Kit Bond

Mr. BOND

Mr. BOND. Mr President, Congress has the ``power to promote the progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries.'' If that phrase sounds familiar to my colleagues, it is because I lifted it straight from the Constitution. Article 1, section 8, known to many as the inventors clause. This section of the Constitution is the result of the foresight that our Founding Fathers had to cut a deal with the creative minds of a fledgling country. The deal was rather simple, in exchange for sharing their ingenuity and their creations with the citizens of this new country, the Congress would grant these inventors temporary monopolies on their products and permit them to enjoy the proceeds of their invention for a period of time, with the weight of the law of the land to ensure those rights were protected. This was a carefully thought out concept by rather brilliant individuals with unquestioned foresight. In my opinion, this compromise has been a smashing success. In the past 220 years, the United States has become an economic, industrial, and intellectual superpower. The creative product of the U.S. is unmatched the world over and I believe that the United States patent system has played a central role in this success. Why am I sharing these thoughts with my colleagues, because it is just like the Federal Government to take a good idea and turn it on its head. There is legislation pending on the Senate Calender, with the strong backing of the Clinton administration, that would gut the protection and the incentives offered inventors by our patent and trademark laws. This country's inventors have been an indispensable force in the success of which I have spoken. But this legislation would tip the balance of protection offered by patent laws away from these inventors and thinkers and open them to the hostile environment of intellectual property piracy and idea predators--commonplace in other parts of the world. Our inventors will be jerked from a protective environment, known for nurturing creativity and advancing practical knowledge, and be cast into a far harsher arena where it will be eminently more difficult for inventors to secure their rights and enjoy the rewards of their creativity and entrepreneurship--and possibly be driven from their work all together. I am hear to speak out on behalf of the inventors and the small guys of this country. People with ideas. I would suspect that scattered throughout the bill there may be some good ideas that may improve the efficiency of the Patent and Trademark Office, but taken as a whole the changes proposed would stifle rather than promote the sciences and the useful arts. I believe the legislation is ill-conceived and I will fight it should it see Senate debate. The past couple of weeks, the Senate has been debating the state of manufacturing in the United States. Many of my colleagues have registered their concern that much of our manufacturing base has left the country and they fear that this trend will continue. I believe that there is a future for manufacturing and industry in this country. I am very encouraged by the number of small businesses and startup companies presently thriving in the United States. Much of our future lies with these startup businesses and small business people that are creating new technology, starting companies, and expanding employment opportunities. But I believe we need to seize the opportunity and continue to encourage it. This is where the patent comes into the equation. A great idea can come to anyone, regardless of his or her capital or financial resources. This is the point at which the magnificence of our system becomes clear to me. Should a person be the first with an idea and successfully document that idea, that person can be granted a patent. The patent secures a monopoly and if it is a good idea it can be shopped around the venture capital markets. Should the financial assistance be secured, the inventor can build a prototype, start a business, hire people, and perhaps even build a successful company and make money. I believe that strong patent protection is central to that equation. First, those with capital are not inclined to fork over some money because it is the nice thing to do, they want assurances of return. The legally protected monopoly provides that assurance. The fact that our patent laws offer the strongest possible protection also contributes to that assurance. The inventor's idea is held in secret at the patent office until it is granted, which by the way prevents theft. The law also grants a legal right upon which an inventor can bring a civil action for damages should that idea be infringed upon. Strong patent protection lends value and certainty to this temporary monopoly. Without the patent protection, ideas that are not backed by financial resources may never see the light of day or else they may be gobbled up by a large company for pennies on the dollar. If one does not hold a realistic belief that they can make a go of it with their own idea, I believe that stifles important incentives present in America to pursue an idea or invent. But even more so, I do not believe this is the American way. This is a great country because anyone with an idea and the fortitude to pursue that idea can make a go it. This country is full of companies that began under just such circumstances. This country needs its entrepreneurs, they are essential if we are to continue to enjoy economic growth. Think about the role of entrepreneurs and startup companies in our economy. They come up with new ideas, they promote competition, they shake up old establishments, they force competitors to be smart and competitive, they inject vigor and dynamism into our capitalistic system. They create manufacturing jobs right here in the United States. They create secure and well- paying jobs for Americans. And they give you, me, and our children new technology and news ideas for all our use. This force is essential to our strength and continued growth and the patent laws are essential to allowing these start-ups to begin and then thrive. Many of those that are pushing for this bill are large companies with vast financial resources. Before they put forward their arguments in favor of the legislation, I must challenge them to ask themselves some important