Kit Bond

Mr. BOND

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, today I would like to recognize the determination and perseverance of the Falun Gong, a peaceful movement seeking the basic freedoms to think as they wish and believe as they choose that we as Americans hold so dear. Three principles of Truth, Compassion, and Tolerance lie at the core of Falun Gong. Those who practice Falun Gong do so to become better, healthier people through living by these principles. Despite Falun Gong's peaceful principles and teachings, violations of human rights have occurred in China against Falun Gong practitioners. Human rights is an important goal as recognized by the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights which sets forth certain basic rights such as the right to life, to liberty, and to the freedom of expression. The Senate has ratified a series of international treaties such as International Covenant of Civil and Political Rights, 1976, and the Convention against Torture and other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, 1987. The Senate's approval of these and other treaties highlights the progress made towards human rights. In direct response to the recent human rights violations against Falun Gong practitioners, the Senate, on November 19, 1999, unanimously approved Senate Resolution 217. This resolution, ``recognizing the plight of many Chinese citizens,'' calls on the Government of the People's Republic of China to: 1. release all prisoners of conscience and put an immediate end to the harassment, detention, physical abuse, and imprisonment of Chinese citizens exercising their legitimate rights to free belief, expression, and association; and 2. demonstrate its willingness to abide by internationally accepted norms of freedom of belief, expression, and association by repealing or amending laws and decrees that restrict those freedoms and proceeding promptly to ratify and implement the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. We must embrace the opportunity to continue to support the principles of Falun Gong to realize freedom and I wish them well in their quest for freedom and justice.

Mr. BOND

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, today I would like to recognize Madame Chen We Sue-jen, the first lady of Taiwan, and welcome her to Washington, DC. Madame Chen We Sue-jen has displayed exemplary character and strength in her endeavors to promote justice, human rights, and democracy in Taiwan. Overcoming both personal and professional hardships with grace, she has remained steadfast in her support of these principles. Although Madame Chen We Sue-jen has overcome obstacles throughout her public career, never has she let it overcome her. She is described as optimistic, cheerful and friendly-noted for her sense of human and laughter. She continues to act as a strong and effective advocate for Taiwan's physically challenged citizens. Throughout all her trials, she has remained solid in her support for her family and the people of Taiwan. This strength of character has contributed much to the First Lady's greatness. First Lady Chen Wu is here today to bring a message from her husband and the people of Taiwan. Her message is one of cooperation and support from the Taiwanese in our joint antiterrorism campaign. Already, with support of Madame Chen We Sue-jen, Taiwan has demonstrated charity and humanitarian assistance to the victims of the terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001. As mentioned in the House Resolution, the Government and people of Taiwan have consistently provided tremendous support and generous contributions to the United States after those attacks. Madame Chen We Sue-jen is a woman of great character and strength. I wish to offer my warmest welcome to her as she visits the Capitol. I extend my gratitude to her for all the important work she has done and I wish her well in her pursuits of justice and democracy.

Mr. BOND

Mr. BOND. I thank the Chair. I yield the floor.

