Kit Bond

Mr. BOND

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, let me just check on the time status. We are to begin the votes at 1:50; is that correct?

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I thank the distinguished chair of the subcommittee, the Senator from Maryland, for explaining why this is an important but misdirected amendment. First, I express my sincere appreciation to the chair of the subcommittee for including in the bill the money that was zeroed out by the administration for the drug elimination program. I worked with the distinguished senior Senator from North Carolina several years ago to include money for eliminating drugs in public housing because it has been our heartfelt belief for a long time that we need to make assisted housing--whether it be public housing or whether it be section 8 financed housing--the kind of housing where a mother, or mother and father, would want to raise their children in a proper atmosphere. Getting drugs out of public housing, making sure it is safe, is probably one of the very first steps in addition to keeping the rain out and keeping the cold out in winter. Making sure it is safe and drug free is vitally important. I was very disappointed that the administration zeroed it out. We now have it back in the bill, and there is the flexibility in the PHAs to use this money however they want. The amendment by the Senator, my good friend from New York, would establish a $15 million set-aside in the public housing drug elimination fund for the gun buyback program. It is unnecessary because right now, if they wish to do so, a PHA can use money for the buyback. It takes away the choice and the decision from the local levels. Local public housing authorities can conduct drug buy-back programs under the drug elimination grant. The bottom line is it is not mandatory. The PHA makes a choice, based upon its need to eliminate crime and illegal drug activity, what is the best thing we can do in this community to protect our friends and neighbors from drug crime. That is a legitimate choice. I support that local choice, despite the fact to my knowledge there is no evidence that gun buyback programs actually reduce crime or illegal drug activity. They make people feel good. It is a feel-good program. But let me ask you, my colleagues. Let's apply a commonsense test. Sometimes back home some of the things you hear on the street corner at the place where you have breakfast make a whole lot more sense than some of the very sophisticated things that we discuss up here. I was talking to some of the guys out at the livestock market breakfast place where I go out for breakfast every Saturday morning. They said: Tell me. If you were a criminal and they had a gun buyback program, would you go in and sell your gun to the gun buyback program? I said: What do you mean? Say the cops or the PHA have a gun buyback program. Rather than using my good gun to go out and make holdups, I am going to get $5 for the buyback. He said: No. You find an old gun that doesn't work, or you go out and steal a few more guns. Say I have 15 or 20 guns that are inoperable, outdated, and ineffective. I will trade them in. You know what I can do with that money. I can either get drugs or buy some ammunition for my good gun. Ask the gang back home. Go to the town square and ask them. How many criminals do you think are going to sell their guns to the buyback program? They are going to tell you none, or fewer. That is just common sense. I don't believe there is any evidence on the other side. Having that said, if PHA believes it will make everybody feel good, and if they think it will help to use money for a gun buyback program, go for it. But I tell you it is one program that I just think doesn't meet the commonsense test. It just does not make any sense to me. I urge my colleagues to leave the discretion with the public housing authorities and not seek to take money away from security needs, or from other things, or from programs that have some questions about it. I reserve the remainder of my time, and I yield the floor.

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I yield myself 5 minutes from the opponent's time.