questions. Did not their companies begin with a single person with an idea? Did they not seize the opportunities offered in this country to grow and flourish? Did not the patent offer protection needed to pursuing that idea? Pulling the ladder up once you have made it to the top is not the American way, but that agenda is underlying much of this legislation. I support the inventors who are fighting these changes. I believe they are correct and courageous in their stance. Unfortunately, they have been ridiculed and vilified in the press by the Commissioner of the PTO, the individual running the agency responsible for licensing billions of dollars in intellectual property rights here in the United States. In fact, I read that he said that the opponents of this bill, that would include myself, reside on the lunatic fringe. He also compared our sanity to that of Timothy McVeigh--on behalf of the hardworking inventors of this country, I find such comments outrageous and demeaning. But rather than dignifying those ridiculous comments by responding on the merits, I will share with my colleagues a sampling of those that Mr. Lehman is saying reside on the lunatic fringe. First, I have been contacted by countless inventors registering their opposition, their creations include medical devices, drugs, machinery, electronic technology, computer technology, and agricultural products-- to mention a few. They share a fear that this will open them up to litigation, theft, and harassment while closing down their opportunities to continue their work. I have also been contacted by men and women of science, economists, doctors, and professors. The most notable group of objectors is a group of over 20 Nobel Laureates in science and economics who have signed an open letter to the U.S. Senate opposing the bill. These great minds all agree that this legislation could result in ``lasting harm to the United States and to the world.'' They also concur with the concerns I am advancing today that this bill will be very harmful to small inventors and ``discourage the flow of new inventions that have contributed so much to America's superior performance in the advancement of science and technology.'' Finally, these great scientists and economists have expressed concern that this bill will create a disincentive to rely on the limited life of a patent to share their creations with the public, an occurrence which will sap the spirit of the inventors clause. I think that opposition should be enough to convince just about anyone. But respected others, including the New York Times, have spoken out. The Times editorial page has concluded that this bill will ``dampen the innovative spirit that helps sustain the American economy.'' The Times also correctly notes that the American patent system generates more and better patent applications than any other country's, but that this bill terribly threatens the incentives present in our system that stimulates that creativity. I have also been contacted by Ross Perot, who has expressed in no uncertain terms his absolute objection to this legislation. As Mr. Perot reminded me, patents are a constitutionally guaranteed right which have been essential to countless Americans in their fulfillment of the American dream. But rather than celebrate this success story unique to America, we are proposing selling our inventors down the river. Mr. Perot has called upon the Members of Congress to ask themselves a simple question when considering this bill, is it right or is it wrong? We both agree it is wrong. And we are ready for a fight. Mr. Perot, whose dedication to America and success as a businessman cannot be questioned, has said, in the words of Isaac Hull, ``If that fellow wants a fight, we won't disappoint him.'' There are other well-respected groups, small business groups and groups of concerned citizens that believe this legislation is bad policy and are lining up for a fight. I will take the collective contribution of those that oppose this bill and stack them up against Mr. Lehman's arguments any day. The inventors of this country should derive confidence because they have the Constitution and many great minds of science on their side and rhetoric on the other. For those reviewing the bill, I would like to point out some issues. First, the proponents of the bill want to create an infringement defense, known as a prior user right. The prior user right is a bad idea for many reasons. Foremost, it starts down a road that changes our ``first to invent'' system and overturns 200 years of U.S. patent policy. The defense would not only permit inventors to keep their ideas secret, but it encourages them to keep them secret. Our first to invent system protects small inventors. If they document their invention, they will not have to engage in a race to the patent office. They will have time to tinker and perfect their inventions without being forced to file early and then file for all perfections, a costly process for a small inventor. The defense will hurt small inventors in the capital markets because it will undermine the certainty of the patent. As I said this certainty is important to attracting capital and the capital is important for underfunded inventors to take their products to market. Should one have an invention that requires expensive testing, the idea can not be perfected without finances. Capital is essential for inventors to role out their own ideas. This section poses many problems about which I could speak for quite some time, but I will refrain. The reasons will be aired fully in time. Many proponents want to force all inventors to publish their ideas after 18 months, regardless of whether the patent review process is completed. Some changes have been made to scale this back, but many are laying in wait to see this implemented. I believe this would open our inventors to theft. Small inventors would have to go to court to recoup their just rewards and would have to depend on costly litigation. Many say, ``We won't steal ideas,'' I hope not, but this is the business world. I am unwilling to put small inventors at this sort of a risk. Proponents are looking for changes in the system for challenges to patents, this may open small inventors to unnecessary expense and litigation. Taken as a whole, there are profound changes proposed. The