Pete Domenici

Mr. DOMENICI

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I rise today with my colleague from Connecticut, Senator Dodd, to talk a little bit about a program we understand has been accepted by the Senate for inclusion in this bill. Five years ago, during the last re-authorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, Senator Dodd, Senator Nunn and I included a provision in that Act to allow for several pilot projects around the nation centered on increasing character education in our schools. That legislation helped foster the growth of the Character Counts movement across a few schools in a few states. The amendment that the Senate has agreed to accept today will expand upon that effort. The bill provides $25 million in funding for character education through the Department of Education, including $15 million for schools and $10 million for after-school programs. My colleagues have heard me talk before about the Character Counts program, where children and teachers use six pillars of character and incorporate them into their daily lessons. Things like trustworthiness, respect, responsibility, fairness, caring, and citizenship. After five years, I believe that I can say that the effort to bring character education to our schools has been a success. In New Mexico, 200,000 kids and 90 percent of our schools participate in some form of character education. Teachers tell me that character education has empowered them in a fabulous way to teach and reinforce positive behavior by their students. Schools which have utilized Character Counts report lower instances of truancy, classroom disruptions and student violence. Character Counts makes schools better places to learn for our children, and teaches them values in the process. And it's not just the teachers who want to bring this program to our nation's children. Parents believe that it is important too. A recent survey by the Superintendent of the Albuquerque Public Schools found that 84 percent of parents felt that strengthening education programs which teach character and integrity should be a high priority for their schools. Improving character education is the number three overall concern parents express about the quality of their children's education in Albuqerque. The amendment accepted today will allow more schools to address this concern. I have heard colleagues say that six percent of all juvenile criminals commit 60% of all of the violent crime in America. This bill will encourage states to treat this small percentage of violent juvenile offenders like adults and get them off of the streets. It is obvious that there are a lot of very good kids out there, working hard every day to go to school, study hard and improve their lives. Character education will help the adults in their lives to teach them to make good decisions, based on things like respect, caring, and responsibility. I understand that the Senate also has accepted two other Domenici amendments to allow states to use some of their portion of the $450 million Accountability block grant program and part of the $200 million Delinquency Prevention Challenge grant program to fund character education initiatives. This will provide states with additional resources to incorporate character education in their schools, if they choose to do so. I have seen this work in New Mexico, and I am pleased that the Senate has agreed to help bring Character Counts to other areas of the country where maybe it has not caught on quite as well as it has in my state or Connecticut. I thank the Senate for accepting my amendments and I yield the floor. preventing Delinquency Through Character Education

Mr. DOMENICI. Let me first respond by saying what I forgot to say when the Senator from Alabama first stood up. I should have congratulated him for the excellent job he has done on this bill. He has been on the floor when I have handled lengthy budget bills and a lot of amendments. He was there to encourage me. I think we worked nicely together. He learned some things during the budget resolution. What a marvelous job the Senator has done under very tough circumstances. I commend him for that. Frankly, it seems to me we need every bit of leadership we can get to assess this issue and be realistic about it. From the President on down, leaders have to tell the truth. Those people who are involved in the business of producing movies and films which our young people view, which we know are more apt to cause them to use guns, are more apt to cause them to do violent things, they need to acknowledge the truth. For those in the entertainment industry to say there is no proof that movies cause violence, what kind of proof do you need? There are multiple studies that say there is a relationship. Does the Senator remember when he was growing up that people would say, ``Well, if you read a good book, it is going to be good for you''? Doesn't it follow that if you read something that is not good, you are apt to learn that also? Whoever defines good or bad, that is up to them. But it is just obvious that one cannot see all of this violence and not be adversely affected by it. Just starting with that and saying let's all acknowledge that, what do we do about it? There may be a lot of different things. Certainly I do not have the prescription, and I did not say I did. But I think we ought to begin by saying that we should not get this into the minds and hearts and senses of our young people. We ought to find a way to avoid it. We ought to find a way to give them better things to view, better things to hear. It seems to me the country would be so relieved if some of those leaders in that industry were to step forth and say: We just formed a group that is going to try to do that. We don't know how successful it will be. They might be shocked. It might be very successful. I yield the floor.

Mr. DOMENICI. To put it in polite terms, the lawyer suggested that maybe those of us concerned about mental illness could meet with Universal Studio lawyers to talk things through, sort of a therapy session for those too sensitive to the world. But the lawyer was clear, Universal Studios was not going to add any language that the Alliance for the Mentally Ill had asked of them and suggested. After all, the movie is a classic, they said, and critics have said so. In short, the message was, you are being a little sensitive, but do not disturb the creative genius that is at work here. Then I read in recent weeks more accounts of the distinguished Edgar Bronfman. It seems he was one of the entertainment kings who refused to attend the White House Conference on Teen Violence and the Media. He also refused to participate in hearings into teen violence and marketing of violence to teens that Senator Brownback held on May 4 of this year. But this time the gentleman found time to pontificate about those who tried to show leadership and the relationship between the music and television shows and movies he produces and the violence affecting our teenagers. He said: It is unfortunate that the American people get finger pointing and chest pounding from government officials. And having delivered himself of such nonsense, Mr. Bronfman departed to Florida to dedicate a theme park. I decided to learn more about him. It turns out he inherited a business from his family--nothing wrong with that. He decided to branch into the media. He now heads Universal Studios, which recently gave us the classic, ``The Mummy.'' He should be proud. It turns out that one of his musicians is Marilyn Manson, winner of the MTV award for the new best artist of the year. Manson is the author of such classics as ``Irresponsible Hate Anthem,'' which contains the line, ``Let's just kill everyone and let your God sort them out.'' And then using the ``f'' word. This was just one song on the Bronfman-produced album, ``Anti-Christ Superstar.'' I think he should be proud of what he produces. I say that obviously not meaning it. Even when thoughtful members of the entertainment industry, like Rob Reiner and Joel Schumacher call for real, honest review of the guts, gore, and godlessness Hollywood turns out, the distinguished Bronfman disagrees. He says that attacking Hollywood for its culture of degradation is opportunism. He seems to have a very similar view to that expressed by another Hollywood executive who said the first amendment ``keeps the Government out of our industry and lets us be what we want.'' This is more than facile cynicism. It is more than merely mercenary spirit. This is the cry of those who have thrown aside all notions of good and evil and who merely want the rest of us to let them be. They want to sell whatever they can to whoever they can entice and want the rest of us to let them be. After all, who are we? Parents? Grandparents? Public officials? American citizens? Who are we to criticize them? These people should look at their deeds and be proud--really proud. Let me conclude by asking simply this question: What in the world would our Founding Fathers make of an interpretation of this great document called the Constitution that claims that the glorification of rape, dismemberment, violent death is unequivocally and absolutely protected by freedom of speech? The result is we are seeing kids imitating art, taking their guns to school, joining gangs, and committing acts of violence. I suspect the Founding Fathers would simply have said: Is this the pathetic pass you people have come to? Shame on you. And we would not have made them proud.

