missouri's secretary of state has just completed a comprehensive review of election 2000, centered around four basic voter fraud schemes, the question of felons voting, as well as reviewing the actions by local judges and the now infamous dead-man-claims-long- lines-keep-him-from-voting court case. The four vote fraud schemes regularly practiced across the country are: Did individuals register and vote more than once; did any dead individuals have votes cast in their names; were false names/addresses voted; were drop sites used to give individuals multiple voting identities. Each of these are classic vote fraud schemes designed to allow a small number of people to cast numerous votes either by absentee ballots or by moving from polling place to polling place and voting multiple names from the voter list. Each scheme relies on access to registered voter lists in order to know what names to use, knowledge of the false names, or requires the individuals to have control of the absentee ballots. In one common form of absentee ballot fraud, the drop site scam, the individuals used in the scheme simply register, usually by mail, multiple names at one address and then request absentee ballots for all their new roommates, phantom though they might be, and they vote all of the ballots coming into those invisible roomies. Sad to say, each of these schemes was in use on election day in Missouri. In reviewing only 2 of Missouri's 114 counties, the secretary of state found 14 probable drop sites where there were at least 8 registered voters, 8 registered voters in one house, with another 200 possible sites requiring further review. We had 68 dual registered people who voted twice. Good luck, folks. I think your day is coming. There were 79 vacant lots used as addresses for voters, and 14 dead people voted--certainly an inspiring theological effort, but one that is disappointing politically. In addition, this investigation found that 114 felons voted and over 1,200 people who were not registered at all voted--in direct contravention of Missouri law. These people went before judges and said, ``I want to vote.'' The Missouri Constitution says you have to be registered to vote. The judges said: You look like a nice guy or lady, so we are going to let you vote. That is illegal; that is fraud; that is criminal. As I said, for each of the drop sites, the secretary of state used an eight-person rule--meaning he only reviewed those sites that showed eight or more registered voters at one address. And his staff only visited 20 percent of the total sites identified. Only law enforcement would be able to determine how many illegal votes were cast from these sites. However, those responsible for voting twice, voting dead persons' names, and creating false addresses were obviously violating the law. There can be no question that criminal fraud occurred. What can be done to protect us from this cheating in the future? In our review of the secretary of state's report, it is clear that a fundamental requirement for fraud is voter list manipulation. Bogus names are added with the intent to vote them absentee. Voters who have moved or died are left on the lists in order to create a pool of names to be voted, and the sheer confusion of clogged up voter rolls is used to further complicate efforts by election officials to keep the votes legal. My staff's review of the voter lists in St. Louis has found rolls so clogged with incorrect, fraudulent data it almost defies description. The number of registered voters threatens to outnumber the voting age population. A total of 247,000-plus St. Louis residents, dead or alive, are listed as registered voters compared with the city's voting age population of 258,000. That is a whopping 96-percent registration rate. The reason why: Almost 70,000 St. Louis residents, or 28 percent, are on the inactive voter list. That means 1 in 4 eligible St. Louis voters cannot be located by the U.S. Postal Service as actually living where the voter rolls say they are registered. More than 23,000 people in St. Louis are also registered elsewhere in Missouri. That means 1 in 10 are at least dual registered. Over 17,000 voters still are listed as registered in the city, even after moving out and registering at new addresses. Nearly 700 voters are registered twice in St. Louis. No fewer than 400 are registered once in the city and twice more elsewhere in the State. And five Missouri voters are registered at four different places across the State. Though dead for 10 years, former St. Louis Alderman Albert ``Red'' Villa was actually registered to vote this spring in the city's mayoral primary. Ritzy Meckler, a mixed-breed dog, was also registered to vote in St. Louis. We don't know her party preference, but I won't go into the ``voting is going to the dogs'' line. This spring, a city grand jury began an investigation of 3,800 voter registration cards dumped on the election board on the last day to register before the March 6 primary: Press reports initially noted that at least 1,000 were bogus registrations for people already registered. The U.S. attorney has now taken over