Kit Bond

Mr. BOND

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I rise to recognize Rosary High School's outstanding accomplishments and to congratulate them on their 40th anniversary and rededication which will take place on April 29, 2001. Originally Archbishop Joseph Ritter dedicated the building for Rosary High School in St. Louis on April 29, 1962. Since its first graduating class in 1965, Rosary High school has proudly graduated 8,000 students. Over the years its students have done an outstanding job of serving the St. Louis community by completing more than 100 hours of community service per student. Rosary High School continues to maintain an excellent academic record with average ACT scores that are above the state and national norms. Fifty percent of their graduating class has received scholarships to college. Rosary High School has excelled in their athletic programs. Over the past 40 years they have repeatedly won the State championship in soccer, as well as championships in volleyball and basketball. Rosary High School is an exemplary High School. The School, faculty, and students are an asset to the St. Louis community. It is my sincerest hope that the next forty years are as successful as the last.

Mr. BOND

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, on February 28, 2001, the Committee on Small Business considered and voted unanimously, 18-0, to report the ``Small Business and Farm Energy Emergency Relief Act of 2001'' (S. 295) to the full Senate. This legislation is designed to assist small businesses and farms to recover from economic injuries resulting from sharp and significant increases in the price of heating oil, natural gas, propane, kerosene, or electricity. S. 295 would permit the Small Business Administration (SBA) to expand its Economic Injury Disaster Loan Program and the Department of Agriculture to expand its Emergency Loan Program so that small businesses and farms could apply for economic injury loans when they are suffering from the significant increases in energy prices. At the time the Committee on Small Business filed the report on S. 295 with the Senate, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) had not completed its cost estimate on the legislation. Under rule XXVI(11)(A)(1) of the Standing Rules of the Senate, the Committee is required to provide an estimate of the cost of the legislation. The CBO cost estimate dated March 21, 2001, provides the cost estimate for S. 295. Therefore, Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the CBO cost estimate on S. 295 be considered part of the official record of the bill and the report with the transmittal letter dated March 21, 2001, be printed in the Record.

Mr. BOND

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I rise today to join my colleague from Arkansas, Senator Hutchinson, in introducing the Real AMT Relief Act of 2001. This bill focuses on an issue of growing concern to many individual taxpayers and especially small business owners, the Alternative Minimum Tax, AMT. The Real AMT Relief Act addresses the increasingly onerous consequences of the individual AMT as well as the corporate AMT. According to the Joint Tax Committee, in 1998, the most recent taxpayer data available, there were 853,000 individual tax returns that paid AMT. That number constituted 0.7 percent of all individual income tax returns--a relatively small number of returns. In contrast, the Joint Tax Committee estimates that by 2011, 11.2 percent of individual income tax returns will have AMT liability, that's more than 16 million taxpayers who will have to grapple with this burdensome tax. Sadly, many of these AMT taxpayers will be individuals in the middle income brackets and not because they are taking advantage of special tax loopholes to avoid paying their share of taxes. No, these hardworking men and women will be hit with the AMT because they are taking advantage of the tax benefits that Congress accorded them, such as the child tax credit, the adoption tax credit, the dependent care tax credit, and the HOPE Scholarship and Lifetime Learning tax credit, to name a few. So instead of receiving a few extra dollars to help raise their children, these taxpayers lose much of these benefits and get to deal with the complex AMT rules as a bonus prize. For other taxpayers, the AMT will not increase their tax bill. But because the AMT is a separate tax system, they will have to calculate their taxes twice, once under the regular rules and a second time under the AMT, just to make sure they do not owe additional taxes. With an already complicated set of tax rules for the regular tax, the last thing these individuals need is a second set of calculations. Another significant group of taxpayers who have largely been forgotten in the AMT debate are the small business owners. According to recent IRS estimates, there were more than 20.7 million tax returns filed by sole-proprietorships, partnerships, and S corporations with receipts of less than $1 million. In contrast, there were 2.75 million C corporations. As a result, a whopping 88 percent of these businesses, with receipts under $1 million, are pass-through entities, businesses that are taxed only at the individual owner level. For these sole proprietors, partners, and S corporation shareholders, the individual AMT increases their tax liability by, among other things, reducing depreciation and depletion deductions, limiting net operating loss treatment, eliminating the deductibility of State and local taxes, and curtailing the expensing of research and experimentation costs. In addition, because of its complexity, this tax forces small business owners to waste precious funds on tax professionals to determine whether the AMT even applies. Just think of the economic growth and new jobs that could be created if we could eliminate the compliance costs of the individual AMT. The Real AMT Relief Act does just that. Based on the recommendation of the IRS National Taxpayer Advocate in his 2001 Report to Congress, the bill provides for the complete repeal of the individual AMT. This will be accomplished by eliminating 20 percent of the AMT each year until it is completely repealed in 2006. That's welcome relief for individual taxpayers and an enormous burden lifted off the shoulders of America's small businesses. For small corporations, the AMT story is much the same, high compliance costs and additional taxes draining away scarce capital from their businesses. In fact, the Committee on Small Business, which I chair, received testimony at a hearing in the last Congress that the corporate AMT resulted in a $95,000 tax bill for one small business in Kansas City, all because the company purchased life insurance on the father, who was the primary owner of the business, to prevent the estate tax from closing the company down. That type of nonsense must come to an end here and now. In 1997, Congress established an exemption from the corporate AMT for small businesses that are organized as taxable corporations if they meet certain gross receipt tests. Under that exemption, a corporation initially qualifies if its average gross receipts were $5 million or less during its first three taxable years beginning after December 31, 1993. Thereafter, a small corporation can continue to qualify for the AMT exemption for so long as its average gross receipts for the prior three-year period do not exceed $7.5 million. With the growth and success of small corporations, it is time to expand that exemption and continue to provide these small enterprises with relief from the corporate AMT. Accordingly, for small corporate taxpayers, the Real AMT Relief Act increases the current exemption from the corporate AMT. As a result, a small corporation will initially qualify for the exemption if its average gross receipts are $7.5 million or less during its first three taxable years. In subsequent years, a small corporation will continue to qualify for as long as its average gross receipts for the prior 3-year period do not exceed $10 million. Mr. President, small businesses represent more than 99 percent of all employers, employ 53 percent of the private work force, and create about 75 percent of the new jobs in this country. In addition, these small firms contribute 57 percent of all sales in this country, and they are responsible for 51 percent of the private gross domestic product. With that kind of performance, small businesses deserve tax relief and simplification. The Real AMT Relief Act comes through on both accounts. I applaud Senator Hutchinson for his leadership on this issue, and I am proud to be the chief co-sponsor of this important legislation.

Mr. BOND

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I rise today to join my colleague from Arkansas, Senator Hutchinson, in introducing the Real AMT Relief Act of 2001. This bill focuses on an issue of growing concern to many individual taxpayers and especially small business owners, the Alternative Minimum Tax, AMT. The Real AMT Relief Act addresses the increasingly onerous consequences of the individual AMT as well as the corporate AMT. According to the Joint Tax Committee, in 1998, the most recent taxpayer data available, there were 853,000 individual tax returns that paid AMT. That number constituted 0.7 percent of all individual income tax returns--a relatively small number of returns. In contrast, the Joint Tax Committee estimates that by 2011, 11.2 percent of individual income tax returns will have AMT liability, that's more than 16 million taxpayers who will have to grapple with this burdensome tax. Sadly, many of these AMT taxpayers will be individuals in the middle income brackets and not because they are taking advantage of special tax loopholes to avoid paying their share of taxes. No, these hardworking men and women will be hit with the AMT because they are taking advantage of the tax benefits that Congress accorded them, such as the child tax credit, the adoption tax credit, the dependent care tax credit, and the HOPE Scholarship and Lifetime Learning tax credit, to name a few. So instead of receiving a few extra dollars to help raise their children, these taxpayers lose much of these benefits and get to deal with the complex AMT rules as a bonus prize. For other taxpayers, the AMT will not increase their tax bill. But because the AMT is a separate tax system, they will have to calculate their taxes twice, once under the regular rules and a second time under the AMT, just to make sure they do not owe additional taxes. With an already complicated set of tax rules for the regular tax, the last thing these individuals need is a second set of calculations. Another significant group of taxpayers who have largely been forgotten in the AMT debate are the small business owners. According to recent IRS estimates, there were more than 20.7 million tax returns filed by sole-proprietorships, partnerships, and S corporations with receipts of less than $1 million. In contrast, there were 2.75 million C corporations. As a result, a whopping 88 percent of these businesses, with receipts under $1 million, are pass-through entities, businesses that are taxed only at the individual owner level. For these sole proprietors, partners, and S corporation shareholders, the individual AMT increases their tax liability by, among other things, reducing depreciation and depletion deductions, limiting net operating loss treatment, eliminating the deductibility of State and local taxes, and curtailing the expensing of research and experimentation costs. In addition, because of its complexity, this tax forces small business owners to waste precious funds on tax professionals to determine whether the AMT even applies. Just think of the economic growth and new jobs that could be created if we could eliminate the compliance costs of the individual AMT. The Real AMT Relief Act does just that. Based on the recommendation of the IRS National Taxpayer Advocate in his 2001 Report to Congress, the bill provides for the complete repeal of the individual AMT. This will be accomplished by eliminating 20 percent of the AMT each year until it is completely repealed in 2006. That's welcome relief for individual taxpayers and an enormous burden lifted off the shoulders of America's small businesses. For small corporations, the AMT story is much the same, high compliance costs and additional taxes draining away scarce capital from their businesses. In fact, the Committee on Small Business, which I chair, received testimony at a hearing in the last Congress that the corporate AMT resulted in a $95,000 tax bill for one small business in Kansas City, all because the company purchased life insurance on the father, who was the primary owner of the business, to prevent the estate tax from closing the company down. That type of nonsense must come to an end here and now. In 1997, Congress established an exemption from the corporate AMT for small businesses that are organized as taxable corporations if they meet certain gross receipt tests. Under that exemption, a corporation initially qualifies if its average gross receipts were $5 million or less during its first three taxable years beginning after December 31, 1993. Thereafter, a small corporation can continue to qualify for the AMT exemption for so long as its average gross receipts for the prior three-year period do not exceed $7.5 million. With the growth and success of small corporations, it is time to expand that exemption and continue to provide these small enterprises with relief from the corporate AMT. Accordingly, for small corporate taxpayers, the Real AMT Relief Act increases the current exemption from the corporate AMT. As a result, a small corporation will initially qualify for the exemption if its average gross receipts are $7.5 million or less during its first three taxable years. In subsequent years, a small corporation will continue to qualify for as long as its average gross receipts for the prior 3-year period do not exceed $10 million. Mr. President, small businesses represent more than 99 percent of all employers, employ 53 percent of the private work force, and create about 75 percent of the new jobs in this country. In addition, these small firms contribute 57 percent of all sales in this country, and they are responsible for 51 percent of the private gross domestic product. With that kind of performance, small businesses deserve tax relief and simplification. The Real AMT Relief Act comes through on both accounts. I applaud Senator Hutchinson for his leadership on this issue, and I am proud to be the chief co-sponsor of this important legislation.