Mr. DOMENICI. I do. I talked to the Senate a little bit lately about character education. I am putting a statement in the record regarding Character Counts, an education program which utilizes six pillars of character. One of them is responsibility and another is trustworthiness. We are all excited about this program and hoping our children will learn responsibility and trustworthiness--meaning don't tell lies, be responsible for the agreements you make, to the covenants you have, to the institutions you support. Isn't it interesting, everybody says we ought to be promoting this because our children need it. Actually, I do not know how to stop what I have described about Hollywood tonight. I do not know how we can do it in law. But sometime or another, somebody has to be responsible. Somebody has to step up to the bar in the movie industry and say we ought to challenge those who work in the industry, who produce these products that are going out to our children and to our people, and see if we can't turn it in another direction. Do we have to pick the easiest prey, our children, and produce the easiest film that will make money? You know they all make money if you load them with this kind of violence and degradation. Can't the movie industry work on something better? I think that is the challenge. I do not have an answer, but maybe a group will be formed and among them they will grow up. Maybe some board of directors of some corporation with a mother or a grandmother on the board may for once ask: What are we putting on television? Can we look at the programs that we are spending our corporate dollars on and see? Wouldn't that be something, if every chief executive, instead of listening only to his advertising man, had a board that wanted to see what they were buying. Not only by way of advertisements, but also programs they bought? That might be a nice idea, if people started doing that, you might hear some mothers and some grandmothers and some parents speaking out.

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I will speak on our time in opposition to another subject for 10 minutes. I rise today to address the issue of media and teen violence. I am sure I cannot do better than Senators who have spent so much time this month on this issue. I congratulate Senators McCain, Hatch, Brownback, Bond, and Lieberman for their efforts. However, because last year I had a personal, although long-distance encounter, with one of the more notorious characters in the media world, I thought I might share that event. First, I will start with a few observations of a more general nature. First, just four short observations: One, clearly a large body of research proves that the media target violence to teenagers. The movie and television rating system is too often unenforced. I urge my colleagues to read Sissela Bok's book, ``Mayhem,'' for a systematic look at the selling of carnage and rage to our youth by the media pushers. Second, this issue is not new. Indeed, back in 1993 Senate bill 943, the Children's Television Violence Protection Act, was introduced in this body. Before that, we had a wide-ranging debate about television and movie violence in the 1980s. So far, the entertainment industry, using the best public relations that money can buy, and by hiding their refusal to accept any restriction on their poison behind the first amendment of the Constitution, have been able to increase the violence and mayhem of their products without any accountability. In 1954, the Senate Judiciary Subcommittee, chaired by then Senator Estes Kefauver, asked whether violence in media was destructive. The media kings said more research was needed. In 1969, the National Commission on Violence concluded that years of exposure to violence will cause the vulnerable among us to engage in violence much more readily and more rapidly. I should add that CBS executives censored the script of CBS reporter, Daniel Schorr, when he tried to report this finding on television news. In 1972, a massive report by Surgeon General Jesse Steinfeld concluded that a definite and causal relationship existed between violence viewing and acts of aggression. Then, in 1981, data further supporting Surgeon General Steinfeld's report was issued. This report was published by the American Psychological Association, a group of Boston pediatricians. They summarized 30 years of research on the subject: Watching violence causes aggressive behavior. That is their conclusion. To use the technical finding, there is a causal link between exposure of children to violent images and subsequent violent behavior. As Senator Brownback pointed out earlier, there is more and more evidence every single year that violence on television, in music, in movies, damages our children and leads some of them to act out of some of their violence in their daily lives. Look at the trend lines. As violence has proliferated in the movies and on TV, juvenile violence has come right along with it and proliferated just as the violence in movies and on television. Recently, at an event at which he raised $2 million from Hollywood, even President Clinton said, ``As studies show, hundreds (of vulnerable children) are more liable to commit violence themselves as a result of watching violence on television or in the movies.'' Both the American Medical Association and the American Association of Pediatrics have warned against exposing our children to violent entertainment. These doctors have to help rebuild the lives of children emotionally, sometimes physically maimed by elements of the entertainment industry. Number 4, finally it is clear to me that the relevant committees of the U.S. Congress must continue to focus on this subject because the Congress sometimes has a short attention span, and the mind polluters know this. We have not had a comprehensive, intensive series of investigations. But Congress should do this: We have subpoena power, which the relevant committees have, and should be used to compel those who hide to come forth and reveal the memos, the research, and the marketing tools they use to sell death and dismemberment to our children. Mr. President, I hope that Senators will investigate the selling of movies that have the PG-13 ratings to those that are 7, 8 and 9 years of age as happened with Jurrasic Park. As Senator Lieberman said recently, ``The evidence strongly suggests that Joe Camel has sadly not gone away, but has been adopted by the entertainment industry instead.'' In addition, we hope that committees will work on innovative legislation along the lines suggested by Senator Bond that will simply do one thing, the one thing the industry cares about: Making it less profitable to make and sell death and hate. Only by doing that will we force change. We have tried moral suasion and it is not working, although it is by far the best solution. Let me conclude, Mr. President, with a personal interaction with one of the more outspoken opponents of change, Mr. Edgar Bronfman, chief executive officer of Seagrams Limited, which owns, among other things, Universal Studios and Universal Music Group, the world's largest record label. On October 5, 1998, I wrote a letter to him. In that letter, I endorsed the plea of the National Alliance for the Mentally Ill, that Universal Studios, owned by Mr. Bronfman, add a statement to the studio's remake of the film ``Psycho.'' As most of my colleagues know, the subject of mental illness and efforts to help those afflicted, the work to remove the stigma of mental illness has been one of the issues I have worked on for much of my career. So when I made my appeal I suggested that the industry merely note that in the years since 1960, when Alfred Hitchcock first made his movie, we have seen major advances in the treatment of major mental illnesses. We asked the statement also note that millions of Americans affected by those brain disorders are leading fulfilled lives because of medical research. We wanted to end the stigma attached to people who are mentally ill, and thus ask for a special favor. I ask unanimous consent my letter of October 5 to Edgar Bronfman be printed in the Record, as well as the National Alliance for the Mentally Ill bulletin about the movie.