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, the Senator from Florida raises a valid concern. We certainly want to ensure that our playgrounds, boardwalks, and backyard decks are not harmful to our children's health, our grandparents' health, or to our neighbors' health. The issue of arsenic in the ground around playgrounds receives considerable attention, as has already been indicated. Let me be more specific. This issue is of great concern to two agencies funded in this bill, both the EPA and the Consumer Product Safety Commission. For the information of all my colleagues, the CPSC has jurisdiction over treated-wood products and any risks that might come from them when the wood products are used for playground sets and decks; the EPA has jurisdiction over the chemicals used to treat the wood. These chemicals are used to prevent the wood in our decks, boardwalks, and playground sets from rotting and therefore becoming unstable and unsafe. Both agencies have been working to ensure that treated-wood products are safe. I can appreciate the frustration the Senator from Florida feels about the delay in seeing a result to those studies. EPA currently oversees a voluntary labeling program so that consumers who purchase treated-wood products are made aware of the potential risks from the chemicals. Admittedly, the program can be more effective. EPA has learned that the program has flaws and is now working to improve that program. By this fall, every piece of chemically treated wood will be labeled and there will be better information made available to the public. I sympathize with Senator Nelson on the media attention in his State on wood products treated with chromated copper arsenic, or CCA. As I said, EPA has already established a voluntary labeling program. There has been extensive pressure on wood preserver manufacturers to ensure voluntary compliance. Caution labels with EPA-approved wording will be affixed to CCA-treated lumber within 90 days, and information signs will appear in lumber stores and home centers in about 30 days. For the information of my colleagues and those who might be watching, there is a Web site, www.ccasafetyinfo.com, and a toll-free number, 800-282-0600, to answer consumer questions in both English and Spanish. The products, while they may sound bad, have previously been approved by EPA and the Consumer Product Safety Commission. They have been in use for over 70 years. As far as we are aware, no scientifically peer reviewed medical or science journal has ever documented harm to anyone from the regular use of CCA-treated wood. In spite of this, EPA and the CPSC are taking steps to put any doubt to rest by conducting further reviews specifically on the risk to children. As the manager of the bill, the chair of the subcommittee, has indicated, there is to be peer-reviewed scientific discussion early in October, depending upon when this bill gets enacted. Thirty days may or may not cover it. But it is clear that we will adopt it. I urge my colleagues to support the amendment that would make sure we do not wait until 2003 to get the results. We do not yet know when the scientific information can be ready, but whether it is 30 days or 45 days or 60 days, I am confident it will, and must, be during this calendar year, and sooner rather than later. Sometimes you can set any deadline you want, but if you do not have the scientific reviews, if they physically cannot get in, you cannot come up with the study. I am sure EPA will do the study. This amendment, that I trust will be adopted overwhelmingly, will send a clear signal to them that they must put all due speed behind it and get this study completed as quickly as humanly possible. Again, I urge my colleagues to support the amendment. I thank the Senator for framing it in a way that makes good sense.

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, my sincere thanks to my colleague from Maryland. Obviously, this is the most important thing we have to do. I share Senator Mikulski's view we should begin discussion of this serious concern of the Senator from Florida. We look forward to working with the Senator. I thank the Chair and the manager on the Democratic side, who has a very good idea. Normally, when she has a good idea, it is much more successful than some of the other approaches that might be taken. I offer that as a humble suggestion.

Mr. BOND. There is no objection on this side. We believe this is an appropriate accommodation.