Mr. BOND

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I rise to make a few remarks regarding the tremendous contributions Norma Lea Mihalevich has made to her community, her state, and to public education. It isn't often that we can recognize someone who has devoted her life to public service, but Norma Lea Mihalevich has done just that. As a lifelong resident of Pulaski County in Missouri, Norma Lea has spent the past 24 years in Crocker, MO as Mayor. Her continued re-election has been a stamp of approval on the outstanding job she has done. Norma Lea Mihalevich has also demonstrated her commitment to public education by her service on the Crocker R-II Board of Education for the past forty-nine years. In addition, she has served as a member of the Missouri School Boards' Association's Board of Directors for eleven years. Ms. Mihalevich knows that the key to improving public education is public involvement on the local level. She has definitely led by example and in 1985 she was named as Missouri Pioneer in Education by the Missouri Department of Elementary and Secondary Education. It is an honor for me to tell my colleagues about Norma Lea. She is an outstanding individual and example for others. Her service, and commitment to service, is something of which we should all be proud.

Mr. BOND

Mr. BOND. I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Mr. BOND. I thank the Chair. (The remarks of Mr. Bond pertaining to the introduction of S. 528 are located in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced Bills and Joint Resolutions.'')

Mr. BOND

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, today I rise to introduce a commonsense election reform bill which we have entitled the Safeguard the Vote Act. I realize other reform issues have received a lot of media attention, but I think it is vital to focus on the fundamental issue of casting and counting votes honestly and fairly as well. Over the past months, many Americans saw for the first time how actual vote counting is done or not done. We have had a real-life civics lesson that was as unexpected as it was frustrating. Those of us in positions of responsibility need to fix what needs fixing, reform what needs reforming, and prosecute where actual wrongdoing has occurred. Voting is the most important civic duty and responsibility for citizens in our form of government. It should not be diluted by fraud, false filings in lawsuits, judges who do not follow the law, politicians who try to profit from confusion, and people who just abuse the system. Let me be clear, at the same time voters must not be unduly confused by complicated ballots or confounded by inadequate phone lines or voting booths. These barriers to voting are absolutely unacceptable, and we need to make sure they do not exist. Having said that--and I believe very strongly in it--I also say to some who want to hide the other abuses, do not try to use general confusion as an excuse or a justification for fraud. I want to make one simple point as I 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 of St. Louis. It is not about somebody getting a partisan advantage. It is about justice. 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. On election night in November of 2000, I was exercised and somewhat upset, one might say, as we learned about what was going on in St. Louis city where orders had been issued to keep the voting booths open in certain areas for an extended period of time. Lawyers appealed that decision, and the Missouri Court of Appeals shut them down. They 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. Unfortunately, what we have seen in St. Louis these past months has been nothing short of breathtaking. Some might say that we have even become a national laughingstock. We have dead people registering by mail. This city alderman died more than 10 years ago. He was registered to vote on cards turned in just before the March 6 mayoral primary. We had people registering from vacant lots. The media in St. Louis was very aggressive, and they checked on some of the voter addresses. There was no building there. They did not even see the tents in which people were living. Voter rolls in St. Louis had more names on the registered active and inactive list than there were people in St. Louis city. It begins to raise suspicions. A city judge exceeded the law by providing extended voting hours for only selected polling places. Then there is the strange story of a plaintiff in that case who claimed he ``has not been able to vote and fears he will not be able to vote because of long lines at the polling places and machine breakdowns.'' It was discovered he had two problems. He was dead, in which case long lines should not have been a problem because he was not going anywhere anyway. The lawyer then came up with somebody else: Oh, what we really meant to say was a guy whose name is similar to that, so they tracked him out. The problem was he had already voted when the lawyers filed the sworn statement saying that he was worried about not being able to vote, which, I guess, we can only conclude meant he was worried about casting a second illegal ballot. We have had felons voting, people not even registered voting. Just when you think we have seen it all--this is my favorite--here is the voting registration card that was sent in in October of 1994 by one Ritzy Mekler. The interesting thing about Ritzy Mekler is that Ritzy is a dog. We do not know how many times Ritzy may have voted, but this seems to be an unwarranted extension of the voting franchise. Much as I love dogs, I don't really think they should be voting. This is certainly a new avenue for those who like pets. But that is the kind of thing with which we need to deal. The end result of all these revelations is that a city grand jury in St. Louis is now investigating fraudulent voter registration, and the lawyers involved have sent the U.S. attorney a 250-page report. People are beginning to take it seriously. You don't have to take my word for it. Local St. Louis city Democrats have had a few things to say. St. Louis' current mayor, Clarence Harmon, said: I think there is ample, longstanding evidence of voter fraud in our community. State representative Quincy Troupe said: There is no doubt in any black elected official's mind that the whole process has discouraged honest elections in the city of St. Louis for some time. We know that we have people who cheat in every election. The only way you can win a close election in this town, you have to beat the cheat. From another side, 11th ward alderman, Matt Villa, said: Who knows who did it. But it is apparent they are trying to cheat and steal this election. The St. Louis Post-Dispatch, which has been aggressively covering this story, noted on its editorial page: St. Louis appears to have a full-blown election scandal that grows with each newly discovered box of bogus registration cards. As I noted earlier, I believe it is our duty to fix what needs to be fixed, reform what needs to be reformed, and prosecute where there has been wrongdoing. In St. Louis, I believe criminal prosecutions are being considered. Coupled with the bill I am introducing today, this should go a long way toward cleaning up what has gone wrong in St. Louis. I might add, just the threat of criminal prosecutions appear to have made a difference in the mayoral primary in St. Louis last week. It was a lot more honest than it has been in a long time. There is nothing like the healthy atmosphere of possible criminal prosecutions to make people think maybe we should not try to steal this election. Well, let me go through the list of things we found out are contributing to fraud. The first obvious problem is the blatant fraud of the bogus voter registrations. With dead people reregistering, fake names, phony addresses, and dogs being registered, it is clear the system is being abused. Nearly all of these fraudulent registrations were the mail-in forms. Our plan begins by addressing this type of fraud with a few simple reforms. These are changing Federal law, which in some instances, has actually facilitated voter fraud. 1. First-time voters who register by mail would be required to vote in person and present a photo ID the first time after registration. We trust that the local officials would recognize the dog if she came in-- even with a photo registration. 2. If the follow-up registration card is returned to the election office as undeliverable by the post office, States would be allowed immediately to remove those names from the rolls, provided they made a good-faith effort to ensure that eligible voters would not be removed from the rolls. 3. Finally, the bill would give the States the authority to include on the mail registration form a place for notarization or other form of authentication. Under current Federal law, States are actually prohibited from including this safeguard. I believe the incentives for the bogus addresses and fake names would be virtually eliminated by these simple safeguards, while all the legitimate efforts to encourage new voters to register could, should, and must continue. The second major problem we have seen in St. Louis is that the voter rolls are so clogged up with incorrect or fraudulent data that legal voters are shortchanged. St. Louis city actually, as I said earlier, has more voters listed on its active plus inactive rolls than the voting age population of the city. That is not surprising if they are registering dead people, dogs, and people from vacant lots. Even more amazing is the fact that the Secretary of State said in a recent report that 5,000 of the names on the inactive list are actually duplicates of other names on the inactive list. There are numerous other examples of names on both the active and inactive lists at the same time. These inactive lists are what is being used for election day registration and voting. They just go in and say my name is on the inactive list. Hundreds were allowed to vote in that instance. Thus, it is painfully clear that something must be done to keep the voter rolls clean and accurate. The bill I introduce includes two basic reforms to assist in the cleanup of voter rolls. First, it would require States to conduct a program of cleaning up lists wherever the voter roll list of eligible voters is larger than the number of people of voting age in that county or city. That seems to make only common sense. I can't imagine anyone opposing that if you have more people registered than you have people, something is wrong. Second, my proposal adopts the commonsense approach just used by the St. Louis election board in their March primary. For those voters whose names have been moved to the inactive list, it would require that a photo ID be presented by the voter as part of their oral or written affirmation of their address when they seek to vote again. The board of elections just required this in last week's election, and that election seemed to go off without a hitch. I believe these straightforward reforms will go a long way toward restoring the confidence in the voter registration and balloting process. But for those who insist on continuing their fraudulent activities, this bill strengthens criminal penalties for those who commit fraud or conspire to commit voter fraud. Finally, given the dimensions of the vote fraud scandal in St. Louis, this legislation creates a national pilot project to clean up voter lists in St. Louis in order to assist in ending election day corruption across the Nation. I have proposed that the Federal Election Commission run the project in St. Louis city and St. Louis County to develop a method we can use nationally to maintain accurate voter rolls and ensure that all properly registered voters are permitted to vote without wrongfully being disenfranchised by failure of their registration to be effective, or by allowing others who are not qualified and registered to vote, diluting their votes. The FEC would also coordinate records of voters registered to vote at places authorized under the National Voter Registration Act of 1993, along with State death and felony conviction records and the official voter registered for each polling place. As the Missouri Court of Appeals wrote when they shut down the improper efforts to keep only certain polling places open: . . . (C)ommendable zeal to protect voting rights must be tempered by the corresponding duty to protect the integrity of the voting process. . . . (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. With these new tools, and some real leadership, the election boards of St. Louis City, and St. Louis County could get the big broom--and start cleaning up the mess. Criminal investigations are ongoing, I hope that anyone responsible for cheating will be caught and punished. But we must get a handle on the voter rolls. People who register and follow the rules shouldn't be frustrated by inadequate polling places and phone lines or confused by out-of-date lists. At the same time, we must require voter lists to be scrubbed and reviewed in a much more timely manner--so the cheaters cannot use confusion as their friend. I certainly don't want St. Louis to have the lasting reputation described by my old friend Quincy Troupe: The only way you can win a close election in this town, you have to beat the cheat.