Mr. DOMENICI. About 3 weeks after I sent my letter, on October 29 I received a response, not from Mr. Bronfman, but from one of his lawyers. I ask unanimous consent this letter of October 29, 1998, be printed in the Record at this time.

Mr. DOMENICI

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, section 314(b)(1) of the Congressional Budget Act, as amended, requires the Chairman of the Senate Budget Committee to adjust the appropriate budgetary aggregates and the allocation for the Appropriations Committee to reflect an amount provided and designated as an emergency requirement pursuant to 251(b)(2)(A) of the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act. I hereby submit revisions to the 1999 Senate Appropriations Committee allocations, pursuant to section 302 of the Congressional Budget Act, in the following amounts: [In millions of dollars] ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Budget authority Outlays ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Current Allocation: Defense discretionary....................... 279,891 271,403 Nondefense discretionary.................... 287,157 273,901 Violent crime reductiuon fund............... 5,800 4,953 Highways.................................... ........... 21,885 Mass transit................................ ........... 4,401 Mandatory................................... 299,159 291,731

Mr. DOMENICI

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I hereby submit to the Senate the budget scorekeeping report prepared by the Congressional Budget Office under Section 308(b) and in aid of Section 311 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, as amended. This report meets the requirements for Senate scorekeeping of Section 5 of S. Con. Res. 32, the First Concurrent Resolution on the Budget for 1986. This report, my first for fiscal year 1999, shows the effects of congressional action on the budget through May 7, 1999. The estimates of budget authority, outlays, and revenues are consistent with the technical and economic assumptions of S. Res. 209, a resolution to provide budget levels in the Senate for purposes of fiscal year 1999, as amended by S. Res. 312. The estimates show that current level spending is above the budget resolution by $0.6 billion in budget authority and above the budget resolution by $0.2 billion in outlays. Current level is $0.2 billion above the revenue floor in 1999. The current estimate of the deficit for purposes of calculating the maximum deficit amount is $52.4 billion, less than $50 million above the maximum deficit amount for 1999 of $52.4 billion. I ask unanimous consent that the report and transmittal letter dated May 12, 1999, be printed in the Record.

Mr. DOMENICI

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I want to commend a most unique father-daughter team of New Mexicans for their excellent science and engineering accomplishments. Ernie Lopez, a teacher at Taos New Mexico Middle School and science coordinator for the Taos Municipal Schools, has consistently inspired Taos students to excel in science and engineering. That inspiration is best characterized by his record of having at least one of his students at the Intel International Science and Engineering Fair for 23 of the past 25 years. I know Mr. Lopez was especially proud this year when his own daughter, Michelle Lopez, won one of the top prizes in this year's fair for the project judged to be the best zoology project at this year's Fair. I want to add my enthusiastic congratulations to Michelle for the dedication and hard work that she has invested in her winning project. That work should lay a solid foundation for a future career marked by major contributions in her chosen fields. Ernie Lopez was also honored at the International Fair, for ``outstanding accomplishment as a science educator,'' one of seven teaching awards handed out at this year's Fair. It's with great pleasure that I salute this superb father-daughter team from New Mexico. They serve as great inspiration to students and teachers in my home State.