Mr. BOND. I thank the Chair. Mr. President, I have been listening to some of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle saying the economic problems we have are somebody else's fault. They blame the President. Unfortunately, in this instance, the President cannot pass legislation. The President was successful in working with us to pass the beginning of tax relief which took effect in 2001, and most responsible economists I know suggest that helped lessen the impact of the downturn which began in 2000, beginning as early as the first quarter of 2000 and hitting its peak the end of 2000 and the beginning of 2001. We could do some things in this body. We could pass some laws that would make a difference and help the economy get going. Frankly, one of the great frustrations I feel is we cannot get about the business that we are supposed to do on the Senate floor. If the majority leadership had allowed the Senate Energy Committee to work its will on an energy bill, the committee would have reported out a proposal to allow drilling on 2,000 acres in the barren northlands above the Arctic Circle in Alaska. That is called ANWR. ANWR not only has the potential to replace the oil we must now buy from the malevolent, deadly dictator Saddam Hussein, ANWR could put up to three-quarters of a million people to work throughout the country, not just in the drilling and work in ANWR, but providing the materials, making the steel and turning it into equipment, pipelines, providing the infrastructure through the private sector that we need to bring that oil down from ANWR. I am still hoping we can get ANWR in the energy bill, a tremendous boost for the economy. Where else do we need a boost for the economy? In large construction projects. There are construction projects shut down all around the country because they cannot get insurance against terrorism. Terrorism risk insurance was dealt with in the Banking Committee on a bipartisan basis. I understand they reported out a good bill to provide that the Federal Government would be a backstop, on a sharing basis, for the reinsurance of terrorism risk. The majority leadership took it away. We cannot get a terrorism risk insurance bill through this body because the majority leadership has changed it into something that provides great new opportunities to sue the victims of terrorist attacks for punitive damages. Punitive damages are not a way to build the economy. Those are two pieces of legislation we could have gotten finished to help the economy get going. Making the tax cut permanent would be a third way of doing it. I came to the floor to express what I believe is a great sense of frustration by all of us. The Senate is stuck in neutral. I have only been in the Senate 16 years, and by some standards that is a pretty short time. We honored our distinguished senior colleague from South Carolina yesterday, and we know of the record of great service of others in this body, but in the short time I have been here I have never seen this body so dysfunctional. It is time we talked about why we are dysfunctional. What is happening? What has gone wrong? Why are we here? Quite simply, it is because some do not want to let us vote. This is the basic motivation and it is cloaked with all the talk about cloture and filibuster, but we are still on an Interior bill amendment which was offered 3 weeks ago. We are stuck because the majority leadership does not want us to vote on that amendment. There is plenty of time to vote, but for some reason some are apparently afraid to vote. It is no more complicated than that. If we vote, we could get to the remaining amendments, pass the bill, and move on in the next day or two. If the majority does not like it, they could move to table it and we could have a vote; might win, might lose. We could at least have a vote. I have worked a long time on appropriations bills. I have worked very diligently with the Senator from Maryland, the excellent chairman of the VA/HUD Committee. We have a bill we would like to present to the Senate because it deals with some very important things for veterans, for housing, for the environment, for economic development in our communities, for science, for space, for emergency management. We are ready and willing, and there are nine other bills that are ready, but when we spend more than 3 weeks on one appropriations bill, we are not going anywhere. We cannot get there until the Senate does what it is paid to do, which is to vote up or down, win or lose, and let the will of the Senate prevail. Some are suggesting--and this, I believe, is truly outrageous--the sponsors of the amendment should pull the amendment so some do not have to cast a difficult vote. Yes, this is a political season and it is tough, but that is what we get paid to do. We have cast 223 votes this year, and I do not believe another one will make or break or overburden any of us. The Senator from South Carolina and the Senator from West Virginia each have cast over 15,000 votes. They have shown they are not afraid to make hard decisions, and the hard decisions they have made have not taken them away. The sponsors of the Craig-Domenici amendment have had people die in their States. They have had millions of acres of trees, including old-growth trees, habitat, and wildlife, ruined by fire. Houses have burned. A sound and responsible solution has been put forward based on good science and sound forestry management. The Senate should have the courtesy, if not the common sense, to vote on it. How poorly are we willing to treat the Senators from these Western States? I believe these Senators and their constituencies deserve a vote. If Senators want to vote against them, vote against them. They will have to explain it if they vote for them or if they vote against them. Senator Craig does not have an opportunity to slip this provision into a conference report, so he is doing what the Senate should allow him to do and what we are paid to do, which is to offer amendments and have an up-or-down vote. Maybe they want a commitment to drop the amendment in a conference report. Why can't we vote? There are a lot of reasons why appropriations bills are difficult to resolve, but this should not be one of them. This is not a question of how much money we have available. We should have voted 3 weeks ago. We could have completed four or more bills in this time, but we are at a stalemate. Given the choices, this should be an easy call. Should the sponsors be asked to ignore their burning States, the danger of horrific, catastrophic forest fires, and set their amendments aside, or should the people who are preventing a vote decide they should let the Senate do what we are here to do, what our constitutional responsibility is to do, which is to make decisions on hard choices and then vote? We have been in session for over 3 weeks, since Labor Day, and we have cast a whooping 16 votes. Six of these votes were unanimous. So we have cast 10 votes on contentious issues, which is less than 1 vote per day. That is not exactly heavy lifting. This time of year, we could probably do two, three, or even four votes a day and not work up a sweat, but we are not able to do that. We cast 5 unanimous votes, and we cast a unanimous vote on procedure in 16 days, which leaves 10 votes. Some are saying maybe we ought to come in on Saturdays. Unless we are permitted to vote, what good is that going to do? If we cannot vote on Wednesday, what makes my colleagues think we could vote on Saturday, unless the objection to voting was lifted? I do not want to shut off any debate, but when the debate is over, we should vote. If anyone has anything to add after 3\1/2\ weeks of debate, then I think they may have missed their opportunity. I have spoken a couple of times. Obviously I have not moved many souls or they would all be stampeding to say, let's restore sound forestry management. Maybe they were not listening, maybe I was not persuasive, but I have had my shot. I think it is time we get on with it. I compliment the Senator from South Dakota for figuring out a way to protect his State. What he did was sound forestry management. I simply want to see other people who live around the forests have the same opportunity as the people in South Dakota, which is to be free from the danger of catastrophic forest fires. I have farmers who want farm aid. South Dakota has an interest, I am sure. I voted on farm aid. It was not germane or relevant to the bill, but I voted for it. Why can't the Senators whose States are on fire have a vote on something that is directly relevant to the Interior bill before us? I have not heard one substantive, rational explanation as to why Senators whose States are on fire should not be entitled to vote, even a negative vote. I say to our distinguished leadership, explain to the people of the Western States that are on fire why they do not deserve a vote. The amendment is pending. Let's vote up or down; table it or not. South Dakota got special protection. Are Colorado, California, Montana, or Utah any less important than South Dakota? I think not. Have the national interest groups gotten so powerful--and let me say, when we are talking national interest groups, I will let everyone in on a secret. It is the Sierra Club. Have the national interest groups and the Sierra Club gotten so powerful they can prevent Senators from standing up for the safety of people in their own States? I note that the groups that oppose this amendment are very important and powerful, but until now I did not think they were powerful enough to shut down the Senate. I understand why the authors of the amendment would not want to pull their amendment because their States are on fire and in danger of being on fire. Given all the important matters funded in Interior, given that $5.9 billion in drought assistance for fire suppression money, I do not understand why we cannot vote. Substantively or politically, what is more important than assistance to prevent fires and assistance for drought-stricken ranchers? It is clear to those who follow the Senate, there is bad politics for some who may not want to vote. I appreciate some activists do not want this passed--that is their right--but we are not obliged to skip votes because an outside group does not want to see a vote on it. They have their right to voice their opposition on the amendment, but they should not have the power to stop the Senate from voting. That is a shame. This matter should be resolved in the way it should be resolved, with a vote; move to table and vote up or down. I think Senator Craig's effort to prevent forest fires is worth the Senate's time. We have lots of forests the size of New Jersey. Firefighters and innocent citizens in South Dakota are protected. But Idaho, New Mexico, Montana, and Missouri should be, too. I plead with those objecting to voting to permit us to do what the people have sent us here to do. Before I conclude, I call to the attention of my colleagues in the Senate an editorial from yesterday's Wall Street Journal. It says the Democratic leadership is: . . . now blaming Republicans for stalling the appropriations bill. In fact, the bill would clear quickly if he'd just hold a vote on the Craig amendment. But the Majority Leader knows a vote would force his party either to side with Mr. Craig (thereby alienating greens), or repudiate forest cleanup (thereby alienating voters this fall). We think it was a famous Democrat, JFK, who once said that to govern is to choose. I ask unanimous consent that this article from the Wall Street Journal be printed in the Record.

Mr. BOND

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I understand the distinguished Senator from Michigan would like 5 minutes so she can then assume the Chair. I will be happy to defer to her for 5 minutes, if I can then be recognized after her and have the attention of the body. I will be happy to accommodate her.