Mr. BOND

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, today I rise to introduce a commonsense election reform bill which we have entitled the Safeguard the Vote Act. I realize other reform issues have received a lot of media attention, but I think it is vital to focus on the fundamental issue of casting and counting votes honestly and fairly as well. Over the past months, many Americans saw for the first time how actual vote counting is done or not done. We have had a real-life civics lesson that was as unexpected as it was frustrating. Those of us in positions of responsibility need to fix what needs fixing, reform what needs reforming, and prosecute where actual wrongdoing has occurred. Voting is the most important civic duty and responsibility for citizens in our form of government. It should not be diluted by fraud, false filings in lawsuits, judges who do not follow the law, politicians who try to profit from confusion, and people who just abuse the system. Let me be clear, at the same time voters must not be unduly confused by complicated ballots or confounded by inadequate phone lines or voting booths. These barriers to voting are absolutely unacceptable, and we need to make sure they do not exist. Having said that--and I believe very strongly in it--I also say to some who want to hide the other abuses, do not try to use general confusion as an excuse or a justification for fraud. I want to make one simple point as I 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 of St. Louis. It is not about somebody getting a partisan advantage. It is about justice. 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. On election night in November of 2000, I was exercised and somewhat upset, one might say, as we learned about what was going on in St. Louis city where orders had been issued to keep the voting booths open in certain areas for an extended period of time. Lawyers appealed that decision, and the Missouri Court of Appeals shut them down. They 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. Unfortunately, what we have seen in St. Louis these past months has been nothing short of breathtaking. Some might say that we have even become a national laughingstock. We have dead people registering by mail. This city alderman died more than 10 years ago. He was registered to vote on cards turned in just before the March 6 mayoral primary. We had people registering from vacant lots. The media in St. Louis was very aggressive, and they checked on some of the voter addresses. There was no building there. They did not even see the tents in which people were living. Voter rolls in St. Louis had more names on the registered active and inactive list than there were people in St. Louis city. It begins to raise suspicions. A city judge exceeded the law by providing extended voting hours for only selected polling places. Then there is the strange story of a plaintiff in that case who claimed he ``has not been able to vote and fears he will not be able to vote because of long lines at the polling places and machine breakdowns.'' It was discovered he had two problems. He was dead, in which case long lines should not have been a problem because he was not going anywhere anyway. The lawyer then came up with somebody else: Oh, what we really meant to say was a guy whose name is similar to that, so they tracked him out. The problem was he had already voted when the lawyers filed the sworn statement saying that he was worried about not being able to vote, which, I guess, we can only conclude meant he was worried about casting a second illegal ballot. We have had felons voting, people not even registered voting. Just when you think we have seen it all--this is my favorite--here is the voting registration card that was sent in in October of 1994 by one Ritzy Mekler. The interesting thing about Ritzy Mekler is that Ritzy is a dog. We do not know how many times Ritzy may have voted, but this seems to be an unwarranted extension of the voting franchise. Much as I love dogs, I don't really think they should be voting. This is certainly a new avenue for those who like pets. But that is the kind of thing with which we need to deal. The end result of all these revelations is that a city grand jury in St. Louis is now investigating fraudulent voter registration, and the lawyers involved have sent the U.S. attorney a 250-page report. People are beginning to take it seriously. You don't have to take my word for it. Local St. Louis city Democrats have had a few things to say. St. Louis' current mayor, Clarence Harmon, said: I think there is ample, longstanding evidence of voter fraud in our community. State representative Quincy Troupe said: There is no doubt in any black elected official's mind that the whole process has discouraged honest elections in the city of St. Louis for some time. We know that we have people who cheat in every election. The only way you can win a close election in this town, you have to beat the cheat. From another side, 11th ward alderman, Matt Villa, said: Who knows who did it. But it is apparent they are trying to cheat and steal this election. The St. Louis Post-Dispatch, which has been aggressively covering this story, noted on its editorial page: St. Louis appears to have a full-blown election scandal that grows with each newly discovered box of bogus registration cards. As I noted earlier, I believe it is our duty to fix what needs to be fixed, reform what needs to be reformed, and prosecute where there has been wrongdoing. In St. Louis, I believe criminal prosecutions are being considered. Coupled with the bill I am introducing today, this should go a long way toward cleaning up what has gone wrong in St. Louis. I might add, just the threat of criminal prosecutions appear to have made a difference in the mayoral primary in St. Louis last week. It was a lot more honest than it has been in a long time. There is nothing like the healthy atmosphere of possible criminal prosecutions to make people think maybe we should not try to steal this election. Well, let me go through the list of things we found out are contributing to fraud. The first obvious problem is the blatant fraud of the bogus voter registrations. With dead people reregistering, fake names, phony addresses, and dogs being registered, it is clear the system is being abused. Nearly all of these fraudulent registrations were the mail-in forms. Our plan begins by addressing this type of fraud with a few simple reforms. These are changing Federal law, which in some instances, has actually facilitated voter fraud. 1. First-time voters who register by mail would be required to vote in person and present a photo ID the first time after registration. We trust that the local officials would recognize the dog if she came in-- even with a photo registration. 2. If the follow-up registration card is returned to the election office as undeliverable by the post office, States would be allowed immediately to remove those names from the rolls, provided they made a good-faith effort to ensure that eligible voters would not be removed from the rolls. 3. Finally, the bill would give the States the authority to include on the mail registration form a place for notarization or other form of authentication. Under current Federal law, States are actually prohibited from including this safeguard. I believe the incentives for the bogus addresses and fake names would be virtually eliminated by these simple safeguards, while all the legitimate efforts to encourage new voters to register could, should, and must continue. The second major problem we have seen in St. Louis is that the voter rolls are so clogged up with incorrect or fraudulent data that legal voters are shortchanged. St. Louis city actually, as I said earlier, has more voters listed on its active plus inactive rolls than the voting age population of the city. That is not surprising if they are registering dead people, dogs, and people from vacant lots. Even more amazing is the fact that the Secretary of State said in a recent report that 5,000 of the names on the inactive list are actually duplicates of other names on the inactive list. There are numerous other examples of names on both the active and inactive lists at the same time. These inactive lists are what is being used for election day registration and voting. They just go in and say my name is on the inactive list. Hundreds were allowed to vote in that instance. Thus, it is painfully clear that something must be done to keep the voter rolls clean and accurate. The bill I introduce includes two basic reforms to assist in the cleanup of voter rolls. First, it would require States to conduct a program of cleaning up lists wherever the voter roll list of eligible voters is larger than the number of people of voting age in that county or city. That seems to make only common sense. I can't imagine anyone opposing that if you have more people registered than you have people, something is wrong. Second, my proposal adopts the commonsense approach just used by the St. Louis election board in their March primary. For those voters whose names have been moved to the inactive list, it would require that a photo ID be presented by the voter as part of their oral or written affirmation of their address when they seek to vote again. The board of elections just required this in last week's election, and that election seemed to go off without a hitch. I believe these straightforward reforms will go a long way toward restoring the confidence in the voter registration and balloting process. But for those who insist on continuing their fraudulent activities, this bill strengthens criminal penalties for those who commit fraud or conspire to commit voter fraud. Finally, given the dimensions of the vote fraud scandal in St. Louis, this legislation creates a national pilot project to clean up voter lists in St. Louis in order to assist in ending election day corruption across the Nation. I have proposed that the Federal Election Commission run the project in St. Louis city and St. Louis County to develop a method we can use nationally to maintain accurate voter rolls and ensure that all properly registered voters are permitted to vote without wrongfully being disenfranchised by failure of their registration to be effective, or by allowing others who are not qualified and registered to vote, diluting their votes. The FEC would also coordinate records of voters registered to vote at places authorized under the National Voter Registration Act of 1993, along with State death and felony conviction records and the official voter registered for each polling place. As the Missouri Court of Appeals wrote when they shut down the improper efforts to keep only certain polling places open: . . . (C)ommendable zeal to protect voting rights must be tempered by the corresponding duty to protect the integrity of the voting process. . . . (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. With these new tools, and some real leadership, the election boards of St. Louis City, and St. Louis County could get the big broom--and start cleaning up the mess. Criminal investigations are ongoing, I hope that anyone responsible for cheating will be caught and punished. But we must get a handle on the voter rolls. People who register and follow the rules shouldn't be frustrated by inadequate polling places and phone lines or confused by out-of-date lists. At the same time, we must require voter lists to be scrubbed and reviewed in a much more timely manner--so the cheaters cannot use confusion as their friend. I certainly don't want St. Louis to have the lasting reputation described by my old friend Quincy Troupe: The only way you can win a close election in this town, you have to beat the cheat.