Mr. DOMENICI

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I rise to offer my thoughts on the juvenile justice legislation before us here today. I want to commend the majority leader for bringing this important bill to the floor this week. I think it is time for the Senate to have a full debate about our Nation's juvenile crime policies, and the role the Federal Government should play in addressing youth violence. The Federal Government should provide greater funding to the States to combat juvenile crime, but without tying the hands of the States and their ability to implement new and innovative approaches to the problem. The bill before us is a step in that direction. In the wake of the tragedy in Littleton, CO, this will be a particularly timely debate. But I want my colleagues to know that, in the view of this Senator, this is a debate which is long overdue. As far back as 1995, I held field hearings in my home State of New Mexico to talk to people about their experiences with escalating youth violence. I brought in judges, law enforcement officers, youth counselors, and prevention experts, as well as victims of juvenile crime, to see what the Federal response to the problem ought to be. I then introduced legislation based on what I heard from the experts in New Mexico. And I must say to the chairman of the Judiciary Committee, Senator Hatch, and his colleague, Senator Sessions, you all must have heard the same things from your experts as we heard in new Mexico. Because many of the same concepts and ideas which I heard during those discussions in New Mexico have found their way into your bill before us today. Ideas like graduated sanctions, so that kids are punished the first time they commit a bad act, and given more severe punishment for subsequent, more severe offenses. In New Mexico, I heard countless stories of juveniles who committed 10 or 15 minor crimes before they ever were given even the slightest punishment. It is not wonder that so many kids disrespect our justice system. This bill will encourage States to adopt graduated sanctions policies, and provide resources to do so. Another theme echoed throughout the field hearings and meetings I held in New Mexico was the need to better address the rights of the victims of juvenile crime. Often, the victims and their families are forgotten in the juvenile justice system. States frequently require closed court hearings, rarely notify victims when offenders are sentenced or released, and often fail to allow for restitution. One issue that is critically important to a rural State like New Mexico is the need to address the Federal mandates imposed upon the States as a condition of receiving Federal funds. I have been working with Congresswoman Heather Wilson of New Mexico's First District on this issue since the time when she served as the Secretary of Children, Youth and Families in our State. One problem she always faced was how to deal with the Federal ``sight and sound separation'' mandate, which led to arbitrary, burdensome, and often times ridiculous restrictions placed on my State's use of juvenile facilities. Let me make it clear to the critics of this bill's handling of the mandates: no one, including this Senator, wants to house juveniles in the same cell as adults or to allow adults the ability to physically or emotionally abuse juveniles held in secure facilities. All this bill seeks to do is impose some common sense, to allow States the flexibility to use their facilities and staffs in a rational, but responsible way. I think Senators Hatch and Sessions have done a good job addressing the problem. I have before me a list of the 15 Federal and 7 State gun laws already on the books which were violated by those disturbed youths in Colorado. I want my colleagues to know that I think that we should do a better job of enforcing those laws already in place, particularly at the Federal level, before we consider enacting a laundry list of new gun laws. There may be some suggestions offered this week which are reasonable, and which might be acceptable to a majority of Senators. I wait to see what will be offered. Mr. President, I thank you for recognizing me. Again, I commend the chairman of the Judiciary Committee, Senator Hatch, and the chairman of the Youth Violence Subcommittee, Senator Sessions, for their hard work on this bill. I do not agree with every single provision, and I may offer some amendments later in the process, but I think they have done a fine job getting this legislation to the floor. And I look forward to working with them as we continue to shape the bill. Mr. President, while this bill will be contentious and we will have scores of amendments, it is the right debate at the right time in the right place. I think after we have fully debated this we are going to come up with a bill that will help our sovereign States and the governments within those sovereign States to do a better job with juvenile crime policies. We do not have a major role, but we have certainly not had a sufficient role. This bill will expand that and modify and make more responsive some of the mandates we have in our laws today with reference to juveniles. First of all, there is a great discussion taking place about firearms and guns. While I do not address that in my few remarks, in due course we will have a significant debate on this. Clearly, we will all listen attentively and pay attention. We will try to do the very best we can. I will certainly try to do that. But essentially there is a much bigger issue. The issue is the criminal justice system. In our land we have an adult criminal system. We all hear about that regularly. It is jury trials for serious crimes. It is whether or not to have death penalties. It is do we have enough district attorneys to prosecute. It is what is happening to the families of these adults against whom these crimes have been committed. And it is a myriad of things that apply to adults. For the most part, the juvenile justice system in America has been almost mysterious, because we have been bent on protecting the young people and protecting their rights and protecting their reputations-- and properly so. But I submit much of that apprehension about disclosing what crimes teenagers and juveniles have committed, keeping their records separate such that they can have the equivalent of two or three felonies and nobody ever knows about it when they enter the next phase of life--many of these things were done in a completely different era. Clearly, we have a small portion of America's young people committing crimes. The overwhelming number, as the minority leader said, are diligently doing their jobs, trying to grow up, learning and conducting themselves in a very, very good manner. There is a growing number of teenagers that has become just as dangerous as adult criminals. They commit the very same crimes from rape to murder to mayhem to burglary to robbery. Drive-by shootings are not just done by adults. Many of them are done by teenagers and young people. The time has come, it seems to me, to give a little more recognition to that and to help our States and their juvenile apparatus for helping them do a better job. I held hearings in my State the year before last, and I introduced a bill, along with my colleague from the House, Representative Heather Wilson. Many of the ideas in it which we got from our educators, from our judges, from our policemen, are in this bill. I compliment those who put it together. It moves in the right direction, without any doubt. Frankly, there are young people who commit significant crimes over and over who deserve to be treated as adults. We do, to some extent, urge the States to move in that direction--and many are--to treat as adults those young people who commit certain kinds of crimes which are just abhorrent to society. We are moving in the direction of making sure that the records of severe juvenile criminals are made available so that the courts can be apprised in later years as these juvenile criminals commit other serious crimes. It is not as if the first 5 years of criminality as a youngster do not count. We are moving in that direction, and I think we are moving there correctly. Likewise, it is obvious that we ought to be doing some things to help in the prevention area. I am very pleased that we are urging our schools that have great physical capacity--their gyms, their recreation centers, their classrooms--to make them available for afterschool, weekend and even summer activities so that our young people have more to do with their enormous amount of spare time, other than to spend, on average, 7 hours--it is not just teenagers, but televisions in our homes are on 7 hours a day, a rather incredible number. Probably with so many of our young people with nothing to do in the afternoons, it would not be a surprise if for a substantial number of those 7 hours, teenagers and our youngsters are watching, with no adults around, whatever they please. Clearly, this bill is moving in the right direction, with reference to another area which is totally frustrating for fellow New Mexicans and for Americans, and that is victims of juvenile crime. We are now finding how abusive a court system can be to victims if, in fact, the courts do not take the victims into consideration. I will be offering an amendment with reference to victims which, I believe the Senate will be pleased to hear, will take some things out of the proposed constitutional amendment that was offered with reference to victims and makes it statutory. A few of those ideas were in Dan Coats' proposal. I believe we can put in rights that victims will have under the juvenile codes of our land. Let me close by suggesting one other thing. Again, if we get away from the shootings and look at the ordinary daily operation of the criminal justice system for young people, we find a problem with reference to what we do with young people who commit small offenses. Do we do nothing? It is pretty obvious that small offenses repeated yield to more serious offenses, and if there is no corrective action, then it will yield to more egregious offenses. Go to one of our facilities in New Mexico and interrogate a 17-year-old boy and ask him why he is there. He will say: I am finally here, but I was arrested 17 times and I was found guilty of 14 crimes, and nothing happened to me. I ended up here. This bill talks about progressive punishment--little crimes, little punishment; bigger crimes, bigger punishment--but suggests that we will help with funding in the States if they have a system that, indeed, imposes some kind of corrective measure, even for the lesser offenses. This is not intended to create a situation where we are just being mean to somebody. As a matter of fact, it looks like young people learn when they are corrected, when they are told they cannot do something and when violating the law means they have to suffer in some way, be it mighty small when they are small offenses, or significant as they move up the ladder of criminality in terms of the number of times they violate our laws. I hope by the time we finish this bill, we will have taken a giant step forward in helping our States which, after all, do most of the law enforcement of this criminal behavior by our young people and most of the offenses that are taking place in our school systems, such as the events that occurred in my neighboring State of Colorado. Most of the authority to do something about that is not in our hands; it is in the hands of our States. We ought to be helpful to the States in this legislation by not tying their hands but giving them flexibility, and where we really think there ought to be improvements in the system, giving some benefit to a State that changes the system in a positive manner. This bill has that kind of incentive built into it which is the part I put in the bill which I introduced not too long ago, because I thought it was very important to encourage States to make changes. I thank the Senator for yielding to me, and I yield the floor.