collective weight, I believe, will hurt our small inventors. A quick word about an argument forwarded by the bill's proponents. They will come to your office saying that this bill is necessary because there is a pariah lurking in the world of intellectual property. He uses what is called a submarine patent to manipulate the patent review process to reap unjustified rewards from honest, hard- working men and women. His greed and treachery could potentially destroy thousands of businesses and deal a crushing blow to our economy. To that I respond--hogwash. Let's engage in an honest debate. When we in Congress agreed to the implementing language in the GATT agreement, we agreed to change the U.S. patent term from a guaranteed 17 years to 20 years from the date of filing. Supposedly, that was done to get at submarine patents. It does take away most if not all of the incentive for an inventor to game the system and should drive a stake into the heart of wrongdoers. In the process we made a tremendous sacrifice that will cost many of our inventors patent protection. Today, for each day beyond 3 years that a patent lingers in the patent office, our inventors will lose a day of patent protection. Should someone invent a better potato peeler or candy wrapper, it probable won't be in the office today. But the change could have a significant affect on those attempting to get a patent on breakthrough technology. Such technology can often stay under review in the office for years and subsequently our inventors have lost years of protection compared with what they enjoyed before the change. Our inventors have made a great sacrifice to root out the wrongdoers in the system. But the proponents of this bill want more. They do have more. The PTO has a computer system designed to track patent applications that appear to be those of one attempting to game the system. The Commissioner also has the power to order that the application of one attempting to game the system is published, further curtailing the possibility of the submarine patents. Finally, the Commissioner himself has said that only 1 percent of 1 percent of patent applications could be considered submarine patents. The Commissioner has plenty of tools at his disposal to curb this problem if it in fact exists. If the problem is out of control, then I believe the problem lies with the Commissioner and those with complaints would be better served leveling their concerns at the other end of Pennsylvania Avenue. I will conclude by saying that brilliant minds have been drawn to this country and the brilliant minds native to this country have flourished. I do not believe it is an accident. We in America have chosen our own path. The goal of our patent system is to protect and reward entrepreneurs and innovative businesses, to encourage invention and advancement of practical knowledge. The goal of many of our competitor systems is to share technology immediately, not to protect it. That results in preserving the corporate hierarchy without giving innovators the opportunity to compete. In other countries thoughts and ideas do not receive the level of reward that they do here. The system works, let us not destroy it. If we want to improve the Patent Office, let's get on with it. But let us not organize a systematic assault on the very system that has contributed so much to this country becoming the greatest Nation on Earth. I ask that two letters and an op-ed be printed in the Record. September 11, 1997. An Open Letter To the U.S. Senate: We urge the Senate to oppose the passage of the pending U.S. Senate Bill S. 507. We hold that Congress, before embarking on a revision of our time tested patent system, should hold extensive hearings on whether there are serious flaws in the present system that need to be addressed and if so, how best to deal with them. This is especially important considering that a delicate structure such as the patent system, with all its ramifications, should not be subject to frequent modifications. We believe that S. 507 could result in lasting harm to the United States and the world. First, it will prove very damaging to American small inventors and thereby discourage the flow of new inventions that have contributed so much to America's superior performance in the advancement of Science and technology. It will do so by curtailing the protection they obtain through patents relative to the large multi-national corporations. Second, the principle of prior user rights saps the very spirit of that wonderful institution that is represented by the American patent system established in the Constitution in 1787, which is based on the principle that the inventor is given complete protection but for a limited length of time, after which the patent, fully disclosed in the application and published at the time of issue, becomes in the public domain, and can be used by anyone, under competitive conditions for the benefit of all final users. It will do so by giving further protection to trade secrets which can be kept secret forever, while reducing the incentive to rely on limited life patents. Nobel Laureates in support of the letter to congress, re: Senate Bill 507 Franco Modigliani, (1985, Economics) MIT. Robert Solow, (1987, Economics) MIT. Mario Molina, (1995, Chemistry) MIT. Roald Hoffman, (1981, Chemistry) Cornell. Milton Friedman, (1976, Economics) University of Chicago. Richard Smalley, (1996, Chemistry) Rice. Clifford Shull, (1994, Physics) MIT. Herbert A. Simon, (1978, Economics) Carnegie-Mellon. Douglass North, (1993, Economics) Washington University. Dudley Herschbach, (1986, Chemistry) Harvard. Herbert C. Brown, (1979, Chemistry) Purdue. David M. Lee, (1996, Physics) Cornell. Daniel Nathans, (1978, Medicine) Johns Hopkins. Doug Osheroff, (1996, Physics) Stanford. Har Gobind Khorana, (1968, Medicine) MIT. Herbert Hauptman, (1985, Chemistry) Hauptman-Woodward Medical Research Institute. John C. Harsanyi, (1994, Economics) UC Berkeley. Paul Berg, (1980, Chemistry) Stanford. Henry Kendall, (1990, Physics) MIT. Paul Samuelson, (1970, Economics) MIT. James Tobin, (1981, Economics) Yale. Jerome Friedman, (1990, Physics) MIT. Sidney Altman, (1989, Chemistry) Yale. Robert F. Curl, (1996, Chemistry) Rice. William Sharpe, (1990, Economics) Stanford. Merton Miller, (1990, Economics) U. of Chicago.