Mr. BOND

Mr. BOND. Madam President, there are some times even in the Senate when enough words cannot be said. Senator Thurmond has probably made more history than many of us will ever see. He has experienced more history than most of us will ever know. Every member of the Senate would be proud to tell our grandchildren that ``I served with Strom Thurmond.'' Because the senior Senator from South Carolina has been such a force in politics for over 50 years, I would like to tell my grandparents that I served with Strom Thurmond. He always did his duty and he spent the better part of a century shaping the greatest nation on earth. There isn't a history teacher alive who wouldn't like to bring their class to Senator Thurmond's office to see a portrait of history laid out on his walls. One would think that to live and perform at the ripe young age of 99, one would be wise to pace oneself. Instead, Senator Thurmond has put in a professional marathon, but at the pace of a 100- yard dash. He is the Lance Armstrong and Cal Ripken of pubic service with over 15,000 votes. Alternatively, I would rather say that Cal Ripken is the iron man Strom Thurmond of Major League Baseball. In his book, ``Great Political Wit,'' our former colleague Bob Dole described Senator Thurmond's 90th birthday. At that festive event, Senator Thurmond noted that, ``all evening, people had been coming up to him to express the hope that they would be present for his 100th birthday. To which Senator Thurmond replied, ``if you eat right and exercise regularly, I don't see any reason why you shouldn't be around to see it.'' In terms of ethics and duty, he remains old fashioned. He believes that the real ``woman's place'' is sitting next to him testing his charm, and his grip. If there is a more extraordinary resume in a Congress full of honor and achievement, I cannot imagine. In his career, he has responded to the titles of: teacher, coach, Lieutenant, Counselor, superintendent Judge, General, Governor, Senator and President Pro Tempe. When Ted Williams set down his bat to go defend his country during World War II, Judge Thurmond set down his gavel, at age 40, to join the 82nd Airborne that landed on Normandy Beach. Before he returned to the bench he had battled his way across France, Belgium, Holland, Luxembourg, Czechoslovakia, and Germany and finished in the Philippines. Few in the history of this country have dedicated so much energy on behalf of the country they loved. And through it all, it seemed that the senior Senator had energy in reserve. I had my staff dig up the Senator's first floor statement which occurred on January 28, 1955. He spoke directly after Senators Long and Humphrey. He was speaking eloquently but directly and succinctly on the need to meet the threat of communism head on. This was in relation to an authorization of force to protect Formosa, requested by President Eisenhower. Let me read his final paragraph: ``Our earnest prayer is for peace. If war should come, it would not the result of any aggressive act on the part of the United States. But war might come as a result of any display of weakness, of disunity, or of heslitation. I shall cast my vote on the side of firmness, for unity and for decision.'' As near as I can tell, his approach to and commitment to the security of free people has not deviated since that first floor statement. We are all grateful for the distinguished tenure of Senator Thurmond; grateful to the people of his State for sending him here, and grateful to his family for sharing him. His retirement is well-deserved and I hope he now has more surplus time to build up his pushups and pull ups so he can return to fighting shape again. Additionally, after 36 years in the Senate, some of us are getting tired of calling Chairman Hollings ``junior.'' It is my high honor and privilege humbly to thank our still young-of- heart Strom and wish him a busy retirement.

Mr. BOND

Mr. BOND. Madam President, I rise today to introduce the Birth Defects and Developmental Disabilities Prevention Act of 2002. It is a pleasure to work, once again, on this important issue with Senators Dodd, Kennedy and Frist. My interest in birth defects prevention began while I was Governor. As Governor I had secured dollars to fund the neonate care units at our hospitals in Missouri. These remarkable institutions and the dedicated men and women who serve there do a tremendous job of saving low birth weight babies and babies with severe birth defects. As I visited those hospitals and held those tiny babies, the doctors and nurses who staffed these units asked me, ``Why don't we do something to reduce the incidents of birth defects and the problems that bring the tiniest of infants to these very high-tech, specialized care units.'' Since I became a Senator I have been working with colleagues on both sides of the aisle and with the March of Dimes to deal with this serious and compelling health problem facing America. Many people are not aware that birth defects affect over 3 percent of all births in America, and they are the leading cause of infant death. This year alone, an estimated 150,000 babies will be born with a birth defect. Among the babies who survive, birth defects often result in lifelong disability. Medical care, special education, and many other services are often required into adulthood, costing families thousands of dollars each year. In 1992, due to a terrible tradegy in Texas when at least 30 infants were born without or with little brain tissue over a short period of time, I introduced the Birth Defects Prevention Act. Because at the time Texas did not have a birth defects surveillance system, and because our country did not have a comprehensive birth defects prevention and surveillance strategy, the severity of the problem was not recognized until the incidence of birth defects was so high that it was difficult to miss. In 1998, we passed the Birth Defects Prevention Act, which created a federal birth defects prevention and surveillance strategy. That was followed by the Children's Health Act of 2000, which established the National Center on Birth Defects and Developmental Disabilities at CDC. With these two important pieces of legislation Congress for the first time recognized that birth defect and developmental disabilities are major threats to children's health. As a result, CDC, through eight regional Centers for Birth Defects Research and Prevention are collaborating on the largest study on the causes of birth defects ever undertaken, the National Birth Defects Prevention Study. CDC is also assisting 28 States by providing 3-year grants to improve their surveillance systems. We have come a long way in the past 5 years toward preventing certain birth defects, but we face many challenges ahead. There is still much work to be done to improve the health of all Americans by preventing birth defects and developmental disabilities in children, promoting optimal child development and ensuring health and wellness among child and adults living with disabilities. Today, with the introduction of this bill we have the opportunity to renew our commitment to birth defects prevention and to improve the quality of life of those living with disabilities. I look forward to working with my colleagues to ensure and enhance the well-being of our Nation's children.