Mr. DOMENICI

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, since my early days as a Senator, I have worked with Northern New Mexicans who have irrigated apple orchards, chile crops, beans, and other subsistence commodities by using a unique system of irrigation that is native to New Mexico's high desert plateaus of the Rocky Mountains. For hundreds of years, Hispanics have channeled Rio Grande River water for their crops through a complex system of ditches. I first started working with these ``acequia'' associations in 1976, when we first brought their needs to the attention of the Bureau of Reclamation. Water from the Rio Grande River has been carefully syphoned off to provide a basis for Hispanic life and culture for centuries. The annual rituals of cleaning, operating, and sharing this precious water have become an integral part of northern New Mexico's cultural life. Irrigators have formed alliances and cooperative agreements to meet the many water needs of the area. ``Acequias,'' as they are known in Spanish, are the irrigation ditches that have given rise to centuries of critical life support systems. Much of the beauty of cottonwood trees and apple orchards between Espanola and Taos was created by these man-made acequias. In addition to watering the orchards and fields, the acequias are a vital source of precious water for the old trees that also live off this water system. The historic value of this system of cooperative watering is well known in northern New Mexico. In fact, when the acequia associations and I agreed to improve this system, our suggestions were resisted by State of New Mexico agencies on the grounds that concrete lining, for example, would alter the historic value of these acequias. Of course, the state agency did not want to help with the expensive and frequent repairs and annual maintenance. They wanted the subsistence farmers to do this themselves, at their own expense. Working with Las Nueve Acequias Steering Committee, and their excellent Chairman Wilfred Gutierrez, we are now celebrating a quarter century of overcoming bureaucratic barriers and making real improvements to this vast system of acequias. In the past twenty five years, I have been able to convince my colleagues in the Senate of the value of acequias to the economy and culture of northern New Mexico. The Congress has been accepting of my proposals. At my urging, the Congress authorized a special program to make the needed physical improvements to acequias, while maintaining the traditional cooperative relationships. The traditional leader of an acequia is the ``mayordomo.'' Mike Martinez, the current mayordomo of the Chicos ditch in Velarde was on hand to christen the latest section of improvements in late April. This event was a milestone that marks a quarter century of a vital partnership with the federal government to keep these acequias operable for the next century. We are still a couple of years away from completing $30 million worth of improvements in the Velarde area of New Mexico. Miles of acequias have been greatly improved in the past quarter century. I have been fortunate to have the support of my colleagues for many appropriations over all these years. In gratitude for the consistent support of my colleagues for funding these acequia projects, I would like them to see the attached newspaper article from the Rio Grande Sun, May 6, 1999, by Cynthia Miller, entitled, ``After 25 Years, Acequia Project Finally Finished''. This article gives us important insights into the value of the acequias to thousands of northern New Mexicans. After a quarter century of improvements, the acequia users and associations can continue to rely on this essential source of water for their lifestyles, and their livelihood. I ask that this article be printed in the Record. The article follows: [From the Rio Grande Sun, May 6, 1999] After 25 Years, Acequia Project Finally Finished (By Cynthia Miller) When the Chicos ditch in Velarde was opened April 28 during a ceremony to celebrate the completion of 3000 feet of improvement work, Las Nueve Acequias Steering Committee Chairman Wilfred Gutierrez said he witnessed not only the one ditch's progress that day, but also the past 25 years of progress on a $20 million federal project covering nine ditches in the area. The 3000 feet of concrete piping from a Rio Grande dam up the Chicos marks one of the last stages of the project, Gutierrez said, estimating $15 million in federal funds has been spent on the project so far. He said the ditch was christened by acequia mayordomo Mike Martinez and several federal Bureau of Reclamation officials who gathered April 28 to watch as water was released from the newly lined dam for the first time this spring. The pricey nine-ditch project was initiated in the 1970s, Gutierrez said, when residents of Velarde and surrounding communities rebelled against a $28 million federal plan to build a canal from the Rio Grande to the Santa Cruz River. The group successfully stopped the canal from going in and the community's irrigation water supply from going out, he said, and then members got some ideas of their own. ``People started asking me why couldn't we use some of that money to rehabilitate our acequias?'' Gutierrez said the farmers in the area were always putting time, money and labor into rebuilding dams and ditches which were washed away by heavy river flows, and fixing spots where muskrats, crawfish and other wildlife dug holes. Rather then constantly rebuild the acequias just to see them destroyed again, the community members wanted to improve the ditches in a way that would be more permanent and would require less strenuous maintenance efforts, he said. In 1976 officers from the nine acequias organized into the Las Nueve Acequias Steering Committee and asked Gutierrez to serve as chairman, he said. The group then sought U.S. Sen. Pete Domenici's help in securing Bureau of Reclamation funds for their ditch improvement projects. Following a Bureau of Reclamation feasibility study around 1980, he said, it was determined that the work would cost about $20 million. Funds began to come in and plans were made to get started. The first and most crucial phase was to build new dams, Gutierrez said. ``Before that, it was just the old ones that the Spanish and the Indians built. Literally, we were just washing money down the river.'' With each heavy rain, he said, the dams just washed away and had to be rebuilt. Seven new permanent dams were built by Las Nueve Acequias and the Bureau of Reclamation to replace the nine previous dams, he said, and then work was started on lining ditches and creating other structures. He explained the group is set up so that each ditch has its own officers to make decisions on what work it wants done. ``What's nice about this project is that it's up to the people in the acequias to determine what they want. They have to make the request,'' he said, adding he has served from the start as an at-large representative of the steering committee. He represents no individual acequia, he said, and works instead for the good of all nine. Part of his work has included overcoming obstacles standing in the way of ditch improvements, such as the state Environment Department and the state Game and Fish Department's objections to ditch work, Gutierrez said. The departments wanted the ditches to remain in their more natural states. ``They wanted the acequias to exist like before, but they didn't realize how expensive it was. And they didn't want to help fix them,'' he said. ``They wanted the acequia groups to be burdened with the expense of keeping the acequias as they had existed.'' Gutierrez said he was glad to see the project is nearing its completion. ``When we started it, we thought we could finish it in eight years,'' he said, ``and it's taken 25. . . . We'd like to finish this project in the next two years.'' Gutierrez said Las Nueve Acequias has plans to do more work on its ditches this fall.