Mr. BOND

Mr. BOND. With respect to the Manager's Amendment, I would like to ask the Senator to clarify his intent. As I understand the amendment regarding the dollar coin language, it is your intent, as chairman of the committee, and it is the intent of the Banking Committee that S. 1228, as amended, will not in any way restrict the continued printing and circulation of the dollar bill.

Mr. BOND

Mr. BOND. I ask for the yeas and nays.

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

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, have the yeas and nays been requested?

Mr. BOND

Mr. BOND. I thank the Senator for raising this issue. It is the intent of the appropriations legislation to allow a second refinancing to save section 8 funds. I am hopeful that owners working in cooperation with the bond issuers will voluntarily refinance their FAF properties, where existing laws and bond documents permit. Owners and bond issuers will hopefully take advantage of the historically low interest rates and refinance their properties.

Mr. BOND

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I stand before you today to pay tribute to a truly outstanding university in my home State of Missouri, Southwest Missouri State University [SMSU]. SMSU was one of 135 schools in 42 States selected to the John Templeton Foundation Honor Roll, a designation recognizing colleges and universities that emphasize character building as an integral part of the college experience. Being the only public institution in Missouri to earn the 1997-98 honor roll distinction, SMSU is also one of the eight State-funded schools to receive the award nationwide. Schools competing for the honor roll were judged on 5 criteria and out of 2,208 4-year accredited undergraduate institutions only the top few were chosen. One of the categories where SMSU stood out was in community service. During the 1996-97 school year the SMSU campus, including the faculty and students, volunteered more than 69,500 hours. It is an honor for the entire State of Missouri to have a university like SMSU, whose service and character-building programs have earned it this distinguished award. I commend SMSU's President, Dr. John Keiser, for his commitment to excellence and hope for continued success in the future.

Mr. BOND

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, on Tuesday, November 18, 1997, Beverly Cathcard will be honored at the American Royal Event in Kansas City, MO, in recognition of her lifelong devotion to the equine community throughout the State of Missouri. Beverly's Hidden Valley Stables have been the beginning of several area equestrians who have ridden for enjoyment or for the love of the sport and competition. Her horses have won such prestigious races as the Morgan Grand National Horse Show, the American Royal, UPHA Chapter Five Horse Show and many other local, regional, and national level events. She has been in charge of the children's horse show at the American Royal and has served on the State and local boards of directors for the Missouri Horse Shows Association and the Longview Horse Park Board as well as many others. Beverly represents the kind of spirit, honor, and integrity that belong in the equestrian community. November 18 will be a great occasion for the American Royal and I join them in paying tribute to Beverly Cathcard.

Mr. BOND

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I am pleased to introduce legislation to enhance, preserve and protect habitat for fish and wildlife on the Missouri and Mississippi Rivers. This new 5-year $50 million authorization is a win-win approach that will implement and expand the use of new and innovative measures developed by the Corps of Engineers to improve habitat conservation without impacting adversely private property and other water-related needs of the rivers including navigation, flood control and water supply. As I have always maintained, fish and wildlife conservation and commercial activity are not mutually exclusive. Indeed, we cannot afford to abandon either river commerce or the species that live in and on the river. This new approach is a win for man, for nature and for the river. This legislation is supported by Missouri Farm Bureau, MARC2000, American Rivers, the Missouri Soybean Association, the Missouri Corngrowers Association, and Farmland Industries. While these groups have not always agreed on river policy, that should not preclude us from seeking common ground and working together to address the questions of resource management and I am delighted that we can all come together in support of this commonsense approach. Without specific authorization and only scarce dollars, the St. Louis Corps of Engineers has been developing and testing ways in which navigation structures used to guide the river and maintain the channel may be modified to meet environmental as well as navigation goals. These innovations have proven successful earning wide acclaim including a Presidential Design Award and Federal Design Achievement Award. This legislation seeks to put these successful innovations to work on the Missouri River and expand their use on the middle Mississippi by providing a specific authorization and a dedicated and substantial source of funds. In other words, we are giving the corps the tools they need to put their ideas to work to improve the rivers to benefit fish and wildlife. The legislation authorizes $10 million per year to protect, create and enhance side channels, island habitat, sand bars, and other riverine habitat. For example, by notching rock dikes that run perpendicular to the shoreline, sandbars develop between the dikes which has been provided nesting habitat for the endangered least tern and valuable spawning ground for the endangered pallid sturgeon. The Missouri Department of Conservation has run tests validating an increase in diversity and numbers of microinvertebrates surrounding the notched dikes. Chevron dikes have been developed to improve river habitat and to create beneficial uses of dredge material. These structures are placed in the shallow side of the river channel pointing upstream which improves the river channel while serving as small islands. These islands encourage the development of all four primary river ecosystem habitats and additionally, various micro-organisms cling to the underwater rock structures, providing a food source for fish. Changing the gradation of rock revetments, used to stabilize eroding riverbanks, has proved to provide greater bank stability and precluded the need to remove bank vegetation so that, for the first time, trees and rock revetment could coexist providing greater habitat diversity. The draft legislation authorizes $10 million per year over 5 years to develop and implement a plan including the following activities: Modification and improvement of navigation training structures to protect and enhance fish and wildlife habitat; creation of side channels to protect and enhance fish and wildlife habitat; restoration and creation of island fish and wildlife habitat; creation of riverine fish and wildlife habitat; establishment of criteria to prioritize based on cost-effectiveness and likelihood of success; and physical and biological monitoring for evaluating the success of the project. The draft provides that the project be coordinated with other related Federal and State activities and that there be public participation in the development and implementation of the project. It requires a 25- percent non-Federal cost share and limits the Federal cost of any single project to $5 million. Finally, the draft legislation confers no new regulatory authority and requires compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act. The legislation is designed to work between the banks of the river and forbids expressly any adverse impacts on private lands and water- related activities including flood control, navigation, and water supply. Additionally, it is designed to compliment other existing programs such as the Missouri River Mitigation project and the Environmental Management Program on the Mississippi River. I intend to work with the administration and with other Senators and interested groups to build the broad support necessary to enact this legislation in an omnibus Water Resources Development Act the Senate is expected to consider in 1998. Mr. President, the problems experienced in the Midwest and elsewhere with railroad bottlenecks highlight the need for diverse transportation options. As the fall harvest proceeds, there are reports of grain being piled on the ground in neighboring Kansas and Nebraska. Notwithstanding that I must continue working on behalf of Missouri to preserve river navigation as a transportation option, our joint efforts to pursue this new legislation is a strong indicator that we may be experiencing an episode of domestic detente on river policy between groups that have pursued differing approaches in the past. This legislation offers a significant boost for our need to make the various river uses compatible and an important step toward unifying the river's stakeholders behind a realistic approach for the future. I thank and congratulate the various groups who have come together behind this legislation and look forward to enacting this consensus legislation.