Mr. BOND

Mr. BOND. Madam President, I rise today to introduce the Birth Defects and Developmental Disabilities Prevention Act of 2002. It is a pleasure to work, once again, on this important issue with Senators Dodd, Kennedy and Frist. My interest in birth defects prevention began while I was Governor. As Governor I had secured dollars to fund the neonate care units at our hospitals in Missouri. These remarkable institutions and the dedicated men and women who serve there do a tremendous job of saving low birth weight babies and babies with severe birth defects. As I visited those hospitals and held those tiny babies, the doctors and nurses who staffed these units asked me, ``Why don't we do something to reduce the incidents of birth defects and the problems that bring the tiniest of infants to these very high-tech, specialized care units.'' Since I became a Senator I have been working with colleagues on both sides of the aisle and with the March of Dimes to deal with this serious and compelling health problem facing America. Many people are not aware that birth defects affect over 3 percent of all births in America, and they are the leading cause of infant death. This year alone, an estimated 150,000 babies will be born with a birth defect. Among the babies who survive, birth defects often result in lifelong disability. Medical care, special education, and many other services are often required into adulthood, costing families thousands of dollars each year. In 1992, due to a terrible tradegy in Texas when at least 30 infants were born without or with little brain tissue over a short period of time, I introduced the Birth Defects Prevention Act. Because at the time Texas did not have a birth defects surveillance system, and because our country did not have a comprehensive birth defects prevention and surveillance strategy, the severity of the problem was not recognized until the incidence of birth defects was so high that it was difficult to miss. In 1998, we passed the Birth Defects Prevention Act, which created a federal birth defects prevention and surveillance strategy. That was followed by the Children's Health Act of 2000, which established the National Center on Birth Defects and Developmental Disabilities at CDC. With these two important pieces of legislation Congress for the first time recognized that birth defect and developmental disabilities are major threats to children's health. As a result, CDC, through eight regional Centers for Birth Defects Research and Prevention are collaborating on the largest study on the causes of birth defects ever undertaken, the National Birth Defects Prevention Study. CDC is also assisting 28 States by providing 3-year grants to improve their surveillance systems. We have come a long way in the past 5 years toward preventing certain birth defects, but we face many challenges ahead. There is still much work to be done to improve the health of all Americans by preventing birth defects and developmental disabilities in children, promoting optimal child development and ensuring health and wellness among child and adults living with disabilities. Today, with the introduction of this bill we have the opportunity to renew our commitment to birth defects prevention and to improve the quality of life of those living with disabilities. I look forward to working with my colleagues to ensure and enhance the well-being of our Nation's children.

Mr. BOND. Madam President, I rise today to introduce the Affordable Housing Expansion Act of 2002. I include a summary of the provisions of the legislation with my statement, and I urge all members to review the bill and the summary. Obviously this is a major piece of legislation that will undoubtedly be considered in the next session of Congress as well, but I want to be out in public for discussion this year so we can work on it early next year. This is an important bill that is designed to start to meet the long-term housing needs of very low- and extremely low-income families. This bill is targeted especially to provide affordable housing for extremely low-income families, those at or below 30 percent of medium income. In particular, the Affordable Housing Expansion Act would establish a new block grant program to be administered by the Department of Housing and Urban Development--HUD. HUD would allocate funds to state housing finance agencies for the development of mixed income housing with the Federal funding targeted to the development of the very low-income and extremely low-income housing component of the mixed income housing. Each state housing finance agency would have to submit an affordable housing expansion plan to HUD that ensures the funds are allocated to meet the low-income housing needs in both the rural and urban areas of each state. States also would have to contribute a 25 percent match. Moreover, each state housing finance agency could use up to 20 percent of these block grant funds to preserve existing low-income multifamily housing and for the rehabilitation needs of low-income multifamily housing. The Affordable Housing Expansion Act also provides new authority for low-income housing production under the Section 8 program and the Public Housing program. Under the Section 8 program, the bill provides new authority for a ``Thrifty Voucher'' program that would allow the use of section 8 project-based assistance for new construction, substantial rehabilitation and preservation of affordable housing for extremely low-income families. Because the cost of these vouchers is capped at 75 percent of the payment standard, these vouchers will need to be used in conjunction with other housing assistance programs, such as the HOME program, the Community Development Block Grant program or Low Income Housing Tax Credit program, to be successful. The bill also would authorize a new loan guarantee program that will allow public housing agencies to rehabilitate existing public housing or develop off-site public housing in mixed income developments. The long-term debt of these loans would be tied to the pro-rata share of funds under the Public Housing Capital and Operating Funds that would be allocated to the units that are rehabilitated or constructed over a maximum of 30 years. This tool will allow Public Housing Agencies to address more aggressively the over $20 billion backlog of public housing capital needs. The Affordable Housing Expansion Act of 2002 is an important first step towards addressing a growing shortage of affordable housing for very low-income and extremely low-income families. While homeownership rates have grown and the cost of housing has skyrocketed, many very low-income and extremely low-income families are being left behind without the availability of affordable rental housing. This is unfortunate. It is a tragedy. The social and economic costs to the Nation are dramatic. And while we have several Federal housing production programs, such as the HOME program and the Low Income Housing Tax Credit, not enough is being done. In particular, HUD's most recent report on worst case housing needs, A Report on Worst Case Needs in 1999: New Opportunity Amid Continuing challenges, concluded that the shortage of affordable housing has worsened. In particular, the number of units affordable to extremely low-income renters dropped between 1997 and 1999 at an accelerated rate, and shortages of affordable housing available to those renters worsened. As we have seen in this economy, as rents continue to rise faster than inflation, the pressure for above-average rent increases at the bottom end of the rental stock is eroding further the supply of rental units that are affordable without Government subsidies. In addition, this report found a record high of 5.4 million families--some 600,000 more families with worst case housing needs than in 1991--that have incomes below 50 percent of median income and pay at least 50 percent of their income in rent. In addition, worst case housing needs have become increasingly concentrated among those families with extremely low-incomes. In particular, over three-quarters of the families with worst case housing needs in 1997 had incomes below 30 percent of median income. I have seen no evidence that these families have fared better since 1997, and as rents have increased, I think it obvious that the problem has worsened. Further, since that time, we have lost some 200,000 units of section 8 project-based units to rent increases as well as to decisions by owners of the housing not to renew their section 8 contracts. Also, as families age and people live longer lives, we are beginning to face a new crisis of a lack of affordable housing for our seniors. The Affordable Housing Expansion Act is designed to provide additional, needed tools that will allow States and communities to develop new affordable low-income and mixed-income housing, including units targeted to extremely low-income families. This would help fill a gap in the housing needs of the Nation that would allow these lowest income families to begin to climb the housing ladder to homeownership. Decisions would be driven by local choice and need and start to meet the burgeoning need for new low-income housing in tight markets where there is little or no housing for families and seniors at the low end of the economic scale. These families need to be served and the cost is small compared to potential cascading social and economic costs to both communities and families--it is a simple equation--homes equal stable environments in which children are educated and people can obtain jobs. Jobs and homes represent the tax base of any community and educated children are the future of our Nation. This is important legislation. The private sector is not making the needed investment to meet the low-income housing needs of the present and future. The Federal government must show the leadership and make the needed investment to partner with state and localities as well as public and private entities in the low-income housing infrastructure of the Nation. This bill is designed to start to meet this need and focus the debate on the importance of low-income housing production to the current and future housing needs of this Nation. Too often in this body we say we are going to help low-income people get more housing because we are going to expand the number of section 8 certificates. The sad fact is that in many communities, particularly in the St. Louis area, no matter how many more vouchers you put out, no more housing is available. Too many of the vouchers, the certificates, are not used because there simply is not the affordable housing. This deals with the problem that we see, not just in St. Louis but across the Nation. I believe my colleagues should take a hard look at this. We invite their comments and consideration. We must do something, and it will probably be next year, but we must get to work right now thinking about how we are going to meet the need for affordable housing for the very low and extremely low income people who live in our country. I ask unanimous consent that a summary of the legislation be printed with my statement.