Mr. DOMENICI

Mr. DOMENICI. Senator Byrd, I want to say you commented that you could filibuster for many days about the beauty of your State. I am particularly pleased that you did it this way rather than a filibuster. A filibuster for some has a little bit of a negative connotation, and the remarks made don't deserve the slightest interference from anything else, just a straight up great speech about your State. I was glad to be here.

Mr. DOMENICI. Will the Senator yield?

Mr. DOMENICI

Mr. DOMENICI. I thank the Senator. I thank the Presiding Officer for recognizing me. First, I compliment Senator Gramm on the marvelous work he has done on a very complicated bill. And I hope we get new legislation in this area before the week is out. Coming out of conference, I hope that we will have something fundamentally positive for the banking industry of the United States. Mr. President, I have been in the Senate about 27 years. And I guess I would have to say, the institution of the United States for which I have the most respect is the Federal Reserve Board. In fact, I marvel at the 1913 act, the Federal Reserve Act. Frankly, I marvel at the caliber of people that have chaired the Fed and who act with total independence once they are appointed. Only one time in my 27 years have I thought that the Federal Reserve Board Chairman and the President of the United States were negotiating among themselves about interest rates and the like. For the most part, the Federal Reserve has been a marvelous institution for stability and nonpolitical involvement in the banking industry of America and for conducting the monetary policy of America. I see this issue as a very simple one. Do you want the Federal Reserve Board to continue to be a major, major player in the banking system of the United States or do you want to send responsibility over to the White House? When Congress created the Federal Reserve Board, there was a different problem. But we decided to create the Fed independent of the White House and keep it out of politics. Now we are here engaged in a fight, in an argument, in a close vote on sending a big part of the Federal Reserve Board's responsibility back to the White House. This amendment would allow a substantial portion of bank policy to be dictated by the White House. I do not believe it belongs there. I am not saying this because of Secretary Rubin. I have agreed with almost all of his policies. As a matter of fact, I have said his economic policies remind me of Republicans and that probably is what saved the President in terms of the policies that he has put into effect. I have told the Secretary that. I do not know whether he was pleased or not so pleased to hear that, but I congratulated him nonetheless. Essentially, this is the issue: Do you want to take a big piece of American banking policy and put it back in the political arena? Because no matter what we think of the Comptroller of the Currency, he is a political appointee. And it is most amazing, in the hierarchy of those who have power in America, it is not even a powerful position. It will be powerful if the amendment before us passes, because we will be giving the Comptroller tremendous control over our banking policy instead of vesting it where it truly belongs, with the most significant independent group in America's economic recovery since 1913--the Federal Reserve Board and its Chairman. I hope we do not do that. I am amazed. It seems as though the White House believes that this is one of the most important issues it has ever faced. The lobbying pressure is enormous, with different levels of White House people--not the President,--but in the White House, Secretaries, Cabinet members. Maybe it is because they like Mr. Rubin so much they do not want him to lose this one. Maybe that is it. But it can't be that kind of issue unless it is seen by the executive branch as involving such power that Presidents might want to have it, rather than leave that power in the hands of the independent, successful management of the Federal Reserve Board. I thank you for yielding me time, and I yield the floor.