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, it is with mixed emotions that I rise to respond to the amendment offered by my good friend from Arizona, mixed emotions because, No. 1, I could not agree more with the emphasis he has put on the need for clean water, safe drinking water, and proper water infrastructure in this country. One of the most important things we do on this committee is to get the money that we need to assure healthy water--healthy wastewater systems and healthy drinking water systems throughout this country. When we look at the needs for water infrastructure, they are overwhelming. We have an annual shortfall of funding of about $12 billion per year for clean water. Over the next 20 years it is estimated we are going to need $200 billion in water infrastructure. That excludes operation and maintenance. We, the distinguished chair and I, have fought every year to increase the amount of money set out by OMB. We have always said the President is underfunding water, but we all know OMB represents the bad guys. They have always decided to cut the money going to the State revolving funds to fund other priorities. So each year we have taken the inadequate--grossly inadequate--funds for State revolving funds for water infrastructure and increased them. We have increased them because even with the increases we have been able to include, we are falling far short. I do not think there is any other environmental program which has the potential to have more impact on the health of this country than assuring clean drinking water, safe drinking water, and cleaning up wastewater. If we do not do those jobs well, we will have failed in the most basic health requirements for our country. I have heard, in every area of this country, the cries for more water infrastructure. There is not a community in this country, I do not believe, urban or rural, that does not have tremendous funding needs to upgrade water and sewer systems: Baltimore, MD, St. Louis, MO, Safford, AZ. We all need it. It could be Delaware--the whole State could use some. I know because this is a broad-scale problem. I appreciate the Senator from Arizona raising it to the level of bringing it to the floor because I have been adamant, demanding of our ranking member on EPW and our chairman of EPW that they focus on water problems. I am a humble toiling servant of the EPW committee, and I have said we have to have water issues high on our agenda. It has been too long since we have dealt with the Clean Water Act. Certainly the funding formula ought to be one component of that review because we have tremendous water needs throughout our country. Whether it is east coast, west coast, the Great Plains, the South, the North, we have water needs. That is why I am glad he brought it up. The other part of the emotion is it is the wrong place. I am sorry, but we cannot deal with reviewing a complicated formula as part of an overarching programmatic review that is needed on the entire water issue on this appropriations bill. We come to the floor and we have just now received an amendment. The amendment says that its proportional share, if there is a minimum of .675 percent and a maximum of 8 percent but the State proportional share is greater than the minimum, then they shall receive 97.5 percent of the proportionate share. If we fell below the minimum, if we really were way down and we fell below a minimum somehow, then we would be shut out. What happens to those who fall below the minimum? What happens to those who are above the maximum? How do you calculate the proportionate share? These are all issues that ought to be worked out in a committee markup. They are complicated issues. I have questions that I could debate all day long on how to make this formula work. I do not want to do that in this Chamber. I don't think we have time to do that here. I would like to have my staff spend time, working on a bipartisan basis with the staffs of both sides, with the EPA, with the others who are knowledgeable, to figure out how this works, getting input from the States and the localities that receive the funds to see how it works. Then I can turn in anger and disgust to a staff member if they cannot explain it to me. Right now we are looking at something that I think has great problems. For that reason, among many others, I say, please, let's take this to the authorizing committee. If the author of this amendment had come to me last year or the year before or the year before or the year before, I would have been more than happy to sign on to a bill that says let's update this formula. I would be happy to sign on. And I have supported broader measures that said let's deal with this whole problem and figure out how we are going to meet the $200 billion water infrastructure needs over the next 20 years. This is a vitally important matter for human health. We talk about a lot of things that have only that much, that tiny impact on the health of our country. We spend so much time debating things that are about a gnat's eyebrow worth of difference, if we do this or do that. What we are talking about now is something that makes a huge difference, that makes a difference between whether communities are healthy, whether the children, the older people, the people who are sick, who are needy, are getting healthy water. Are the people in that community subject to the disease that comes from untreated wastewater? These are vitally important questions that need to be referred to the committee. I know the new chairman of the committee has put this issue at the top of his agenda. I know EPA is currently working on a needs survey for clean water funding. I understand the survey will be completed in early 2002. I would love to get in the middle of the debate over how we utilize these SRF funds. I would like for the authorizing committee to send a clear signal to OMB, to our Budget Committee, and to the Appropriations Committee that we need more money in State revolving funds, or find another means of funding them, because we are falling far behind. I appreciate very much this significant issue being raised. I know if I were in Arizona I would want to have a good water infrastructure myself because you get thirsty out there in the heat. But this, unfortunately, as the Senator so well surmised, is not the place, this is not the time, and this is not the vehicle. I wish him well in some other venue. I will be a strong supporter trying to help him get it done. I urge and plead with my colleagues to recognize the importance of the issue he raised but to vote against it.

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

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, we are waiting for 10:30 for the Senator from Arizona to offer an amendment. If there is no business on this bill, I ask unanimous consent to be permitted to proceed up to 10 minutes as in morning business.

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

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.

Mr. BOND

Mr. BOND. It is a vote on the confirmation of the nomination of Asa Hutchinson?

Mr. BOND. I understand after this vote there will be 30 minutes equally divided on the nomination of Mr. Hutchinson prior to the confirmation vote on the nomination; is that correct?