Mr. BOND

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I am pleased to introduce legislation to enhance, preserve and protect habitat for fish and wildlife on the Missouri and Mississippi Rivers. This new 5-year $50 million authorization is a win-win approach that will implement and expand the use of new and innovative measures developed by the Corps of Engineers to improve habitat conservation without impacting adversely private property and other water-related needs of the rivers including navigation, flood control and water supply. As I have always maintained, fish and wildlife conservation and commercial activity are not mutually exclusive. Indeed, we cannot afford to abandon either river commerce or the species that live in and on the river. This new approach is a win for man, for nature and for the river. This legislation is supported by Missouri Farm Bureau, MARC2000, American Rivers, the Missouri Soybean Association, the Missouri Corngrowers Association, and Farmland Industries. While these groups have not always agreed on river policy, that should not preclude us from seeking common ground and working together to address the questions of resource management and I am delighted that we can all come together in support of this commonsense approach. Without specific authorization and only scarce dollars, the St. Louis Corps of Engineers has been developing and testing ways in which navigation structures used to guide the river and maintain the channel may be modified to meet environmental as well as navigation goals. These innovations have proven successful earning wide acclaim including a Presidential Design Award and Federal Design Achievement Award. This legislation seeks to put these successful innovations to work on the Missouri River and expand their use on the middle Mississippi by providing a specific authorization and a dedicated and substantial source of funds. In other words, we are giving the corps the tools they need to put their ideas to work to improve the rivers to benefit fish and wildlife. The legislation authorizes $10 million per year to protect, create and enhance side channels, island habitat, sand bars, and other riverine habitat. For example, by notching rock dikes that run perpendicular to the shoreline, sandbars develop between the dikes which has been provided nesting habitat for the endangered least tern and valuable spawning ground for the endangered pallid sturgeon. The Missouri Department of Conservation has run tests validating an increase in diversity and numbers of microinvertebrates surrounding the notched dikes. Chevron dikes have been developed to improve river habitat and to create beneficial uses of dredge material. These structures are placed in the shallow side of the river channel pointing upstream which improves the river channel while serving as small islands. These islands encourage the development of all four primary river ecosystem habitats and additionally, various micro-organisms cling to the underwater rock structures, providing a food source for fish. Changing the gradation of rock revetments, used to stabilize eroding riverbanks, has proved to provide greater bank stability and precluded the need to remove bank vegetation so that, for the first time, trees and rock revetment could coexist providing greater habitat diversity. The draft legislation authorizes $10 million per year over 5 years to develop and implement a plan including the following activities: Modification and improvement of navigation training structures to protect and enhance fish and wildlife habitat; creation of side channels to protect and enhance fish and wildlife habitat; restoration and creation of island fish and wildlife habitat; creation of riverine fish and wildlife habitat; establishment of criteria to prioritize based on cost-effectiveness and likelihood of success; and physical and biological monitoring for evaluating the success of the project. The draft provides that the project be coordinated with other related Federal and State activities and that there be public participation in the development and implementation of the project. It requires a 25- percent non-Federal cost share and limits the Federal cost of any single project to $5 million. Finally, the draft legislation confers no new regulatory authority and requires compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act. The legislation is designed to work between the banks of the river and forbids expressly any adverse impacts on private lands and water- related activities including flood control, navigation, and water supply. Additionally, it is designed to compliment other existing programs such as the Missouri River Mitigation project and the Environmental Management Program on the Mississippi River. I intend to work with the administration and with other Senators and interested groups to build the broad support necessary to enact this legislation in an omnibus Water Resources Development Act the Senate is expected to consider in 1998. Mr. President, the problems experienced in the Midwest and elsewhere with railroad bottlenecks highlight the need for diverse transportation options. As the fall harvest proceeds, there are reports of grain being piled on the ground in neighboring Kansas and Nebraska. Notwithstanding that I must continue working on behalf of Missouri to preserve river navigation as a transportation option, our joint efforts to pursue this new legislation is a strong indicator that we may be experiencing an episode of domestic detente on river policy between groups that have pursued differing approaches in the past. This legislation offers a significant boost for our need to make the various river uses compatible and an important step toward unifying the river's stakeholders behind a realistic approach for the future. I thank and congratulate the various groups who have come together behind this legislation and look forward to enacting this consensus legislation.