Mr. BOND. Madam President, I send the bill to the desk and ask for its appropriate referral.

Mr. BOND

Mr. BOND. I thank the Chair. (The remarks of Mr. BOND pertaining to the introduction of S. 2967 are located in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced Bills and Joint Resolutions.'')

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

Mr. BOND. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to proceed as in morning business for 5 minutes to introduce legislation.

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

Mr. BOND

Mr. BOND. Madam President, I rise today to introduce the Affordable Housing Expansion Act of 2002. I include a summary of the provisions of the legislation with my statement, and I urge all members to review the bill and the summary. Obviously this is a major piece of legislation that will undoubtedly be considered in the next session of Congress as well, but I want to be out in public for discussion this year so we can work on it early next year. This is an important bill that is designed to start to meet the long-term housing needs of very low- and extremely low-income families. This bill is targeted especially to provide affordable housing for extremely low-income families, those at or below 30 percent of medium income. In particular, the Affordable Housing Expansion Act would establish a new block grant program to be administered by the Department of Housing and Urban Development--HUD. HUD would allocate funds to state housing finance agencies for the development of mixed income housing with the Federal funding targeted to the development of the very low-income and extremely low-income housing component of the mixed income housing. Each state housing finance agency would have to submit an affordable housing expansion plan to HUD that ensures the funds are allocated to meet the low-income housing needs in both the rural and urban areas of each state. States also would have to contribute a 25 percent match. Moreover, each state housing finance agency could use up to 20 percent of these block grant funds to preserve existing low-income multifamily housing and for the rehabilitation needs of low-income multifamily housing. The Affordable Housing Expansion Act also provides new authority for low-income housing production under the Section 8 program and the Public Housing program. Under the Section 8 program, the bill provides new authority for a ``Thrifty Voucher'' program that would allow the use of section 8 project-based assistance for new construction, substantial rehabilitation and preservation of affordable housing for extremely low-income families. Because the cost of these vouchers is capped at 75 percent of the payment standard, these vouchers will need to be used in conjunction with other housing assistance programs, such as the HOME program, the Community Development Block Grant program or Low Income Housing Tax Credit program, to be successful. The bill also would authorize a new loan guarantee program that will allow public housing agencies to rehabilitate existing public housing or develop off-site public housing in mixed income developments. The long-term debt of these loans would be tied to the pro-rata share of funds under the Public Housing Capital and Operating Funds that would be allocated to the units that are rehabilitated or constructed over a maximum of 30 years. This tool will allow Public Housing Agencies to address more aggressively the over $20 billion backlog of public housing capital needs. The Affordable Housing Expansion Act of 2002 is an important first step towards addressing a growing shortage of affordable housing for very low-income and extremely low-income families. While homeownership rates have grown and the cost of housing has skyrocketed, many very low-income and extremely low-income families are being left behind without the availability of affordable rental housing. This is unfortunate. It is a tragedy. The social and economic costs to the Nation are dramatic. And while we have several Federal housing production programs, such as the HOME program and the Low Income Housing Tax Credit, not enough is being done. In particular, HUD's most recent report on worst case housing needs, A Report on Worst Case Needs in 1999: New Opportunity Amid Continuing challenges, concluded that the shortage of affordable housing has worsened. In particular, the number of units affordable to extremely low-income renters dropped between 1997 and 1999 at an accelerated rate, and shortages of affordable housing available to those renters worsened. As we have seen in this economy, as rents continue to rise faster than inflation, the pressure for above-average rent increases at the bottom end of the rental stock is eroding further the supply of rental units that are affordable without Government subsidies. In addition, this report found a record high of 5.4 million families--some 600,000 more families with worst case housing needs than in 1991--that have incomes below 50 percent of median income and pay at least 50 percent of their income in rent. In addition, worst case housing needs have become increasingly concentrated among those families with extremely low-incomes. In particular, over three-quarters of the families with worst case housing needs in 1997 had incomes below 30 percent of median income. I have seen no evidence that these families have fared better since 1997, and as rents have increased, I think it obvious that the problem has worsened. Further, since that time, we have lost some 200,000 units of section 8 project-based units to rent increases as well as to decisions by owners of the housing not to renew their section 8 contracts. Also, as families age and people live longer lives, we are beginning to face a new crisis of a lack of affordable housing for our seniors. The Affordable Housing Expansion Act is designed to provide additional, needed tools that will allow States and communities to develop new affordable low-income and mixed-income housing, including units targeted to extremely low-income families. This would help fill a gap in the housing needs of the Nation that would allow these lowest income families to begin to climb the housing ladder to homeownership. Decisions would be driven by local choice and need and start to meet the burgeoning need for new low-income housing in tight markets where there is little or no housing for families and seniors at the low end of the economic scale. These families need to be served and the cost is small compared to potential cascading social and economic costs to both communities and families--it is a simple equation--homes equal stable environments in which children are educated and people can obtain jobs. Jobs and homes represent the tax base of any community and educated children are the future of our Nation. This is important legislation. The private sector is not making the needed investment to meet the low-income housing needs of the present and future. The Federal government must show the leadership and make the needed investment to partner with state and localities as well as public and private entities in the low-income housing infrastructure of the Nation. This bill is designed to start to meet this need and focus the debate on the importance of low-income housing production to the current and future housing needs of this Nation. Too often in this body we say we are going to help low-income people get more housing because we are going to expand the number of section 8 certificates. The sad fact is that in many communities, particularly in the St. Louis area, no matter how many more vouchers you put out, no more housing is available. Too many of the vouchers, the certificates, are not used because there simply is not the affordable housing. This deals with the problem that we see, not just in St. Louis but across the Nation. I believe my colleagues should take a hard look at this. We invite their comments and consideration. We must do something, and it will probably be next year, but we must get to work right now thinking about how we are going to meet the need for affordable housing for the very low and extremely low income people who live in our country. I ask unanimous consent that a summary of the legislation be printed with my statement.