Mr. BOND

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce an important piece of new legislation to help an essential part of our health care safety net, our nation's health centers, serve the uninsured and medically- underserved. The Building Better Health Centers Act will promote health centers' mission of providing care to anyone who needs it by getting rid of an artificial distinction existing in current law. Right now, federal grant dollars to health centers can be used for most things a health center needs to do, including salaries, supplies, and basic upkeep. But federal grants to health centers cannot be used for one of the most critical and expensive needs a health center, or any business or nonprofit organization, will ever face--capital improvements. Unless we correct this silly distinction, many of our health centers are destined to be shackled to slowly deteriorating facilities. Over time, this will sap their ability to provide care. If we are serious about maximizing health centers' ability to deal with our health care access needs, we must allow federal grant dollars to be used to meet our health centers' capital needs. I've been down here on the Senate floor many times to talk about health centers, but let me cover the basics once again. Health centers, which include community health centers, migrant health centers, homeless health centers, and public housing health centers, address the health care access problem by providing primary care services in thousands of rural and urban medically-underserved communities throughout the United States. And as we all know, the health care access problem remains a serious issue in our country. Many health care experts believe that Americans' lack of access to basic health services is our single most pressing health care problem. Nearly 50 million Americans do not have access to a primary care provider, whether they are insured or not. In addition, 43 million Americans lack health insurance and have difficulty accessing care due to the inability to pay. Health centers help fill part of this void. More than 3,000 health center clinics nationwide provide basic health care services to nearly 12 million Americans, almost 8 million minorities, nearly 650,000 farmworkers, and almost 600,000 homeless individuals each year. The care they provide has been repeatedly shown by studies to be high- quality and cost-effective. In fact, health centers are one of the best health care bargains around, the average yearly cost for a health center patient is less than one dollar per day. I believe that one of the most effective ways to address our health care access problem is by dramatically expanding access to health centers. And I am pleased to report a strong consensus is developing to do exactly that. Last year, the Senate voted in support of a proposal I have made with Sen. Hollings to double access to health centers by doubling funding over a five-year period. In addition, President Bush has proposed that we double the number of people that health centers care for over the next five years. But over the next few years, as we hopefully see additional resources flow to health centers, we will increasingly encounter problems that stem from an artificial distinction we see in current law. As I mentioned, federal health center grants are currently allowed to be used for most purposes--including salaries for health professionals and administrators, medical supplies, basic upkeep of clinic facilities, even lease payments if the health center rents. But they simply cannot be used for capital improvements. This means that unless health centers can find some other way to finance their capital needs--and I will talk in a moment about the significant barriers they face in doing this--major projects that could provide substantial benefit to patients will never happen. It means that an urban community health center that has been slowly expanding staff and services over many years until it's bursting at the seams of its modest two-story building will have to continue to find ways to cope, even if that prevents additionally-needed expansion or even if upkeep costs on the old building begin to spiral out-of- control. It means that a rural community health center in an area desperately in need of dental services may not be able to expand the facility and purchase dental chairs, X-ray machines and other major dental equipment needed for the desired expansion into dental services. It means that even if federal government is will to commit grant funds to open a new health center in one of the hundreds of underserved communities nationwide which lacks any health care professionals for miles around, the new center may never come to be due to lack of funding for a facility in which to house it. This is more than theory, the evidence shows that many existing health centers operate in facilities that desperately need renovation or modernization. Approximately one of every three health centers reside in a building more than 30 years old, and one of every eight operate out of a facility more than half a century old. Moreover, a recent survey of health centers in 11 states showed that more than two-thirds of health centers had a specifically-identified need to renovate, expand, or replace their current facility. The average cost of a needed capital project was $1.8 million, and the needs ranged from ``small'' projects of $400,000 to major $5 million efforts. The survey demonstrates that there may be as much as $1.2 billion in unmet capital needs in our nation's health centers. And that is just for existing health centers. As I mentioned, hundreds of medically-underserved areas lack--and could desperately use--the services of a health center. This further shows the need for new facilities, and more capital, as we expand access to new communities. So what about other possible sources of capital? There are plenty of ways--in theory--that health centers might be able to get money for capital improvements. Business, large and small, do it all the time. So do other nonprofit organizations like universities and hospitals. They use built-up equity. They take out loans. They float bonds. They raise money through private donations as part of a capital campaign. But unfortunately, health centers just aren't quite like most other businesses or nonprofits, and many times these options are unrealistic as a way to provide the entire cost of a major project. Health centers simply don't have loads of cash in the bank. The revenue these clinics are able to cobble together from federal grants, low-income patients, Medicaid, private donations, and other health insurers is typically all put back into patient care. Heath centers already work hard to maximize the money they can raise through private donations and non-federal grant sources. In fact, an average of 13 percent, one-seventh of their budget, of health care center revenue comes from these sources. Most of this private and public funding is used to meet operating expenses, and it is difficult to go back to the same sources to request further donations for capital needs. In fundraising, health centers also face a huge disadvantage compared to nonprofit organizations like universities and hospitals because health centers lack a natural middle- and upper-class donor base. And raising private funds is particularly hard in isolated rural areas that are often quite poor and which can have the most dire heath care access problems. Finally, health centers have difficulties obtaining private loans for capital needs for a variety of reasons. The high number of uninsured patients health centers treat and the poor reimbursement rates received from most Medicaid programs mean health centers rarely have significant operating margins. Without these margins, banks are leery about loans because they don't feel assured that a health center will have sufficient cash flow to successfully manage loan payments. Banks are made even more nervous by the high proportion of health center revenue that comes from sometimes-unreliable government sources, such as the health centers' grant funding and Medicare and Medicaid reimbursements. So what should we do? This isn't exactly rocket science. We have a need, many health centers require significant help to build or maintain adequate facilities because they can't raise the money or obtain the loans themselves. And we have an existing law that prevents the federal government from using health center funding to do exactly that. We simply need to get rid of the artificial distinction we have right now and allow our health center grant dollars to go to further the health center mission in the best way possible, and that is going to mean at times that we should support some new construction or major renovation projects. If a crumbling building is constantly in need of repair, is soaking up money, and is reducing the number of patients a health center can reach out to, the federal government should help with the major renovation or the new construction needed. The Building Better Health Centers Act authorizes the federal government to make grants to health centers for facility construction, modernization, replacement, and major equipment purchases. If our goal is to help health centers provide high-quality care to as many uninsured and medically-underserved people as possible, we need to get rid of barriers to doing that, including capital barriers. Beyond just the possibility of grant funding, the bill goes further and permits the federal government to guarantee loans made by a bank or another private lender to a health center to construct, replace, modernize, or expand a health center facility. This loan guarantee is an additional tool that will help allay the fears of banks and other private lenders by limiting their exposure if a health center defaults on a loan. An additional advantage of loan guarantees is that you can stretch funds farther. When guaranteeing a $1 million loan, the federal government need only set aside a much smaller amount of appropriated money, perhaps only a twelfth to a tenth of the loan total, to insure against that loan's possible default. This multiplier factor means that for every dollar appropriated for this purpose, many dollars worth of loans can be guaranteed. There is actually tremendous potential for these two new options, the facility grants and the facility loan guarantees, to work together. Sharing in up-front costs through grant funding, and helping further by guaranteeing a loan that covers the remainder of a project's cost may well be the best approach. This will balance the need to make sure specific projects get enough grant funding to make them realistic and the need to spread capital assistance among as many projects as possible. Let me try to respond in advance to a few potential criticisms of this legislation. First, to those who simply think on principle that the government should stay out of private-sector bricks and mortar projects, I would say we're already at least halfway pregnant. In just about every appropriations bill, we have dozens if not hundreds of specific projects earmarked for major building or renovation projects. Some might worry that the potential large costs of construction projects could get out of hand and squeeze out funding actually used for patient care. But let me point out that we limit capital assistance to five percent of all health center funding. Based on this year's funding level, this would mean up to $58.5 million for facility grants and loan guarantees. Because the loan guarantee program would allow some of this money to be stretched, this level of support could easily mean help for more than $200 million in health center projects. But the main point is that capital projects are absolutely limited to five- percent of health center funding, which prevents any possible runaway spending. Finally, we should ask ourselves whether or not federal assistance is going to give a free pass to communities, which really should be expected to help out with public-minded projects like the construction or renovation of a health center. In my bill, local communities are expected to help. No more than 75 percent of the total costs of a major project can come from federal sources--and this is the absolute upper limit. Much more likely are evenly-shared costs or situations in which federal support represents a minority of the capital investment. This bill does not give local areas a free ride. The quick rationale for this bill is simple. Many health centers are hampered in their efforts to provide health care to the medically- underserved by inadequate facilities. It doesn't make sense to help these vital community clinics only with day-to-day expenses if their building is literally crumbling around them. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this legislation. This year, we are scheduled to reauthorize the Consolidated Health Centers program, along with other vital health care safety net programs like the National Health services Corps. I hope to include this bill--the Building Better Health Centers Act--in this larger safety net reauthorization legislation. I look forward to working with my colleagues in the Senate and on the Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee to aggressively help our nation's health centers meet their dire capital needs by making this bill law.