Mr. BOND

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I stand before you today to recognize a tremendous individual who has exemplified citizenship, character, and service to humanity throughout his life, Reverend Walter J. Keisker. This special servant of God and man was bestowed an honorary degree of doctor of divinity in 1993 by Concordia Seminary in St. Louis for 70 years of faithful service. In accepting the honor Reverend Keisker stated, ``There are others more deserving of the degree, but I am humbly grateful for it.'' Anyone ever associated with Reverend Keisker will acknowledge the humbleness of this special gentleman, but they will know the unique spirit and tenacity that brought about a rich lifetime of accomplishments. Whether it was the Boy Scouts, Ministerial Alliance, Chamber of Commerce, Historical Society, or one of his many other activities, Reverend Keisker was totally dedicated, an enduring example of service, integrity, faithfulness, and love in the best spirit of American citizenship. On November 12, 1997, the Lutheran Family and Children Services [LFCS] of southeast Missouri will host the Second Annual Walter J. Keisker dinner. I commend LFCS for the foresightedness in choosing Reverend Keisker to lead the LFCS mission. I can think of no better example to inspire others to assist in building family life.

Mr. BOND

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I express my sincere appreciation to Chairman Chafee, Chairman Warner, and the ranking member, Senator Baucus. When it became clear that we were not going to pass a 6-year reauthorization of the ISTEA, or Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act, it was obvious to everybody that something had to be done to make sure that we didn't run out of safety programs; that we didn't shut the doors on the operations of the Department of Transportation; that we didn't leave the States without the authority to contract. Finally, when I suggested that we merely extend the obligations based on a half of last year's obligation authority up to 75 percent, it was designed, as Senator Baucus so ably said, to be totally formula neutral. We are not going to engage in a formula battle. We have some very strong differences of opinion over formulas, and over allocations among States. That will be played out at great length on this floor I hope very early in 1998. But I have never seen anything unify this body more than the agreement by all of the Senators with whom I have spoken--and I have spoken to almost all of them--that we must do something to keep the doors open; to keep construction going; to keep safety and to keep transit programs. And the only way we can do it is to do something that is formula neutral. This merely extends the obligational authority, and it has overwhelming support. We hope it will have support in the House so that we can send it to the President and make sure that we don't shut down operations in the very near future. I wish to expressly thank staff which has worked night and day--some with almost no sleep: Dan Corbett, Jimmie Powell, Ann Loomis, Kathy Ruffalo, Tom Sliter, and the staff of the Banking Committee, Commerce Committee, and the Environment and Public Works Committee; and on my own personal staff, Tracy Henke who did the initial work of putting this all together. I hope they can all get some sleep and some rest, and that we can put this measure to bed. Mr. President, this does not open up any fights. It merely leaves in place vitally needed safety transit, Department of Transportation operations, and the ability to contract while we revisit in early 1998 the very important and very controversial formulas for allocating highway money. I thank all Senators whose cooperation was necessary for us to bring the measure to the floor, and pass it this evening. But the agreement of all Senators shows what a high priority and what a tremendous importance we place on assuring that our citizens have adequate transit, that we have the highways, the bridges, and the roads that we need for convenience, for our economy, and, most of all, for the safety of our traveling public. I thank the Chair. Mr. CHAFEE addressed the Chair.

Mr. BOND

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I rise to congratulate the members of Missouri Task Force One, which this year achieved Federal designation as an FEMA Urban Search and Rescue Task Force, and in October received the Memorandum of Understanding that places them in deployable status. What a great team. They don't call Missouri the ``Show Me'' State for nothing. Missouri Task Force One began as 1 of more than 150 applicants. They coordinated, cajoled, planned, ``recruited''--a euphemism for the arm-twisting for which they've become famous--begged, borrowed, purchased, trained, and triumphed. What was only a dream 5 years ago became a reality this year. This team, its members and equipment underwent a rigorous evaluation including a full-blown, onsite inspection from technical experts in search and rescue. They scored the highest in the Nation, and clobbered the competition. I know this may be a sore subject with some of my colleagues in the Senate, but the numbers do not lie. Missouri Task Force One was head and shoulders above the next-highest applicant for new teams and scored ahead of already-designated teams as well. This is one of the most exciting, dedicated groups of volunteers I have ever seen. They earned this designation in every category evaluated, from the quality of the team members to their excellent equipment. The country won when Missouri Task Force One achieved their designation. Some of us have learned the very hard way that disasters can happen any time, anywhere. I rest easier knowing that the Midwest now has access to the Federal search and rescue teams once concentrated on the east and west coasts. I am honored to have the privilege of getting to know some of the members of Missouri Task Force One, who take the time from their ``day jobs'' and their families to train, take risks, pack, unpack, and train some more; for a nightmare we all hope will never happen but for which we must be prepared.

Mr. BOND

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I thank my colleague from North Dakota and my colleague from Oklahoma for their kind comments. Unfortunately, at this time in the session, we probably need to get the concurrence of all of the Members, and not just most of them. It is something I hope that will not be prejudicial to any State. I thank these Senators, and particularly the leadership of the Environment and Public Works Committee, and the leadership of the Senate for moving forward on a project that must be accomplished before we leave. I thank the Chair.