Mr. BOND. Madam President, I send the bill to the desk and ask for its appropriate referral.

Mr. BOND

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I rise to support the Craig second degree amendment. This amendment will address the continuing problem of hazardous fuels buildup in our Nation's forests. Unfortunately, the excessive buildup of these fire producing fuels has reached a crisis stage. Nowhere is this fact more evident than what is happening in our forests this year. Currently, conditions in our Nation's forests are terrible. The fire risks as a result of the buildup of these fuels are extremely high. According to the Society of American Foresters, ``As a result of 80 years of fuels accumulation and several years of drought, the potential for wildfire is at an all time high in many regions of the U.S.'' In addition to this, recent forest service estimates indicate that approximately 73 million of the Nation's national forests are at risk from ``catastrophic'' wildfire. For many of the states, the damage is already done. As you all know, many western states have experienced devastating wildfires--fires that have not only destroyed homes and property, but vast acres of trees and wildlife as well. As of late August, more than 6.3 million acres of land have burned this fire season--more than double the 10-year average. So far in this fire season, we have seen devastating fires in Colorado, Arizona, New Mexico, Alaska, and Oregon. Mr. President, these fires not only clean out and tear down living trees, they kill the wildlife, they threaten homes, they threaten lives; most of all, they scorch the Earth, subjecting it to disastrous soil runoff into our Nation's rivers, streams, and lakes, and knocking out the potential of forest regrowth for decades. The time for addressing the problem of excessive fuels buildup in our forests is long overdue. Current efforts to reduce fuel loads are taking far too long due to senseless bureaucratic delays. According to the U.S. Forest Service, it can take up to 8 years to plan and executive a relatively routine fuels reduction project. We simply cannot afford to wait this long. We are talking about good science-based forest management here. In a letter to the St. Louis Post Dispatch, Dr. Gene Garrett of the University of Missouri School of Natural Resources, who has studied and taught forestry for over 32 years, indicates that ``In many forests in the west, trees become susceptible to insects and disease, die off, and add their wood mass to an already excessive fuel load on the forest floor. Studies have shown that fuel loads are 5-10 times higher per acre in the pine and mixed conifer types in the west than during pre- settlement times. Forest scientists all across the country believe that reduction of these excessive fuel loads is the necessary and prudent action to take to restore the health of our forests, to protect our environment, to protect our wildlife. If we do not address this problem now, we risk losing many of America's most pristine forests due to wildfire devastation. Congress needs to pass legislation to streamline and expedite the clearing of these fire producing fuels. I believe that the Craig hazardous fuels reduction amendment will accomplish this goal. This amendment is designed to cut through bureaucratic red tape and speed up the review and approval process for fuels reduction efforts. Specifically, this amendment limits projects to areas that qualify as Condition Class 3 or high fire risk areas with priority placed on wildlife urban interface zones, municipal watersheds, diseased, dying, insect-infected or wind-thrown trees and areas susceptible to reburn. Proposed projects must also be consistent with the applicable forest plan, resource management plan, or other applicable agency plan. Furthermore, this amendment limits the aggregate treatment area to 10 million acres of Federal land or roughly 6 percent of the 190 million acres of Federal lands that are at high risk of wildfire. Finally, the Craig amendment allows parties to seek judicial review in Federal district court. This amendment is important to Missouri because it addresses most of the causes of excessive fuels buildup in Missouri Forests. No. 1, there has been a significant increase in fuels in the Mark Twain National Forest as a result of a serious tornado that occurred in Southeast Missouri on 4/24/02. According to the U.S. Forest Service's Tornado Fuels Assessment for the Mark Twain, heavy winds from the tornado caused tops of trees to be broken off, stems splintered and whole trees to be uprooted. Because of this damage, fuels in this region of the forest have increased by anywhere from 5-25 times pre-tornado conditions. Fuels in the tornado-affected areas are now classified under two levels: ``very high to extreme fire danger'' and ``high fire danger.'' Currently, over 470 valuable private structures near this damaged area are endangered by this fuels buildup. No. 2, Missouri has a significant number of wildlife urban interface areas. These are areas in and around forests that have a high population with a significant number of private structures. Some of these areas include individual residences, numerous rural subdivisions and small towns. These areas are particularly prevalent in southeast Missouri. No. 3, in additional to the tornado, several years of drought, oak decline and oak mortality have accelerated the process of fuels buildup in other areas of the Mark Twain. The USFS has prepared an Environmental Impact Statement for oak decline and forest health for a 192,000 acre area of the Mark Twain where trees are dying from a combination of age, drought and insect infestation red oak--bores and two line chestnut bores. The first of Missouri's two fire seasons starts next month. The most recent high wildfire season in Missouri occurred in 2000 when over 8,700 acres of wooded lands burned--more than 3,000 acres over the ten year average. The time for this body to act on this problem is now. As stated earlier, I believe that the Craig amendment will address most of the fuels buildup issues in Missouri's forests, and prioritize them for expedited cleanup. In closing, I urge you to vote in favor of this amendment. By expediting the cleanup or clearing of these fuels, Missouri and the rest of the Nation can expect to see the risks of catastrophic wildfires reduced. I yield the floor.