Mr. DOMENICI

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I am pleased today to submit for the sixth consecutive year a resolution on behalf of myself and 53 other Senators. My principal cosponsor is Senator Dodd. In years past, when Senator Nunn was here, this resolution, which I am introducing, was known as the Domenici-Nunn resolution regarding National Character Counts Week. Senator Dodd is taking the place of Senator Nunn; and 52 other Senators besides the two of us have joined in this. If any others wish to join, we will be pleased to have you. This resolution says the week of October 17 through 24 of this year, and October 15 through 22 of next year, will be known across the country as National Character Counts Week. In 1992, a distinguished group of American educators, youth leaders, ethicists, religious people of all faiths, labor union leaders, and business executives met in Aspen, CO. They developed a way to instill character values in our schoolchildren. The conference marked the birth of what is beginning to be known across America as ``The Six Pillars of Character'' concept. The values comprising the Six Pillars are everyday concepts that Americans across this land wish their children would have and hope America will keep. They are simply: trustworthiness, respect, responsibility, fairness, caring, and citizenship. They transcend political and social barriers and are central to the ideals on which this Nation was built. As a matter of fact, I think they are central and basic to any nation that survives for any long period of history. As Plato once said, ``A country without character is a country that's doomed. And the only way a country can have character,'' he said, ``is if the individual citizens in the country have character.'' I could speak for all of my allotted time on the 200,000 New Mexico schoolchildren in public, private and parochial schools learning about good character. About 90 percent of the grade school children, and a significant portion of the others, are now participating in character education programs that simply and profoundly bring them into contact with each of these Pillars of Character one month at a time. So if you walk the halls of some grade school in Albuquerque, you might see a sign outside that says, ``This Is Responsibility Month.'' And all the young people will be discussing the concept of responsibility in their classrooms, and they will put up posters saying, ``Responsibility Counts.'' At the end of that month they may have an assembly at which responsibility will be discussed by all the kids, and awards will be given to those who have been most responsible. The next month it might be ``respect.'' The month after that it might be ``caring.'' This is working wherever it is being tried. A good example can be seen in the changes that occurred at Garfield Middle School in Albuquerque. The 570 students at Garfield first received their first lessons on the Six Pillars in October 1994. During the first 20 days of that school year, there were 91 recorded incidents of physical violence. One year later, during the same period, there were 26 such incidents. This remarkable difference is evidence that students do respond to Character Counts. In New Mexico, the Character Counts movement has spread from the classroom to the boardroom. Recently, a group of business professionals resolved to explore ways to implement the Six Pillars in all their business relationships in an effort to spread these values throughout the community. Through this effort, parents have an opportunity to participate in Character Counts along side their kids, thereby reinforcing lessons learned in school. Promoting the Six Pillars at work also improves productivity and morale on the job, and it pays incalculable dividends in job and customer satisfaction. Every year I like to highlight a particularly exceptional example of character displayed in my State of New Mexico. For over a dozen years, Bob Martin, an Albuquerque helicopter pilot, dreamed of being the first person to circumnavigate the globe in a balloon. He made many personal, professional, and financial sacrifices to plan the endeavor. Bob worked tirelessly to involve as many New Mexicans he could in his adventure, and from scientists to schoolchildren, the entire State shared his enthusiasm for the project. Finally, after years of preparation, Bob and his fellow crew members of Team RE/MAX were scheduled for lift-off this past January. However, it soon became apparent that weather conditions and equipment problems would force one of the three-member flight crew to stay behind. As founder of the mission, Bob felt it was his duty to stay behind despite his years of preparation and commitment to the project. His heartbreaking decision was an unparalleled exemplification of each of the Six Pillars: Trustworthiness, Respect, Responsibility, Fairness, Citizenship, and Caring. Eventually, the launch was canceled because of worsening weather conditions, and two other balloon pilots, Bertrand Piccard of France and Brian Jones, of England, became the first team to successfully complete the trip. Although many of the hundreds of schoolchildren across New Mexico following Bob Martin's quest were disappointed he didn't have the chance to lift-off, they were given a outstanding demonstration of character in action through the deeds of Bob Martin. The lead institution in America that sponsors it is a nonprofit institution called the Josephson Institute. It is a small foundation that promotes ethics. In that regard, they are the promoters of the Six Pillars of Character. Wherever I go, whenever I go to New Mexico, I pick a school and we talk about their Character Counts program. It is phenomenal, the way teachers love to be part of this. Some of them said to me, 3 and 4 years ago: Why did it take so long to empower me to talk about responsibility to the children I teach in the fourth or third or fifth grade? I was absolutely astounded to find the hunger among good teachers to share with their children what it meant to be fair, to be respectful, to have citizenship. I will ask consent that an editorial in the Albuquerque Journal, our largest newspaper, entitled, ``Students Learn Real Lesson in Citizenship'' be printed in the Record. It says that as part of the Six Pillars in this school, one of the good teachers took the entire classroom to a swearing-in ceremony where 71 New Mexicans became American citizens, and the little children got to watch them swear their oath, and meet them, and then they went back to their class and discussed it. They were thrilled to talk about people from other countries who love America and want to become citizens. If the program did not promote that, it would never have happened. And it is happening in all different ways across our land. Senator Dodd is working hard at this, as well as his fellow Senator from Connecticut, Senator Lieberman. The State of Tennessee, under the leadership of Senator Frist, is moving ahead dramatically. I ask all Senators to read what I have placed in the Record and to consider joining. I am going to bring together with my friend, Senator Dodd, and others, a number of Governors from both parties--perhaps as many as 15--with a number of Senators from both parties. We are going to quickly decide how we can promote the six pillars of character across their States and across our land. Much is said about the children and the problem that happened in the shooting in my neighboring State of Colorado. We all know some things have to change. None of us have an absolute solution to this problem. But essentially, I submit, if we could have character education built on these six pillars in all of our grade schools and junior high schools, month by month, year by year, as they mature--and nobody objects. Those who are practicing the Jewish religion think these pillars are great. If as a Christian--a Baptist or Protestant or Roman Catholic--you hear about these six pillars, you say, ``Amen.'' We cannot teach religion. But what is wrong with responsibility and respect and caring and trustworthiness? Trustworthiness just means we do not lie. Isn't that nice to tell young people that our character is defined by whether we tell the truth? Our country ultimately suffers when we do not tell the truth. That is the kind of thing that is being promoted. I note the presence of Senator Dodd. Senator, I have already mentioned that not only are you my principal cosponsor, but we are going to call this national conference soon. You and I will ask Governors and Senators to attend. I ask now the Journal editorial, which I alluded to, be printed in the Record. There being not objection, the article was ordered to be printed in