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, now that we are thoroughly edified, may I return to the Wellstone amendment? What my colleague, the chairman, has said is quite true. Veterans, veterans health care particularly, has been the top priority, and will be the top priority, of this committee. In a time of tight budgets, we provided a $400 million increase over the President's request for VA medical care. This is $1.1 billion over the current fiscal year. This is why I say VA medical care is again our top priority in this bill. This continues our commitment to our Nation's veterans, to ensure that they receive the health care they deserve. We have heard about flat funding. I can say that in the past several years this committee has worked very hard to increase, significantly over the President's budget request, the amount we apply for veterans health care. In the past 2 fiscal years, we added $3 billion to the President's request for medical care in order to ensure no veterans would be turned away, no layoffs of critical medical staff would occur, and that funds needed for treating hepatitis C, the homeless, the mentally ill, and other critically important needs of veterans would be fully funded. As a result, the VA has been treating more veterans in its medical program than ever. We intend to assure that they can continue to treat those veterans with the highest degree of medical care. This budget would provide for additional substantial increases for hepatitis C screening, treatment, new long-term care programs, and for a continued increase in the number of veterans served by the VA medical system. I believe everybody in this body wants to make sure we provide all of the funds we can possibly find and that can be well used by the VA. I question, however, two points: No. 1, busting the budget agreement--spending more money than has been allocated to this committee--but, secondly, why we would wish to provide additional scarce resources to the veterans medical care account when the VA has advised us they will likely not be able to spend all those funds in fiscal year 2002--the funds we have just provided. In fact, according to VA's own budget, they already expect to have about $1 billion in carryover funds in this current year going into the next fiscal year under their budget request. They could not spend more than the funds that are already provided in this bill for veterans health care, in addition to medical care funding, which we all agree is vitally important. We have included a number of other significant funding items to improve the condition of our veterans. For example, we provided an increase of $30 million over the President's request to fund medical research. We want to make sure that the health care provided to our veterans is the finest available and that we are doing research on the leading edge. This places the VA medical research account at a record level of $390 million. That is how we attract and maintain top quality researchers and health care providers in the system. We have also restored cuts to the State home construction program to increase the number of nursing home care facilities for veterans. Our funding would also support the opening of 33 more community-based outpatient clinics to improve access and service delivery. As one who travels around my State, I find the community-based outpatient clinics to be the best innovation we have developed in the past 10 years to make sure that health care is readily available, convenient, accessible, and efficient for veterans. When the time expires, I will raise a point of order. I will yield the floor now for any comments my colleagues wish to make.

Mr. BOND. I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, this is an extremely important amendment. It should be an important amendment for every Member of this body. Unfortunately, we do not know for which Members it will be important because we do not know where the next disaster will strike. Based on our past experience, as the chair has mentioned, there are problems along the coast. We have tornadoes, we have hurricanes, we also have fires in the West, and we still do floods, and wherever these disasters strike, FEMA must be ready to respond. If we do not have a problem, then the money is not spent. With the release of the $583 million in contingent disaster relief for previously declared disasters, including the assistance of victims of tropical storm Allison, several States of recent storms, flooding in Montana, Texas, West Virginia, and Virginia, and other declared disasters, there are no additional funds available for release this year. FEMA is perilously close to a situation where it does not have enough disaster funds for the rest of the year. We do not know where or when or what kind of disaster will strike, but we do know we should not roll the dice and be without this funding available to FEMA should it be needed. FEMA provides critical assistance in times of emergency. We want to be sure they have this emergency assistance available. I join with my colleague in asking it be adopted.

Mr. BOND. I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, it has been suggested that we find a time to be agreed upon for a vote on the motion to waive the point of order which will be raised. I wish to speak only about 5 minutes. I see the distinguished assistant majority leader in the Chamber. Mr. President, I ask consent that there be 15 minutes of debate prior to a vote in relation to the Wellstone amendment No. 1218, with the time equally divided between Senators Wellstone, Mikulski, and Bond.

Mr. BOND. And there would be no second-degree amendments in order.

Mr. BOND

Mr. BOND. What is the time remaining of the Senator from New Mexico?

Mr. BOND. Madam President, it is acceptable on this side.