Mr. BOND

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce an important piece of new legislation to help an essential part of our health care safety net, our nation's health centers, serve the uninsured and medically- underserved. The Building Better Health Centers Act will promote health centers' mission of providing care to anyone who needs it by getting rid of an artificial distinction existing in current law. Right now, federal grant dollars to health centers can be used for most things a health center needs to do, including salaries, supplies, and basic upkeep. But federal grants to health centers cannot be used for one of the most critical and expensive needs a health center, or any business or nonprofit organization, will ever face--capital improvements. Unless we correct this silly distinction, many of our health centers are destined to be shackled to slowly deteriorating facilities. Over time, this will sap their ability to provide care. If we are serious about maximizing health centers' ability to deal with our health care access needs, we must allow federal grant dollars to be used to meet our health centers' capital needs. I've been down here on the Senate floor many times to talk about health centers, but let me cover the basics once again. Health centers, which include community health centers, migrant health centers, homeless health centers, and public housing health centers, address the health care access problem by providing primary care services in thousands of rural and urban medically-underserved communities throughout the United States. And as we all know, the health care access problem remains a serious issue in our country. Many health care experts believe that Americans' lack of access to basic health services is our single most pressing health care problem. Nearly 50 million Americans do not have access to a primary care provider, whether they are insured or not. In addition, 43 million Americans lack health insurance and have difficulty accessing care due to the inability to pay. Health centers help fill part of this void. More than 3,000 health center clinics nationwide provide basic health care services to nearly 12 million Americans, almost 8 million minorities, nearly 650,000 farmworkers, and almost 600,000 homeless individuals each year. The care they provide has been repeatedly shown by studies to be high- quality and cost-effective. In fact, health centers are one of the best health care bargains around, the average yearly cost for a health center patient is less than one dollar per day. I believe that one of the most effective ways to address our health care access problem is by dramatically expanding access to health centers. And I am pleased to report a strong consensus is developing to do exactly that. Last year, the Senate voted in support of a proposal I have made with Sen. Hollings to double access to health centers by doubling funding over a five-year period. In addition, President Bush has proposed that we double the number of people that health centers care for over the next five years. But over the next few years, as we hopefully see additional resources flow to health centers, we will increasingly encounter problems that stem from an artificial distinction we see in current law. As I mentioned, federal health center grants are currently allowed to be used for most purposes--including salaries for health professionals and administrators, medical supplies, basic upkeep of clinic facilities, even lease payments if the health center rents. But they simply cannot be used for capital improvements. This means that unless health centers can find some other way to finance their capital needs--and I will talk in a moment about the significant barriers they face in doing this--major projects that could provide substantial benefit to patients will never happen. It means that an urban community health center that has been slowly expanding staff and services over many years until it's bursting at the seams of its modest two-story building will have to continue to find ways to cope, even if that prevents additionally-needed expansion or even if upkeep costs on the old building begin to spiral out-of- control. It means that a rural community health center in an area desperately in need of dental services may not be able to expand the facility and purchase dental chairs, X-ray machines and other major dental equipment needed for the desired expansion into dental services. It means that even if federal government is will to commit grant funds to open a new health center in one of the hundreds of underserved communities nationwide which lacks any health care professionals for miles around, the new center may never come to be due to lack of funding for a facility in which to house it. This is more than theory, the evidence shows that many existing health centers operate in facilities that desperately need renovation or modernization. Approximately one of every three health centers reside in a building more than 30 years old, and one of every eight operate out of a facility more than half a century old. Moreover, a recent survey of health centers in 11 states showed that more than two-thirds of health centers had a specifically-identified need to renovate, expand, or replace their current facility. The average cost of a needed capital project was $1.8 million, and the needs ranged from ``small'' projects of $400,000 to major $5 million efforts. The survey demonstrates that there may be as much as $1.2 billion in unmet capital needs in our nation's health centers. And that is just for existing health centers. As I mentioned, hundreds of medically-underserved areas lack--and could desperately use--the services of a health center. This further shows the need for new facilities, and more capital, as we expand access to new communities. So what about other possible sources of capital? There are plenty of ways--in theory--that health centers might be able to get money for capital improvements. Business, large and small, do it all the time. So do other nonprofit organizations like universities and hospitals. They use built-up equity. They take out loans. They float bonds. They raise money through private donations as part of a capital campaign. But unfortunately, health centers just aren't quite like most other businesses or nonprofits, and many times these options are unrealistic as a way to provide the entire cost of a major project. Health centers simply don't have loads of cash in the bank. The revenue these clinics are able to cobble together from federal grants, low-income patients, Medicaid, private donations, and other health insurers is typically all put back into patient care. Heath centers already work hard to maximize the money they can raise through private donations and non-federal grant sources. In fact, an average of 13 percent, one-seventh of their budget, of health care center revenue comes from these sources. Most of this private and public funding is used to meet operating expenses, and it is difficult to go back to the same sources to request further donations for capital needs. In fundraising, health centers also face a huge disadvantage compared to nonprofit organizations like universities and hospitals because health centers lack a natural middle- and upper-class donor base. And raising private funds is particularly hard in isolated rural areas that are often quite poor and which can have the most dire heath care access problems. Finally, health centers have difficulties obtaining private loans for capital needs for a variety of reasons. The high number of uninsured patients health centers treat and the poor reimbursement rates received from most Medicaid programs mean health centers rarely have significant operating margins. Without these margins, banks are leery about loans because they don't feel assured that a health center will have sufficient cash flow to successfully manage loan payments. Banks are made even more nervous by the high proportion of health center revenue that comes from sometimes-unreliable government sources, such as the health centers' grant funding and Medicare and Medicaid reimbursements. So what should we do? This isn't exactly rocket science. We have a need, many health centers require significant help to build or maintain adequate facilities because they can't raise the money or obtain the loans themselves. And we have an existing law that prevents the federal government from using health center funding to do exactly that. We simply need to get rid of the artificial distinction we have right now and allow our health center grant dollars to go to further the health center mission in the best way possible, and that is going to mean at times that we should support some new construction or major renovation projects. If a crumbling building is constantly in need of repair, is soaking up money, and is reducing the number of patients a health center can reach out to, the federal government should help with the major renovation or the new construction needed. The Building Better Health Centers Act authorizes the federal government to make grants to health centers for facility construction, modernization, replacement, and major equipment purchases. If our goal is to help health centers provide high-quality care to as many uninsured and medically-underserved people as possible, we need to get rid of barriers to doing that, including capital barriers. Beyond just the possibility of grant funding, the bill goes further and permits the federal government to guarantee loans made by a bank or another private lender to a health center to construct, replace, modernize, or expand a health center facility. This loan guarantee is an additional tool that will help allay the fears of banks and other private lenders by limiting their exposure if a health center defaults on a loan. An additional advantage of loan guarantees is that you can stretch funds farther. When guaranteeing a $1 million loan, the federal government need only set aside a much smaller amount of appropriated money, perhaps only a twelfth to a tenth of the loan total, to insure against that loan's possible default. This multiplier factor means that for every dollar appropriated for this purpose, many dollars worth of loans can be guaranteed. There is actually tremendous potential for these two new options, the facility grants and the facility loan guarantees, to work together. Sharing in up-front costs through grant funding, and helping further by guaranteeing a loan that covers the remainder of a project's cost may well be the best approach. This will balance the need to make sure specific projects get enough grant funding to make them realistic and the need to spread capital assistance among as many projects as possible. Let me try to respond in advance to a few potential criticisms of this legislation. First, to those who simply think on principle that the government should stay out of private-sector bricks and mortar projects, I would say we're already at least halfway pregnant. In just about every appropriations bill, we have dozens if not hundreds of specific projects earmarked for major building or renovation projects. Some might worry that the potential large costs of construction projects could get out of hand and squeeze out funding actually used for patient care. But let me point out that we limit capital assistance to five percent of all health center funding. Based on this year's funding level, this would mean up to $58.5 million for facility grants and loan guarantees. Because the loan guarantee program would allow some of this money to be stretched, this level of support could easily mean help for more than $200 million in health center projects. But the main point is that capital projects are absolutely limited to five- percent of health center funding, which prevents any possible runaway spending. Finally, we should ask ourselves whether or not federal assistance is going to give a free pass to communities, which really should be expected to help out with public-minded projects like the construction or renovation of a health center. In my bill, local communities are expected to help. No more than 75 percent of the total costs of a major project can come from federal sources--and this is the absolute upper limit. Much more likely are evenly-shared costs or situations in which federal support represents a minority of the capital investment. This bill does not give local areas a free ride. The quick rationale for this bill is simple. Many health centers are hampered in their efforts to provide health care to the medically- underserved by inadequate facilities. It doesn't make sense to help these vital community clinics only with day-to-day expenses if their building is literally crumbling around them. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this legislation. This year, we are scheduled to reauthorize the Consolidated Health Centers program, along with other vital health care safety net programs like the National Health services Corps. I hope to include this bill--the Building Better Health Centers Act--in this larger safety net reauthorization legislation. I look forward to working with my colleagues in the Senate and on the Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee to aggressively help our nation's health centers meet their dire capital needs by making this bill law.