Mr. BOND

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I thank the Members on the other side. We all know that, because of matters which we won't continue to debate here, our ISTEA or highway reauthorization measure has not gone forward. We will not be able to resolve the many difficult questions over funding allocations and funding formulas this year. Several days ago, I said that I was working with the EPW, the chairman, Chairman Chafee, Chairman Warner, Ranking Member Baucus, and the members of the committee to permit our highway departments in our States to continue obligating funds, continue transit and safety operations and DOT operations for the next 6 months. Mr. President, just a brief report. We are now working on a formula which would say to each State that, for the next 6 months, you may obligate up to half of what you had in the past fiscal year for contracts for the coming summer construction season. There will be no changes and no impact on the formula, but there will be complete flexibility. So if you have unpaid, unspent obligations in one category, you can spend them wherever you need to. We are working with the House. I appreciate the cooperation of all Members, because I believe we all understand that we cannot leave highways and transportation without the ability to go forward in the summer construction season. I thank the leadership of the Senate. We are working with the House to have a proposal that I believe should be acceptable. It does not involve any funding allocation changes or reestablish any formulas, but it does permit the work to go forward. It is vitally important. I appreciate the time of this body. I invite any comments personally that Senators may have about this vitally important measure.

Mr. BOND

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent for 2 minutes as in morning business.

Mr. BOND

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I commend the chairman on his herculean effort to address the myriad of policy issues he has faced this year, but I am wary about the fast track we seem to be on to decrease our defense resourcing while simultaneously increasing our operational tempo. I am concerned that because of the dramatic cuts our total force has taken in the past few years, that we are hollowing our force. I am concerned that in spite of our downsizing efforts we are spreading our forces out more than any other time in our history. Because of this fact, we must squeeze every ounce of bang for our bucks, and I believe that the Reserve components, the Guard in particular, does this very well. Guard units are posted all around the world in addition to performing their duties in their home states. Guard members come from all parts of the population, including former active duty members of the active force. They bring with them, a wealth of experience and training. They are also inextricably woven into the fabric of their local communities, a point which we have come to realize is all important, that our military be connected to our citizenry. Our Army, our military, is the finest in the world, bar none. It is composed of the finest young men and women, provided the finest training and the most well resourced in the world. Our history, our legacy demands the support of our citizens for the institution, and the Guard provides a critical link between our civilian community and the military which protects them. Don't eviscerate the Guard and sever that link. This bill makes a cut of 5,000 Guardsmen and women, troops who we have already voted to fund in the appropriations bill. These troops funding remained within the budget constraints and were apparently desired by the Pentagon and the President as he approved the appropriations bill. I believe that this is an ill-advised reduction in force. Mr. President, I make the following points to explain my objections to the National Guard policy decisions reflected in this bill. The Guard is unique of all the Reserve components; having both Army and Air Force components under a unified command, and the Guard performs State oriented missions under title 32 and Federal missions under title 10. The Guard has been the neglected step-child of the National Command Authority for as many and more years than I have been in the Senate. No one can say that the Guard has received a fair share of the budget pie without direct input from the Congress. Each year we are required to inject hundreds of millions of dollars to keep the equipment accounts adequately funded as well as the training and operations funding accounts. I believe that a four-star position along with the elevation of the directors of the Army Guard and Air Guard would provide the Guard Bureau with much needed and appropriate upper echelon infrastructure and departmental and congressional vetting. I believe the Department of Defense has been disingenuous in its characterization of the National Guard's participation during the Quadrennial Defense Review. I believe that the current command structure of placing the Air Guard under authority of the Army is convoluted to say the least. Mr. President, as a four-star, the chief of the Guard bureau will have the rank required and the subsequent authority to actually have a place at the table. Now the Guard Caucus would like to see that table be at the JCS level, because that is from where our uniformed personnel delivers recommendations to the National Command Authority. However, it is our main concern that the operational and force employment decisions have a Guard input. So, we are open to constructive and statutory alternatives. But whatever the result, the status quo is unacceptable. The provisions in this bill do nothing to alter seriously, the status quo. I predict that next year, in spite of this well intentioned but wholly inadequate compromise with rogue and obstinate members of the House, we will once again see resourcing problems in the Guard and Reserve accounts. We will continue to see them until we, here in the Congress, do something to recognize and reflect our increased reliance on our reserve components because of the force structure changes we are forcing our military to make. I disagree strongly with the measures in this bill dealing with National Guard policies but I will grudgingly accept them for I do believe that we do need an authorization bill and these are issues which may be addressed at a later date. And I guarantee you, that come next year, I will be here again arguing for policies which will recognize the relevancy of the Guard and which will position it appropriately within the Department of Defense hierarchy.

Mr. BOND

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, in conclusion, let me say that we have had good ideas from both sides of the aisle in the EPW Committee. We look forward to working with Chairman Warner, Senator Baucus, Chairman Chafee, the other members of the committee. I hope this is something that we could agree on and move forward on quickly so that our States and the traveling public will not suffer while we go through the very important discussions on coming up with a new highway funding formula. I invite comments. I look forward to working with my colleagues. This one I hope we can do on a bipartisan basis without the regional differences that will inevitably arise when we begin discussion of the funding formula. Mr. President, I appreciate the time, and I yield the floor.