Mr. BOND

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote and I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Mr. BOND

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, first my appreciation to the President for nominating Judge Autrey. My thanks to Chairman Leahy and the Senate Judiciary Committee for voting unanimously to confirm him. We will have discussions about other procedures and other activities in a different forum. In this forum, I express my strongest support and highest confidence that this candidate respects the role of judges in our system of government--the job being to interpret the job rather than to legislate it. Permit me to tell you that Judge Henry Autrey currently serves as a circuit court judge for the 22nd Judicial Circuit for the State of Missouri, City of St. Louis. Judge Autrey served with distinction as an associate circuit judge beginning in 1986, a position to which he was appointed by then-Governor, John Ashcroft. He was later promoted to the full circuit bench by then-Governor of Missouri, Mel Carnahan. As a sitting judge for over 15 years, Judge Autrey has displayed an unwavering commitment to honesty and approachability, earning a reputation as a thoughtful and hard-working judge with a judicious temperament. Prior to his service on the bench, he served as a prosecutor in the City of St. Louis for 9 years, won convictions in several high-profile cases, and led the office in its work in the area of child abuse prosecution. His entire career has been spent in the courtroom and therefore he exemplifies someone who has both the personal qualities and the experience to fill this spot and perform this duty in an exemplary manner. He is highly regarded by the law enforcement community in St. Louis. Countless attorneys have expressed their support for him. He has the support of the Mound City Bar Association of St. Louis, the Missouri Prosecuting Attorneys, and the Women Lawyers Association of Greater St. Louis. He is an ideal candidate for the position. I appreciate the Senate proceeding to this nomination, and I urge my colleagues to give Judge Autrey their favorable consideration. I reserve my time.

Mr. BOND. I yield my time.

Mr. BOND

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I have the distinct honor of being on the floor again to support the nomination of another fine candidate to the Federal bench in Missouri. The President has nominated Dick Dorr of Springfield, MO, to serve on the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Missouri. Mr. Dorr embodies well the principles laid out by the President for nominees to the Federal bench. Above all, Mr. Dorr respects the roll of a judge in our Federal system--to interpret the law. In addition, Mr. Dorr is a respected trial attorney who will bring years of experience in the court room to this position. He is an excellent candidate and I urge the Members of this body to give him your favorable consideration. Mr. Dorr will bring to this position a reputation as an outstanding trial attorney with the respected Missouri law firm. His experience extends to both criminal and civil law. Attorneys in Springfield who worked with Mr. Dorr and who have litigated against him share my belief that he has the experience to preside over trials in a fair and efficient manner. Mr. Dorr has also served his country in the U.S. Air Force as a reservist and as a judge advocate general. Mr. Dorr has given a tremendous amount of this time to ensure that the citizens of Springfield have legal representation available to them despite their financial means. He has worked for the Missouri Bar's Volunteer Lawyer Pogram. He was instrumental in starting the Legal Aid Society of Southwest Missouri and served on its board. He has received the Equal Access to Justice Award from the Springfield Bar for his work, and he was recognized for outstanding service to the community by the Greene County Community Justice Association. I thank the chairman of the Judiciary Committee for scheduled a hearing for this nominee, and I thank the Members for the unanimous vote in support of this nominee. I believe the Senate will find this candidate is well qualified for the position, possessing the experience, the intellect and the personal qualities necessary to preside over trials and rule in an informed and impartial manner. He will be a tremendous asset to the bench, and I urge the Members of the body to support the nomination.

Mr. BOND

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

Mr. BOND

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I rise today to express my strong support for the National Science Foundation Doubling Act of 2002. As an original co-sponsor, I am pleased to join my colleagues, Senators Kennedy, Hollings, and Mikulski in introducing this important legislation that will strengthen the long-term economic competitiveness and health of our Nation. As an appropriator and as an authorizer of NSF, I have a special interest in NSF and the basic science research it supports. I believe this bill underscores the critical role NSF plays in the economic and intellectual growth and well-being of this Nation. As many of my colleagues know, Senator Mikulski and I have led a bipartisan, bi-cameral effort to double NSF's budget and this reauthorization bill further supports our doubling effort over a five- year period. NSF is funding innovative and cutting-edge research in nanotechnology, plant biotechnology, and information technology. Doubling NSF's funding is not only important for these research programs but also in the area of education. NSF plays a valuable role in supporting math and science education and developing the Nation's supply of scientists and engineers in this country. Unfortunately, despite our efforts on the appropriations committee, the Federal Government has not provided adequate support to NSF and the physical sciences in general. I believe the lack of adequate support for the physical sciences puts our Nation's capabilities for scientific innnovation at risk and, equally important, at risk of falling behind other industrial nations. Further, doctors throughout Missouri and the country have told me that despite the tremendous support we have provided for the life sciences, their research in the biomedical field will stagnate without adequate government support of the physical sciences that NSF supports. Many medical technologies such as magnetic resonance imaging, ultrasound, digital mammography and genomic mapping could not have occurred, and cannot improve to the next level of proficiency, without NSF-supported work in biology, physics, chemistry, mathematics, engineering, and computer sciences. Simply put: supporting NSF supports NIH. The high-tech industry also in concerned about NSF funding because they are struggling to find qualified homegrown engineers and scientists and becoming more reliant on foreign nationals to fill their positions. Many notable researchers in the high-tech industry have told me that the significant shortages of trained American engineers and scientists have limited the growth potential of the electronics and software industries and allowed foreign competitors to catch up to U.S. industry capabilities. To address the development of tech talent in this country, NSF provides a wide array of support to preK-12, undergraduate, and graduate level schools. One new important tool is the Math and Science partnership program--a new joint program between NSF and the Department of Education. This program encourages partnerships among local school systems, higher education entities, and other organizations to improve student outcomes in math and science for all students. Another important tool that I support is the tech talent program. This program was initiated at the urging of me and my Senate colleagues--Senators Lieberman, Frist, Mikulski, and Domenici. Last year, we introduced S. 1549, the Tech Talent Act to improve undergraduate education in math, science, engineering, and technology. We provided $5 million in the Fiscal Year 2002 VA-HUD and Independent Agencies Appropriations Act to jumpstart this important initiative and another $20 million was added in the fiscal year 2003 bill that passed the Appropriations Committee last week. NSF has already received 177 applications requesting an aggregate sum of almost $60 million. Lastly, I am very supportive of efforts to improve the accountability of NSF's programs and activities--especially those projects funded through the major research equipment and facilities construction account. The bill includes a number of provisions to ensure that funding decisions on large research facilities are done in a rationale and understandable manner. Before the bill reaches the floor, I hope to work with my colleagues on addressing other issues related to the National Science Board. As the budget for NSF grows, it is important that the Board has the tools it needs to fulfill its statutory responsibilities. Specifically, we need to provide the chairman of the Board the authority to hire its own staff to support the Board's oversight and policy-making responsibilities and to ensure that it can provide the Congress and the President with independent science policy advice. These tools will also ensure that the Board is not a ``rubber stamp'' for the Director of NSF. I urge my colleagues to support this bill. I understand that some of my colleagues have concerns about the bill, but I believe that overall, this is a good bill. I look forward to working with my colleagues in the Senate and the House in moving a strong bipartisan NSF reauthorization bill and in advancing our effort to double NSF's budget. I thank the Chair.