Mr. BOND. Madam President, I thank my colleagues for their very thoughtful debate. I believe tonight if people are listening they understand some of the difficulties we face. Nobody wants to see arsenic in drinking water. It has been so eloquently stated by the Senator from New Mexico and the Senator from Montana. There are parts of our country where arsenic occurs naturally. One of the actions we need to take is to make sure we improve the quality of our drinking water and lessen exposure to arsenic but do so in a way that does not cause greater dangers. One of the greatest dangers that we face as we listen to our colleagues from the States where there are small water systems which have naturally occurring arsenic from geological formations in their drinking water, we need to make sure the burdens of meeting a very low standard are not so significant that a lack of resources forces those public water systems to shut down. The result of imposing too great a financial burden on those small water systems could be they shut down and people have to go back to drinking well water or other untreated water with potentially even higher levels of arsenic. That is a part of this debate in the past that has not been fully set out. I call the attention of my colleagues to an amendment offered last year to strike the provision in the bill that delayed until June 22 of this year the deadline for finalizing the rule on arsenic in drinking water. I supported the inclusion of that measure in the VA-HUD bill because we noted in 1996 Congress set a schedule under which EPA was to update the arsenic standard for drinking water. At the time EPA told us they were behind schedule and they would not be fully prepared. Last fall the EPA told us they would not be ready until April or May and they had not had time to evaluate the concerns expressed about the proposed rule that had been issued on the delayed basis. Many small communities expressed their concern about the proposed rule because if it were implemented it would prove prohibitively expensive for their customers and they set out lots of specific examples. For example, in Utah, the Heartland Mobile Home Park would have to charge $230 per month per customer under the rule. So they said let us delay the rule. In the bill last year we said: Delay the implementation of the EPA standard until you have had a chance to look at it. I am pleased to say that 63 Members of this body agreed with us and tabled the amendment that would have stricken that provision. Therefore, 63 Members--45 Republicans, 18 Democrats--said: Yes, it makes sense to delay the final issuance of this arsenic rule. It is not to be effective until 2006, not until 2006. So we said: EPA, get the job done right before you issue the regulation. There has been so much misinformation about this rule that I thought we ought to take a moment to set out what it does and does not do. We know it will be 5 years, 2006, before the new standard is implemented. Whether the new standard was set last January or June or November or February, the current year will not matter because we will still hit the same implementation time deadline. There is no greater danger for people living in areas with high naturally occurring amounts of arsenic. I think the concerns of the communities in New Mexico, Michigan, Montana, and other States need to be addressed. But I express my sincere thanks to the Senator from California for having offered an amendment which says, in essence, what EPA needs to do, what they are committed to do, and what they are on track to do, and that is to establish a new national primary drinking water regulation that establishes a standard providing for the protection of the population in general, taking fully into account the special needs population. That is what this amendment does, and I think that is a happy resolution of this situation. We need to realize that the standard goes into effect in 2006. Last year, 63 Members of this body said we ought to delay the issuance of that standard until June. When the new EPA came in and delayed the standard, people said many things that were not true. They overlooked the fact that 18 Democrats had voted with 45 Republicans to say it is time to delay it. By the time this bill is enacted into law, the National Academy of Sciences will tell us the standards necessary to protect our health, the administration will complete the standard in a way that protects our health and does not impose unnecessary costs on our small towns or force the closure of water systems in small towns whose absence would lead to a much higher level of arsenic in well water or other sources of drinking water for the inhabitants, and we will meet the original implementation deadline. I believe we have reached an appropriate accommodation. I thank the Senator from New Mexico particularly, who has been a very thoughtful participant in all of these discussions and has articulated well the serious problems faced in these small communities, for his agreement that this amendment is appropriate and will allow the EPA flexibility to develop a safe, commonsense arsenic standard. It is my understanding, although I do not have a written copy of any approval, that the administration believes this is an appropriate way to deal with this question of arsenic in drinking water, particularly the naturally occurring arsenic. I thank all of my colleagues. I urge an overwhelming support of this requirement that the EPA set a drinking water standard for arsenic. I yield the floor. I thank the Senator from New Mexico.

Mr. BOND. Madam President, how much time remains?

Mr. BOND. I desire to speak.