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I rise today to present to my colleagues what I think is a compromise that will help us get over a very difficult situation. I am very proud to be a member of the Environment and Public Works Committee and to have joined with the leadership of that committee--Chairman Chafee, Senator Warner, Ranking Member Baucus, and the other members of the committee, in reporting out what I believe is an excellent transportation reauthorization bill. I think this is a bill that we need for the next 6 years. We need it for transportation, for safety, for economic development. The simple fact of the matter is, without discussing the whys, the ``where we are'' is we are not going to get that passed this year. There, in my view, is no way that we can get agreement, get it passed on the floor of the Senate, and agree with the House on a very different approach they are taking prior to the time we adjourn for the remainder of the year. If we don't--and we had a hearing today in Environment and Public Works--No. 1, the Department of Transportation operations cannot continue, vitally needed safety programs cannot continue, transit programs cannot continue, and many States will not be able to let the contracts they need for major construction projects in the coming months because they will not have the obligational authority. There is a lot of money in the States--over $9 billion--that is unobligated that has been authorized, but the problem is very often it is in the wrong category. The States have money, but it may be in CMAQ when they need it in STP or the various different programs. The question is, what are we going to do about it? Some in the House have presented a proposal that is sort of a 6-month extension. It keeps the old formula and tries to jam everything into 12 months. Frankly, that is very unfair to my State and quite a few other States that are known in this body as donor States. I can assure you that any time we try to do something in the highway and transportation area that gets us into a formula discussion, we are going to spend some time at it. I feel very strongly about the formulas, and I intend to express myself about them, as other Members should. What are we going to do about it? What are we going to do about the fact that safety and transit programs run out and many States will not be able to let contracts they need for major projects at the end of the winter when they have to get ready for the summer construction season? Today I presented to my colleagues in the Environment and Public Works Committee a compromise which I think enables us to continue these vitally important operations. Certainly highways and transportation are right at the top of the list of things that my constituents in Missouri want to see us do. It will enable us to come back after the first of the year, pass a 6-year reauthorization and do so without penalizing the States and the transit and the safety programs. What we would do under my bill is provide 6 months of funding for the safety programs, the Department of Transportation operations and transit. For the unobligated balances, we would give the States complete flexibility. If they want to put surface transportation money into construction mitigation, they could do so, and they would be able to continue their operations and issue contracts through March 31. Some States do not have enough unobligated balances to be able to continue their contracting authority through March 31 at the same rate they had done in this year or the previous year. So for those States, my measure would provide them an advance, an advance against what we are going to authorize in the bill that we must pass and that the President must sign so transportation can go forward in this country. For most States, it means a small amount, but we would advance fund that money without regard to the formula. Say, for example, you had $250 million in unobligated balances, but in the first 6 months in one of those years you obligated $290 million. We would have the Department of Transportation advance $40 million to that State so that between now and March 31, the State would be able to obligate $290 million for transportation purposes. Later on in the year, when that State's allocation is determined and, say, under the formula that State would get $500 million from probably, say, $800 million for the year, that $40 million would be deducted from the allocations under the new authorization, and they would get $760 million. What this does, Mr. President, is allow us to keep things operating, keep contracts being let, keep transit programs and safety programs operating without getting bogged down in the formula fight. As I said earlier, when I say ``bogged down,'' I look forward to the very active discussion of the funding formula. It is one of the most important things that we need to do around here in terms of economic development, transportation and safety. But it will take some time. I would envision that whenever the majority leader wants to schedule it, it would take at least a couple of weeks and maybe more. So while we are doing that, we should not cut off the transit, the safety, or the contracting obligation that the States would normally do. As I said, we presented this at the EPW hearing this morning. We had a very good discussion with representatives of the National Governors' Association and the Department of Transportation. Mr. President, the National Governors' Association has sent a letter signed by 39 Governors. Getting 39 Governors--having been one--I can tell you, to sign on a letter is not easy. But the Governors very simply said: . . .it is imperative for the Senate to consider and pass short-term legislation providing funding for highway, transit, and safety programs and to complete a conference on that legislation with the House of Representatives. Such legislation would minimize the interruption in funding to State and local governments. It would also avoid the disastrous effects that a several-month lapse in authorization would have on many States' transportation programs. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that that letter be printed in the Record.

Mr. BOND

Mr. BOND. No objection.

Mr. BOND

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I ask that the Chair lay before the Senate a message from the House of Representatives on (S. 1139) to authorize the programs of the Small Business Administration, and for other purposes. The PRESIDING OFFICER laid before the Senate the following message from the House of Representatives: Resolved, That the bill from the Senate (S. 1139) entitled ``An Act to reauthorize the programs of the Small Business Administration, and for other purposes.'', do pass with the following amendment: Strike out all after the enacting clause and insert:

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I move to concur in the House amendment with an amendment which is at the desk.

Mr. BOND

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

Mr. BOND

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

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