Mr. BOND

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I rise today to express my strong support for the National Science Foundation Doubling Act of 2002. As an original co-sponsor, I am pleased to join my colleagues, Senators Kennedy, Hollings, and Mikulski in introducing this important legislation that will strengthen the long-term economic competitiveness and health of our Nation. As an appropriator and as an authorizer of NSF, I have a special interest in NSF and the basic science research it supports. I believe this bill underscores the critical role NSF plays in the economic and intellectual growth and well-being of this Nation. As many of my colleagues know, Senator Mikulski and I have led a bipartisan, bi-cameral effort to double NSF's budget and this reauthorization bill further supports our doubling effort over a five- year period. NSF is funding innovative and cutting-edge research in nanotechnology, plant biotechnology, and information technology. Doubling NSF's funding is not only important for these research programs but also in the area of education. NSF plays a valuable role in supporting math and science education and developing the Nation's supply of scientists and engineers in this country. Unfortunately, despite our efforts on the appropriations committee, the Federal Government has not provided adequate support to NSF and the physical sciences in general. I believe the lack of adequate support for the physical sciences puts our Nation's capabilities for scientific innnovation at risk and, equally important, at risk of falling behind other industrial nations. Further, doctors throughout Missouri and the country have told me that despite the tremendous support we have provided for the life sciences, their research in the biomedical field will stagnate without adequate government support of the physical sciences that NSF supports. Many medical technologies such as magnetic resonance imaging, ultrasound, digital mammography and genomic mapping could not have occurred, and cannot improve to the next level of proficiency, without NSF-supported work in biology, physics, chemistry, mathematics, engineering, and computer sciences. Simply put: supporting NSF supports NIH. The high-tech industry also in concerned about NSF funding because they are struggling to find qualified homegrown engineers and scientists and becoming more reliant on foreign nationals to fill their positions. Many notable researchers in the high-tech industry have told me that the significant shortages of trained American engineers and scientists have limited the growth potential of the electronics and software industries and allowed foreign competitors to catch up to U.S. industry capabilities. To address the development of tech talent in this country, NSF provides a wide array of support to preK-12, undergraduate, and graduate level schools. One new important tool is the Math and Science partnership program--a new joint program between NSF and the Department of Education. This program encourages partnerships among local school systems, higher education entities, and other organizations to improve student outcomes in math and science for all students. Another important tool that I support is the tech talent program. This program was initiated at the urging of me and my Senate colleagues--Senators Lieberman, Frist, Mikulski, and Domenici. Last year, we introduced S. 1549, the Tech Talent Act to improve undergraduate education in math, science, engineering, and technology. We provided $5 million in the Fiscal Year 2002 VA-HUD and Independent Agencies Appropriations Act to jumpstart this important initiative and another $20 million was added in the fiscal year 2003 bill that passed the Appropriations Committee last week. NSF has already received 177 applications requesting an aggregate sum of almost $60 million. Lastly, I am very supportive of efforts to improve the accountability of NSF's programs and activities--especially those projects funded through the major research equipment and facilities construction account. The bill includes a number of provisions to ensure that funding decisions on large research facilities are done in a rationale and understandable manner. Before the bill reaches the floor, I hope to work with my colleagues on addressing other issues related to the National Science Board. As the budget for NSF grows, it is important that the Board has the tools it needs to fulfill its statutory responsibilities. Specifically, we need to provide the chairman of the Board the authority to hire its own staff to support the Board's oversight and policy-making responsibilities and to ensure that it can provide the Congress and the President with independent science policy advice. These tools will also ensure that the Board is not a ``rubber stamp'' for the Director of NSF. I urge my colleagues to support this bill. I understand that some of my colleagues have concerns about the bill, but I believe that overall, this is a good bill. I look forward to working with my colleagues in the Senate and the House in moving a strong bipartisan NSF reauthorization bill and in advancing our effort to double NSF's budget. I thank the Chair.

Mr. BOND

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, last night, the conference committee released its final report on comprehensive accounting reform and corporate governance legislation. The reaction of our financial markets confirms that this legislation is absolutely necessary to help restore integrity and confidence to our free market system and our investment community. However, in our rush to enact broad reforms, we may be damaging the economic framework for small companies to reach our capital markets. In the long term, the reforms will make our economy stronger. In the short term, we will be creating complete chaos for small publicly traded companies and companies trying to gain the capital for growth through stock offerings. I am extremely disappointed in the conferees' decision not to recognize this fact and provide the Securities and Exchange Commission and the proposed Public Company Accounting Oversight Board with greater flexibility in dealing with small firms. Small business has been the driving force of our economy for well over a decade. The high hurdles in the legislation are necessary for large, conglomerate companies but they may be a trip wire for our small business entrepreneurial community.