Mr. BOND

Mr. BOND. Madam President, I rise today to introduce a bill I call the ``Better Medicine for Children Act.'' This legislation deals with a problem that pediatricians have been confronted with for years, while doctors have a huge variety and choice of medicines to prescribe for different medical conditions, they don't always have enough specific information on how well these drugs work in children. The Food and Drug Administration tells us that for about 70 to 80 percent of all drugs on the market, we do not have sufficient pediatric information. The FDA has identified more than 400 drugs which are used in children for whom we need more data. Without pediatric testing for a specific drug, we may now know the proper dose to give to children of different ages or sizes. Without testing, we may not know if the drug is as effective as it is in adults, or even if it works in children at all. Almost all health care practitioners have faced difficult issues because of this scarcity of pediatric drug information. I want to share a story I have been told that points out exactly how important this pediatric information can be. This real story involves an 18-month-old little boy who was in an intensive care unit following some serious surgery. He was under sedation from a drug known as propofol. At that time, we did not have much specific information on how this drug affected children, but some doctors prescribed the drug for children anyway because they honestly thought it was the best option. For this infant, it clearly was not, because of an adverse reaction to the drug, that baby developed acidosis and had a heart rhythm disturbance, causing a truly life-threatening incident. Fortunately, this little boy did recover. But this was by no means a sure thing. Back in 1997, Congress decided to deal with this problem. We passed a law that gave pharmaceutical companies a strong incentive to do more pediatric testing so we can get this crucial information. If the company agreed to perform needed pediatric studies on a drug, and did the study exactly as requested by the Food and Drug Administration, the company would get a six-month extension on that drug's patent. The results have been amazing. Hundreds of pediatric drug studies are underway and are producing huge amounts of new drug information for kids. One example of new information is the drug propofol, the very drug I mentioned earlier that caused a serious problem for the 18-month-old boy in the ICU. What they found in extensive pediatric studies done on propofol as a result of the new incentive is that the drug is more dangerous than other alternatives that could be used to sedate pediatric ICU patients. So because of this testing, propofol would not be used in the same situation today. And that little boy wouldn't have had a life- threatening incident. So if this incentive exists, and all of this new pediatric testing is being done, what's the problem? Well, there are actually at least three problems. My legislation will deal with each of them. First, the incentives expire at the end of this year. My ``Better Medicine for Children Act'' will extend this important and successful program for five more years. Second, because the incentive used to encourage pediatric testing is an extended patent life, there's actually no incentive to do pediatric studies in drugs whose patent or patents have already expired. My legislation will authorize $200 million in funding so that tests can be performed on these off-patent drugs. The need here is great, of the 400-plus drugs the FDA has singled out for further pediatric study, more than one-third are off-patent. With regard to these first two pieces of my bill, I should note my debt to legislation introduced by Senators Dodd and DeWine, from which I have based some of my bill. Senators Dodd and DeWine were the original authors of this critical legislation back in 1997. They had a good idea and a good bill then, and they have a good idea and good legislation now. In fact, as a cosponsor of their bill I am pleased to report that the Dodd-DeWine bill was approved earlier today by the Senate HELP Committee. But my legislation goes beyond other approaches and has a new and unique provision which is not in the Dodd-DeWine bill, and which addresses a third critical problem. This problem is that the new wave of pediatric testing has actually given us relatively little information about how pharmaceuticals affect the youngest children, particularly neonates. This is true because neonates aren't usually included in initial pediatric drug studies for medical or ethical reasons. You would think that as we are talking about legislation to help ``children'' or ``kids,'' that would be helping all children. This certainly should be our expectation, but it is not the case. Unfortunately, the huge success this legislation has had in a broad sense masks the fact that the law doesn't help neonates, those babies less than one month old, and other younger children nearly as much. An excerpt from testimony the American Academy of Pediatrics provided in a HELP Committee hearing last March puts it simply: ``. . . this population'', and here they are talking about neonates, ``has not benefitted significantly from the pediatric studies provision . . .'' Why is this the case? At times, I believe the FDA actually may not have asked for enough information in neonates or younger age groups--in other words, the agency may have just gotten lazy. That problem should be correctable, and in fact it is addressed by the Dodd-DeWine bill. The Dodd-DeWine legislation tries to make sure the FDA always asks for studies in neonates when it is appropriate to do so. But as important as that step is, I don't believe it is enough. Because there are other reasons, beyond simply FDA not asking, why neonates cannot, at times, be included in initial pediatric studies. There may be scientific reasons why the FDA may not always be able to ask for neonate studies. For example, as part of a drug test you may need to take regular blood samples from a test subject. But a neonate only has so much blood, and at some point, too many blood tests could actually create a health problem. However, at some time in the future, the technology may well be developed enough to enable us to do this testing with smaller amounts of blood. At other times, the FDA may not request studies that include the youngest children because of ethical concerns. If we are lacking information that gives us some clue how a neonate might react to a particular drug, perhaps drug information in a nearby age-group, for example, it may actually be dangerous to test a drug in young children. In a report released January that evaluated the entire pediatric incentive provision, the FDA