Mr. BOND

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I thank my colleagues for allowing me to go forward. I apologize. We have several markups going on today, and I was unable to be here to discuss the small business bankruptcy provision. My colleague and friend, Senator Kerry of Massachusetts, offered an amendment which would delete the small business changes in chapter 11 and replace them with a study of the factors that cause small businesses to enter into bankruptcy and any changes to chapter 11 that might be appropriate. At first blush, the amendment would not appear to be a problem. Senator Kerry and I have worked together in the Small Business Committee on many things over the years. We take a great deal of pride in the fact that assisting small business has generally received overwhelming bipartisan support in this body. I find some problems with the amendment and with the proposal requested by the distinguished Senator from Massachusetts because the report that he seeks actually has already occurred. Approximately 4 years ago, the National Bankruptcy Review Commission conducted a wide- ranging study of how well the bankruptcy code was working. There was a small business working group on the commission that looked particularly at chapter 11 and made an assessment of how well the chapter was serving small business debtors and creditors. The small business provisions in this bill are a result of that study, that work, and the recommendations of the working group of that commission. Let's remember that under chapter 11, the debtor is still managing a business during the bankruptcy proceeding. The small business working group found that in too many small business cases, there are no strong creditors committees to oversee how the debtors are managing the company, and the courts are not doing an adequate job of overseeing the debtors. As a result, the working group noted that chapter 11 debtors often lived under the protection of the bankruptcy code literally for years, often without providing any meaningful return to unsecured creditors and diminishing their assets in the process. Accordingly, the commission recommended chapter 11 be amended in two principal ways. First, there should be standard reports filed with the courts on a regular basis so that courts can follow how a debtor is progressing in bankruptcy. Second, there should be presumptive plan filing and plan confirmation deadlines specifically tailored to fit the needs of small business cases. If these deadlines cannot be met, the commission recommended that the bankruptcy court hold a factfinding hearing. In that hearing, the court can look at all the evidence and determine whether a small business is likely to be able to confirm a plan of reorganization within a reasonable period of time. The intent of the provisions is not to eliminate a small business' ability to reorganize or to place restrictive requirements on it. It is merely a procedure that would permit courts to review on a regular basis the progress of a small business attempting to reorganize so that the court can step in if it appears that the small business does not have a realistic ability to reorganize. The establishment of such a process is important for small business. First, the small business provisions establish standard disclosure statements and debtor reporting requirements that will assist small businesses entering chapter 11. These provisions have been widely supported as dramatically improving the chapter 11 process with small business debtors. Standard requirements will get rid of what is now a costly burden on small business debtors to draft from scratch a reorganizing plan and a prospectus-type disclosure statement. In other words, what is in the bill, what would be stricken by this amendment, actually does simplify the process significantly for the small business. One must remember that small businesses are on both sides of bankruptcies in this country; they are both creditors and debtors. Small business creditors are significantly harmed if their fellow small business debtors, who do not have a realistic opportunity to reorganize, languish in bankruptcy while their assets deteriorate. These small business creditors will receive significantly less on their claims and are substantially harmed. One of the most important points I can make on this is, if there is no protection for small business creditors, then there is likely to be no credit for small businesses. Let us go back and think about that a minute. If a small business that gets into trouble cannot go into bankruptcy, and if there is no means for the creditor to realize something from the assets of the debtor or get some reasonable plan of accommodation, then the creditor, the lender, is at risk of losing perhaps the entire loan to the small business. That is why I say if you do not have a reasonable bankruptcy procedure, then you are going to curtail the availability of credit. We have seen in other countries where they do not have good bankruptcy provisions that treat fairly the debtors, the creditors, and all other interested parties, and they have a very difficult time getting credit for the businesses. The committee has worked hard, following the commission to study bankruptcy and the work of the small business working group, to come up with provisions that are reasonable. These provisions in this bill are designed to facilitate the proceeding without imposing undue burdens. That is why I am advised that the National Federation of Independent Businesses, the National Association of Credit Managers, and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce oppose this amendment. They recognize if you inhibit the ability of small business creditors to get relief, you will make it much less likely that creditors supply the credit for small business needs. Lastly, I point out that Congress has approved these provisions several times. These provisions have been in the bankruptcy bill in one form or another since the 105th Congress and have been amended during that time. My colleague from Massachusetts amended the provisions last Congress significantly to increase the amount of time a small business has to file a reorganization plan under chapter 11. I hope we can all agree we need an approach that is balanced between small business debtors and creditors. We should permit every small business that gets into credit trouble to have the ability to reorganize. That is what these provisions are intended to do. That is why I ask my colleagues to oppose this amendment. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Mr. BOND

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations of the Governmental Affairs Committee be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Tuesday, March 6, 2001, 9:30 a.m., for a hearing entitled ``The Role of U.S. Correspondent Banking In International Money Laundering.''

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation be authorized to meet on Wednesday, March 7, 2001, at 9:30 a.m. on voting technology reform.

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Foreign Relations be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Tuesday, March 6, 2001, at 2 p.m. to hold a hearing.

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Armed Services be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Tuesday, March 6, 2001 at 2:30 p.m., in closed session to receive testimony on current and future worldwide threats to the national security of the United States.

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Subcommittee on Consumer Affairs, Foreign Commerce and Tourism, of the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation be authorized to meet on Tuesday, March 6, 2001, at 10 a.m. on the effectiveness of gun locks.

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Tuesday, March 6, 2001. The purpose of this hearing will be to review nutrition and school lunch programs.

Mr. BOND

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Support to Absentee Uniformed and Overseas Citizens Voters Act of 2001. This bill ensures that Americans serving overseas, be they the men and women of the military who stand guard on foreign shares, or equally deserving citizens who serve our country in other venues, will have their vote counted. American citizens should not loose their right to vote under arbitrary or unfair standards. It is therefore incumbent upon lawmakers to ensure their rights are protected. Although overseas mail is technically supposed to carry a postmark, the reality of the situation is that circumstances in foreign countries, or at sea aboard u.S. Navy ships, can result in mail being sent without a postmark. Currently several states require a postmark for an absentee ballot to be counted and without such a postmark citizens are denied their vote through absolutely no fault of their own. We saw the damaging affects of this standard in our most recent Presidential election. My bill provides that states may not refuse to count a ballot submitted in an election for a Federal office by an absentee uniformed services member or overseas citizen voter on the grounds that the ballot was improperly or fraudulently cast ``unless the State finds clear and convincing evidence'' of fraud in the preparation or casting of the ballot by the voter. Specifically, the bill states under a ``Clear and Convincing Evidence'' standard, the lack of a witness signature, address, postmark, or other identifying information may not be considered clear and convincing evidence of fraud, absent any other information or evidence. Consequently the mere absence of a postmark will not disqualify an overseas citizen from casting his or her vote. Mr. President, our most recent election illustrates the clear need for change in our voting procedures. Reform is needed. By making certain that American's stationed overseas will have their votes counted, this bill is one crucial step in that direction. There is need for more reform however and I am working on a comprehensive election reform bill targeting abusive practices at home. I look forward to introducing that legislation next week and working with my colleagues towards adoption of all these measures.