the case, and a Federal grand jury investigation is underway, as the FBI has recently issued a subpoena to the St. Louis Election Board for records pertaining to any person who registered to vote between October 1 of last year and March 6 of this year. They also requested all records of anyone who cast absentee ballots or regular ballots, as well as anyone who was turned away from voting. It is obvious that there has been brazen fraud with these bogus voter registrations. With dead people registering, fake names on voter lists, and phony addresses, it is painfully clear that the system is being abused. The only conclusion: Reform is imperative. There are three key weaknesses in the current system: the ease in which drop sites can be created; the ability of individuals to imposter others and vote in their name; and dual registrations. The drop sites are a direct result of allowing mail-in or drop-off registration without also requiring some form of authentication that the names being registered are of people actually existing. This creates pools of false names on the voter rolls. Because absentee voting after mail-in registration is allowed, it is very easy for those bent on cheating to cast votes for people who never existed. This clearly is in need of reform. Second, the ability of individuals to pose as others is directly dependent upon what type of identification is required for people voting. In the St. Louis mayoral primary this past March, as a result of the attention I and others brought to this situation, they required photo IDs, and there were no complaints of voter impersonation or voter intimidation. Obviously, the ability to pose as another would be severely restricted with a simple photo ID requirement. St. Louis may have had an honest election. It should be celebrated in the history of Missouri. The March election was an honest one. Third, the number of dual registrations creates a huge pool of names for the unscrupulous to abuse. It also causes confusion for the legitimate voters. A statewide database would clearly eliminate most dual registrations. That is certainly one of the recommendations of the Carter-Ford Commission that deserves support. However, as simple as these reforms may be, the problems are deeper. For example, motor voter actually blocks States from requiring notarization or other forms of authentication on mail-in registration cards. Given that nearly all of the fraudulent registrations were mail-in forms, it is obvious that we need to make real reforms in this area. At a minimum, States need to be given the authority to require on mail registration forms a place for notarization or other authentication. Under current law, States are actually prohibited from including this safeguard. This is one obvious place where the Federal law is clearly an impediment to antifraud efforts. Why do we so easily require a photo ID to board a plane or to buy beer and cigarettes, while leaving the ballot box undefended? Motor voter has also built a system whereby once bogus names are registered, it is impossible to get them off the lists. Current Federal law blocks a person's removal from the rolls unless he or she is reported dead, requests removal, or the U.S. Postal Service returns certified election board mailings to the person as ``undeliverable'' and the person fails to vote in two successive Federal elections. When names are added to vote lists for fraudulent purposes, they certainly are not going to request removal, or they certainly are not going to forget to vote. If you have gone to the trouble to register somebody fraudulently, you are going to vote them in every election. What protections do we have? None. We passed the motor voter bill with best intentions. Unfortunately, we now have proof that the very mechanism designed to boost voter participation has turned the Nation's voter rolls into a tangled mess. In Missouri, we saw how the motor voter flaws paralyzed the St. Louis Election Board last year. The board's inability to maintain its lists invited brazen vote fraud, now the subject of a Federal criminal probe. In Florida, St. Louis, and elsewhere, sloppy maintenance of voter rolls fueled charges of minority disenfranchisement. The legacy of the motor voter bill is that while it tried to boost voter participation, it may, in fact, now be responsible for reducing the integrity of and confidence in our elections. The best election ``reform'' Congress can undertake this year is to go back and fix the flaws in the law we passed 7 years ago. We need to get a handle on the voter lists. People who register and follow the rules should not be frustrated by inadequate polling places and phone lines, or confused by out-of-date lists. At the same time, we must require the voter list to be scrubbed and reviewed in a much more timely manner--so cheaters cannot use confusion as their friend. It is time we got rid of St. Louis's lasting reputation, described my old friend Quincy Troop this way: The only way you can win a close election in this town, you have to beat the cheat. Madam President, I thank the Chair and my colleagues. I yield the floor.