uses the example of neurotropic drugs as ones we may not want to test in the youngest children without more information. But once this other information is developed, these studies may be possible. The end result of all this is that we simply do not perform drug tests in the youngest kids as much. And because of that, we simply don't get as much useful information for younger children that can be put on a drug's label. The drug I discussed earlier today, propofol, is a great example. I spoke about an 18-month-old little boy who, several years ago, had a serious problem when given the drug propofol. Today, a similar 18- month-old boy would not be given propofol under the same circumstances because of what we have learned from the pediatric studies performed in the interim. But propofol is a example of a drug that has now been tested in some children, about which we have learned some very important things, but has not yet been fully tested in the youngest children. Propofol is nonetheless used in younger children, even in neonates, but it has only been labeled far enough to include 2-month- olds. Now, will these companies go back and actually do the studies in the younger kids? Almost certainly not. Under current law, you only get one incentive period, one bite at the apple. That's it. If the last few decades have taught us anything, it is that pediatric studies just do not get done unless there is an economic incentive. Yet with the pediatric incentive already used for these drugs, the younger kids are out of luck. What makes it worse for these younger kids is that there is almost no commercial incentive to study drugs in these age-groups. The raw size of this young population is so small, obviously even smaller than the population of children as a whole, that there is hardly ever sufficient market incentive for a drug company to perform the studies needed to help the youngest children. Again, the FDA reports says it well: ``Once pediatric exclusivity is granted for studies in older pediatric age groups, section 505A does not provide an adequate incentive to conduct later studies in the younger age groups . . . This has left some age groups, especially neonates, unstudied, even where the need for the drug in those age groups is great.'' Children this young are almost certainly facing less-than-optimal health care outcomes--and perhaps even health risks--because they are still being prescribed propofol and similar drugs that haven't been tested in their age group. Of course, we may never know for sure what's happening with some of these drugs. Because, unless we find a way to produce a study in this age group, we will never know for sure how this drug works for the youngest children. My legislation contains a provision that--in limited circumstances-- would provide drug companies with a second patent extension to serve as an incentive to study drugs in the youngest groups of children. I believe this could serve as the incentive to make sure these younger children share fully in the positive results of this legislation. However, understanding the various concerns about possible abuse of a second incentive, increased prices, and high profits, my second incentive is carefully limited. First, the patent extension that serves as the incentive to perform studies in neonates and other young children is three months rather than six. While neonates and infants are extremely important age groups, it is an inescapable fact that there simply aren't as many of these young children running around as there are kids in general. Given this, and the legitimate concerns about marginally raising drug prices by keeping generic drugs off the market longer, I believe that limiting the neonatal incentive to three months is reasonable. Second, unlike the existing pediatric incentives, my proposed second incentive period would not be available to drugs going through the FDA approval process. If a drug company is doing pediatric studies prior to a drug's approval, it should be able to plan a sequential set of studies as part of the first set of pediatric tests. Finally, the possibility of a second incentive period is restricted to drugs that fit one of two categories. First, drugs which cannot initially be studied in neonates or other young children because it is necessary to pursue sequential studies for scientific, medical, or ethical reasons. Second, drugs for which new uses have been discovered and for which drug studies in young children were not originally expected to be useful could qualify for a second incentive period. Given these limits, my expectation is that the majority of drugs would not qualify for a second patent extension if my legislation were to pass. A significant enough amount to make a difference in young children's lives, yes. Enough to produce a tidal wave of additional patent extensions, no. The FDA, from their January report, actually recommended that Congress consider the general idea I am talking about: ``When there is a need to proceed in a sequential manner for the development of pediatric information, FDA should have the option of issuing a second Written Request for the conduct of studies in the relevant younger age group(s). For this option to be meaningful, the second Written Request, after receiving the studies to an initial Written Request and pediatric exclusivity awarded, would be linked with a meaningful incentive to sponsors.'' Before 1997, we had a serious lack of information for children generally, so we provided an incentive to study drugs in children. We now have a lack of information for the youngest children, why not approve a second patent extension period to provide a new incentive for this age group? To me, this simply makes sense. Separately, my bill also contains some provisions to improve the government, institutional, and human infrastructure needed to support pediatric drug testing. This includes a Dodd-DeWine provision to create a new Office of Pediatric Therapeutics within the Food and Drug Administration to monitor and facilitate the new pediatric drug testing. Furthermore, my bill will direct the National Institutes of Health to use programs that support young pediatric researchers to ensure there is an adequate supply of pediatric pharmacology experts to support the revolution in pediatric drug research. Finally, this bill modifies some specific language in the Dodd-DeWine legislation to ensure that the $200 million fund designed to study drugs that have lost all patent life, and thus are not helped by the patent extension incentives--truly focuses on the highest-priority drugs. Even with limited information, we have good medicine for children right now. But with more studies and information, we can, and must, produce better medicine for children.