Mr. BOND

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I have been waiting for about an hour, about 45 minutes, and I would like to speak after the Senator from California.

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I rise today to explain why the Clinton administration's OSHA ergonomics regulation is the absolute perfect regulation for the first use of the congressional disapproval mechanism under the Congressional Review Act. This regulation is the poster child of bad regulation. It represents everything that can go wrong in regulatory rulemaking, and it gives us, under the CRA, an opportunity to exercise our responsibility as Congress to strike it down and tell the new administration to do a better job in this area. Contrary to what has been said by opponents of this resolution of disapproval, this does not prevent the administration from going back and doing the job right. In fact, we expect that they will go back and do the job right. Repetitive motion injuries are painful. They are debilitating. They are undesirable. They cost employees pain, suffering, lost sleep, and lost wages. They cost employers lost time, lost effort, and lost revenue. I understand how serious they can be. I have a lot of friends who have suffered these injuries. I know they are a serious problem. I have talked to employers with small businesses who have lost work from employees. They regard them as members of their family. They have had these repetitive motion injuries and are hurt personally by it, but they are hurt in their business. The Senator from California described what I think are some very promising actions that have been taken. I am delighted we are beginning to find ways to lessen the incidence of ergonomic injuries. Businesses have been working with employees-- employers and employees working together--to lessen the impact because everybody knows they are bad. Everybody knows these injuries are harmful to the employee. But they also are harmful to the employer. The Senator from California mentioned a couple things that can be done. She talked about a keypad for somebody who sits at a keyboard all day long. If that works, that is great. This is the kind of information we need to share with businesses, and particularly small businesses all across the country. They want to lessen the impact of ergonomic injuries. She mentioned back belts. To say back belts are the answer, I am not sure that science is there because one of the women we contacted, who advises small business, was concerned. She had heard that maybe back belts are more harmful than helpful in lessening injuries for people who have to bend over and pick up things. She spent 5 hours on the phone with different people in OSHA who came up with different answers to her question: Can I tell my small businesses they must require a back belt? They could not give her an answer. They referred her to the general counsel. Unfortunately, under this regulation, if one of her business clients happens to guess wrong, that employer gets hit with the full sanctions of the law. No, these 608 pages in the Federal Register are not helpful in telling small businesses how they can take meaningful steps to lessen the possibility that one of their workers or several of their workers will have ergonomic injuries. What they outline is a series of penalties if the workers have an injury on the job, or if the workers have an injury that is aggravated on the job, or even if the worker has an injury off the job and comes to work and it gets a little worse. Five years ago, I introduced the Redtape Reduction Act--others remember it as the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act-- to protect small businesses from overreaching regulations. I am proud to say it was unanimously supported in the Small Business Committee. It came to the floor, and it was overwhelmingly supported. Senator Nickles added the Congressional Review Act as an amendment for just this type of moment, this type of activity--when an agency has gone so far off course, there is no other remedy left but to force it to abandon its original approach and start over. This is precisely the kind of regulation for which we overwhelmingly, in this body, adopted the Congressional Review Act because this measure, under review today, is a draconian, punitive measure that is incomprehensible, unfathomable, and ineffective. Action under the CRA, as I said earlier, as some have tried to suggest, does not try to prevent any other action by an agency in the same area; it merely means the agency cannot make the same mistake twice. By disapproving this version of an ergonomics regulation, under the CRA we will merely be saying that OSHA cannot rely on that same type of regulation again. Indeed, when we strike down the regulation, it will help OSHA by expediting the regulatory process. Instead of the agency having to go through a separate rulemaking to determine whether to make changes to the current regulation, they will be free to begin to develop an approach that will be reasonable for employers, responsive to employees' needs, and based on sound science and the best information available, as soon as Congress completes action on the joint resolution of disapproval in S.J. Res. 6. The Clinton OSHA ergonomics regulation is truly egregious in both substance and procedure. It will be devastating both to small businesses and their employers because it is incomprehensible and outrageously burdensome. Too many of the requirements are subjective and open-ended. For instance, an employer must implement ``appropriate'' control measures, use ``feasible'' engineering controls, or reduce hazards to the ``extent feasible.'' These requirements are like posting a speed limit on the highway that says, ``Do not drive too fast,'' but you never know what ``too fast'' is until a State trooper pulls you over and tells you that you were driving too fast. Employers and small businesses simply will not know when they have met the burden of this regulation until they are told by OSHA or sued by OSHA or have to settle a lawsuit brought by a trial lawyer who has seized on this new regulation as a source of specialization. It is not surprising to me that immediately after this regulation was published, billboards began springing up. I show you one in the St. Louis area, advertising for attorneys who would be willing to bring actions on behalf of employees who think they have carpal tunnel syndrome: ``Such-and-such law center, representing workers with carpal tunnel syndrome. Toll free from St. Louis. Call for help.'' Guess who is behind this regulation. Guess who wants to see it go into force. Never mind the States have set up workers compensation laws that are designed to compensate people without going through lawsuits, to compensate them immediately for workers comp or workplace-related injuries. This is a brand new industry. Carpal tunnel syndrome is the next tobacco industry lawsuit. Never mind that these employees would be eligible for benefits under workers compensation. This regulation is like setting up a new lottery; somebody is going to strike it rich. Now everybody wants a shot at the pot of gold otherwise known as the employer's liability insurance policy. What do you think will happen to insurance premiums and workers compensation premiums for small employers? They are going to go up. They are going to go up substantially because they are going to have to pay all these claims. OSHA never took these consequences into account when it was estimating the cost of the regulation. It is bad enough that this regulation is incomprehensible and vague, but it also requires an employer to go beyond the text of the regulation to understand fully and comply with the regulation. I held up this Federal Register Code. If you really are interested in it, you can find it, going from page 68262 to page 68870. That is 608 pages of very fine print in the Federal Register. But the fascinating part about it is, there is appendix D. Appendix D says where you go to get the information. You can go to the ``Job Strain Index: A Proposed Method to Analyze Jobs For Risk of Distal Upper Extremity Disorders.'' You can go to the ``American Industrial Hygienists Association.'' You can get another copy of the ``Applications Manual for the Revised NIOSH Lifting Equations'' from the U.S. Department of Commerce Technology Administration. You can get a copy of ``The Design of Manual Handling Tasks: Revised Tables of Maximum Acceptable Weights and Forces'' from Taylor & Francis Inc. in Philadelphia. You can get a copy of the ``Rapid Entire Body Assessment'' from the Elsevier Science Regional Sales Office. You can get a copy of the ``RULA: A Survey Method for the Investigation of Work-Related Upper Limb Disorders.'' The mom or pop operating a small business is going to have enough trouble trying to get through 608 pages of the Federal Register. I doubt if any of us recently have sat down to read 608 pages in the Federal register. I used to have to do that for a living. That is why I changed my line of work. I got out of the practice of law because that did not seem to be a useful idea. There are an awful lot of people in small business who provide a product, who deliver a service, who probably do not care about reading 608 pages of the Federal Register or applying to all those different people to get all the different manuals they have. That is what they would have to do under this regulation. They are highly technical pieces written by ergonomists for technical and academic journals. They are not the stuff that helps a small business to provide jobs, to provide services, and to provide a contribution to the economy and to the family of the owner. The final regulation is also a travesty to the rulemaking process. The other side will say it has been in the works for over 10 years. That is true. But the truth is, it was not until OSHA saw the clock running out that it got down to business and cranked out proposals in November of 1999 and moved heaven and earth to get it done 1 year later. To get it out in such a short time, OSHA cut corners at every opportunity. They padded the dockets with expert opinions bought and paid for with tax dollars, tax dollars designed to get the contractors to trash the opposing comments and to support what OSHA was trying to do. They added materials to the dockets that were not available for review before the comment period closed. They didn't provide adequate time for commenters to develop their responses. They ignored a wide variety of constructive comments and suggestions they received. The Clinton OSHA even published the final rule with significant provisions that have never been put out for public comment, violating what I have always understood is a fundamental, cardinal principle of the regulatory process. OSHA went into this rulemaking knowing exactly what it wanted to have and, in the end, didn't let logic, facts, fairness, congressional objections, legitimate concerns from small business, or plain common sense get in the way. The true disappointment about the ergonomics regulation and all of its surrounding problems is that it could have been avoided. Congress told the Clinton administration in a bipartisan voice the last several years not to proceed with the regulation. Instead, the Clinton administration refused to accept the guidance of this legislative body and extended the negotiations over the final appropriations bills until they could get the final rule out the door on November 14. Not only did they trample on the separation of powers doctrine in so doing, but there were programs waiting for annual funding which did not receive their money--which in many cases were increases--because the administration wanted to be able to push through this flawed process and flawed approach to ergonomics. In May 1999, I introduced a bill that would have avoided this mess. It was called the Sensible Ergonomics Needs Scientific Evidence Act, or SENSE Act. The bill would have forced OSHA to do something not too unreasonable, not too strange: Simply to wait for the results of a study then under way by the National Academy of Sciences on this subject of ergonomics before proceeding with the regulation. The study, requested by Congress and agreed to by President Clinton in the appropriations bill of the previous year, reviewed the available scientific literature to determine if sufficient evidence and data existed to support OSHA's promulgating of a regulation on this issue. The report was delivered to Congress on January 16 of this year, the same day the Clinton ergonomics regulation took effect. Had OSHA waited for the NAS study, they would have had the benefit of some valuable analysis of the data on this most complex subject. The NAS panel concluded that there are a wide array of factors which play significant roles in whether an individual develops an MSD and that workplace issues are only one of these factors and quite possibly not even the most significant one at that. As the panel stated: None of the common MSDs is uniquely caused by work exposures. Instead, the study discussed whether someone will develop an MSD based on the totality of factors that person may face, which is how the scientific literature handled the issue. The panel concluded that a wide range of personal factors played significant roles in determining whether someone was likely to develop an MSD. Included in these were factors such as age, gender, body mass index, personal habits such as smoking, possible genetically determined predispositions, as well as activities outside the workplace such as sports, household work, or exercise programs. These are factors over which an employer exercises no control and we certainly would not want them to exercise control. The NAS study also concluded that psychosocial factors have a strong association with MSDs. Psychosocial factors include such conditions as depression, anxiety, psychological distress, personality factors, fear avoidance coping, high job demands, low decision latitude, low control over work, low work stimulus, low social support, low job satisfaction, high perceived stress, and nonwork-related worry, tension, and psychological distress. These psychosocial factors, even if work related, are beyond the reach of an OSHA regulation, meaning that OSHA's regulation will do little, if anything, to protect these employees from developing MSDs. Furthermore, the NAS study was unequivocal in calling for more research into the issues surrounding the assessment, measurement, and understanding of ergonomics and workplace exposures. Among the specific areas in which the NAS recommends more research is the quantification of risk factors. The Clinton OSHA did have a simple solution for the perplexing problem of how to determine whether a musculoskeletal disorder was caused by workplace exposures. They defined all MSDs as work related. Under this regulation, any MSD in the workplace contributed to by workplace exposures or even a preexisting injury aggravated in the workplace is to be considered work related. That is outrageously unfair. It goes beyond OSHA's mandate to protect workers from workplace hazards. It means that if an employee injures him or herself through recreational activities such as bowling, exercising, using the Internet at home, planting trees, or any other workplace activities, and any workplace activities aggravate these injuries and they meet OSHA's definition of frequency or duration, the employer will be required to implement the Clinton OSHA ergonomics program. Small businesses that I talk to and listen to as chairman of the Committee on Small Business are absolutely stunned and shocked by this requirement. They are stunned that an agency of the Federal Government could issue such a sweeping and poorly designed rule. They are incredulous and ask questions such as why didn't someone say or do something. The truth is, many people have said the right things. They outlined the difficulties employers would have with the rule, the faulty assumptions, but OSHA was not listening. The preamble to the final rule cites comment after comment that tried to explain to OSHA why the regulation was a mistake. OSHA seemed to regard these as mere speed bumps on the way to the finish line. This regulation may become the best example yet of the law of unintended consequences. If allowed to stand, OSHA will end up undermining many of the best intentions of thousands of employers, causing their employees to suffer in the process and wind up costing them jobs. Small businesses can be shut down because of the cost of these regulations. Yes, this regulation may lower the incidence of workplace MSDs, but at least some of that lessening of MSD injuries will be because people will lose their jobs. Then they clearly won't have a workplace musculoskeletal disorder. That is one very effective way to eliminate workplace ergonomic injuries, but it is not what we ought to be seeking. A woman who runs a small business in Kansas City told me she won't be able to continue to pay 85 percent of her employees' health insurance premiums that she currently pays. She has a Web site and graphics design studio with 30 employees. She has already been buying new ergonomically designed chairs at $800 apiece, along with new furniture to make it more comfortable for her employees. She provides a range of employee benefits, a 401(k), dental benefits, but she told me: The bureaucrats in Washington think we have all this money just lying around to spend for this type of thing. That's is not true. The only place I can get the kind of money to comply with this regulation is taking it out of the benefits I give to my employees. She said: I asked my friends on the other side, how has the Clinton ergonomics regulation improved these employees' lives? It isn't going to. A man who runs a small business metal fabricating shop said this rule will cause him possibly to drop his company's work with the local sheltered workshop, providing jobs for those with mental and physical disabilities, because of the burdens of this OSHA regulation. Is that the result OSHA wants? Certainly not. This is an unintended consequence. Many people may not realize, if they are not involved in small business, small businesses get by with very tight cashflow. Large businesses can capitalize expenses for compliance. They can have squads of people who are trained to help overcome these, but a small business does not have that luxury. Even a few hundred dollars a month for a consultant can make a significant difference. Then there is the question of time. Time is money. Do they have time to read these regulations? Do they have time to go out and get the other books, comply with all the requirements? Adding this regulation and its complexities on top of other duties means less time doing what will make their business grow, expand, and thrive. Furthermore, many small businesses have never encountered an OSHA regulation like this before, which means it is not just another layer on their safety programs, it is a whole world of OSHA regulations, like starting off to climb Mount Everest on your first climbing experience. Small businesses we hear from simply don't have the resources to expend on this complicated a regulation with as little payoff as this will provide. The cost estimates of this regulation reveal the utter cluelessness of the promulgators of the regulation. OSHA says it would cost $4.5 billion per year over 10 years. But everybody else who has looked at it says they are off by orders of magnitude. The Small Business Administration Advocacy Council of the Clinton administration found the earliest draft was underestimated by a factor of up to 15 times, even before OSHA added more requirements. We are possibly talking about regulations costing $60 billion to $100 billion a year. To inflate the benefits and thus make this regulation look less burdensome, the Clinton OSHA assumed, with no supporting evidence, that imposing this standard on businesses would cure an additional 50 percent more MSDs over the next 10 years. As I pointed out earlier, they may cure some of the MSDs by costing people their jobs. No job, no job-related MSDs. Let me be clear, I raise this discussion about the cost of this regulation not because small businesses are unwilling to spend money on the safety of their employees--every small business my office has talked to, and committee reached out to, already has a safety plan and some level of an ergonomics program in place. They want to do what they can do to stop the injuries of employees, which are costing them money. I raise the issue to make the point that OSHA went forward with this regulation without any reliable idea about what this will cost or what benefits it will generate. Not only was OSHA unable to say with any credibility what the costs and benefits of this regulation would be, but as has already been pointed out, this gargantuan regulation was also unnecessary: MSD rates have dropped by 22 percent over the last 5 years, according the Department of Labor Statistics. As the Senator from California pointed out, many leading businesses are making great strides in limiting ergonomic injuries because they realize it is good employer-employee relations to do so. For that small percentage of businesses that may not be motivated to help their employees with ergonomic injuries, there is the OSHA general duty clause to protect employees from employers who abuse them. The bottom line is that small businesses are in business to stay in business. That means keeping their employees healthy. Employees often are more than mere workers--friends, neighbors, or even relatives. Any regulation from OSHA should first do no harm to both the employers and their employees. The Clinton OSHA ergonomics regulation fails this threshold test. It is regulations such as these that create waves of cynicism and doubt about the Federal Government and that cause them to wonder whether those of us who have been elected to safeguard and to speak up for their interests are asleep at the wheel. For the first time in this CRA, we can say ``enough''--that OSHA has gone too far and has crossed the line of reasonableness. The Clinton ergonomics regulation doesn't protect employees; it punishes employers. The regulation is not responsive; it is irresponsible; and it must be struck down. I urge my colleagues to support the resolution of disapproval and send OSHA a message that we will not tolerate this joyride of regulatory overreach.

Mr. BOND

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Support to Absentee Uniformed and Overseas Citizens Voters Act of 2001. This bill ensures that Americans serving overseas, be they the men and women of the military who stand guard on foreign shares, or equally deserving citizens who serve our country in other venues, will have their vote counted. American citizens should not loose their right to vote under arbitrary or unfair standards. It is therefore incumbent upon lawmakers to ensure their rights are protected. Although overseas mail is technically supposed to carry a postmark, the reality of the situation is that circumstances in foreign countries, or at sea aboard u.S. Navy ships, can result in mail being sent without a postmark. Currently several states require a postmark for an absentee ballot to be counted and without such a postmark citizens are denied their vote through absolutely no fault of their own. We saw the damaging affects of this standard in our most recent Presidential election. My bill provides that states may not refuse to count a ballot submitted in an election for a Federal office by an absentee uniformed services member or overseas citizen voter on the grounds that the ballot was improperly or fraudulently cast ``unless the State finds clear and convincing evidence'' of fraud in the preparation or casting of the ballot by the voter. Specifically, the bill states under a ``Clear and Convincing Evidence'' standard, the lack of a witness signature, address, postmark, or other identifying information may not be considered clear and convincing evidence of fraud, absent any other information or evidence. Consequently the mere absence of a postmark will not disqualify an overseas citizen from casting his or her vote. Mr. President, our most recent election illustrates the clear need for change in our voting procedures. Reform is needed. By making certain that American's stationed overseas will have their votes counted, this bill is one crucial step in that direction. There is need for more reform however and I am working on a comprehensive election reform bill targeting abusive practices at home. I look forward to introducing that legislation next week and working with my colleagues towards adoption of all these measures.

Mr. BOND

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