Mr. DOMENICI

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, the Senator from Texas is unable to be here. He has been gone for a couple of minutes. I am aware of his willingness to accept the amendment, and there is no objection on our side. I indicate that on behalf of Senator Gramm. THE PRESIDING OFFICER. If there be no further debate, the question is on agreeing to the amendment.

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

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I ask consent I be permitted to speak for 7 minutes in morning business.

Mr. DOMENICI. I thank the Chair. (The remarks of Mr. Domenici and Mr. Dodd pertaining to the introduction of S. Res. 98 are located in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced Bills and Joint Resolutions.'')

Mr. DOMENICI

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I rise today to salute one of our nation's most precious resources, our teachers and in particular New Mexico's teacher of the year, Stan Johnston of Los Alamos High School. I would submit, teachers are the key to America's future. Christa McAuliffe, the teacher and astronaut put it in perfect perspective. She said, ``I touch the future, I teach.'' Building upon her statement I would say: it is a simple fact that the future is prejudiced in favor of those who can read, write, and do math. A good education is a ticket to the secure economic future of the middle class. As the earning gap between brains and brawn grows ever larger almost no one doubts the link between education and an individual's prospects. And today the Senate is acknowledging those on the front lines with our students, the unsung heroes, their teachers. Somewhere in this great country of ours a teacher has a future leader of the United States in his classroom. Who knows; it could be one of the students in Stan Johnston's English and Study Skills class at Los Alamos High School in New Mexico. My point is simple, after parents and families, teachers play an important role in helping our children reach their potential. After our children leave home each morning, it becomes the responsibility of America's almost 3 million teachers to ensure our children are prepared for the future because in our nation's classrooms resides the future. Hopefully, the future doctors who will find the cure for cancer, mental illness, and heart disease are right now in our classrooms. But, most importantly we have the next generation of our country now attending classes throughout our schools. In conclusion, I would like to thank you and a job well done to all of our teachers and in particular, Stan Johnston of Los Alamos High School. Again, thank you and please continue the superb work you are doing on behalf of our country.

Mr. DOMENICI

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, today, May 5, or ``Cinco de Mayo,'' marks an important holiday for Mexicans and Mexican-Americans alike, and it will be observed with celebrations and festivities across the United States. Contrary to a popular misconception, Cinco de Mayo does not commemorate Mexico's independence from Spain. That holiday is celebrated on September 16. Instead, Cinco de Mayo marks the victory in 1862 of the Mexican army over a larger, better armed and better trained invading French army at La Batalla de Puebla. After gaining independence in 1821, Mexico endured a series of set backs while trying to establish a republic. By the late 1850s, Mexico was in the grips of a severe economic crisis, and the treasury was bankrupt. In 1861, President Benito Juarez placed a moratorium halting payments on foreign debt. Since much of Mexico's debt was owed to France, Napoleon III responded by invading Mexico. After landing in the port of Veracruz, the French army, which was considered the finest military force of the period, expected to march through the country and easily capture the capital, Mexico City. However, a small Mexican army, under the command of General Ignacio Zaragosa, mounted a strong defense at the town of Pueblo and routed the invading force. The stunning victory was short-lived, though. The French returned with reinforcements and were able to defeat Mexican forces the following year. But they were only able to control Mexico for four years, and President Juarez regained power in 1867. Although, in the end, La Batalla de Puebla had little lasting military significance, it was, culturally, a watershed event for the fledging nation, and for Latin America as a whole. After seeing Europe's best army routed by a hastily gathered and largely untrained Mexican defense, European leaders became more wary of exerting military force in the Americans. Europe never sent another invading force to the Americas after this episode. The victory at Puebla also instilled a great sense of pride and patriotism in the people of Mexico. They proved their military mettle to themselves and the world, and their government, led by President Juarez, secured legitimacy in the eyes of other nations. Finally, La Batalla de Puebla asserted the right of people living in former European colonies to self determination and national sovereignty, and it unified all the citizens of Mexico, from landowners to laborers, in a common cause. It marks the point when people stopped seeing themselves as subjects of monarchy in a distant land or restricted their loyalty to a particular state or region, but instead viewed themselves as citizens of a new nation, a nation united under the green, white and red colors of the Mexican flag. Much has been said in recent years about the ``commercialization'' of Cino de Mayo, and it is true that importance of this holiday often has been overlooked. However, to most Mexican-Americans, or Chicanos, Cinco de Mayo has a special meaning. Many scholars believe La Batalla de Puebla produced the first military hero from the American Southwestern region in General Ignacio Zaragosa, who was born in Texas. The holiday has long been a lesson in overcoming great odds through determination and unity. Today, Cinco de Mayo is an occasion for people of Mexican descent to come together to express pride in their history, and I encourage all Americans to enjoy this opportunity to celebrate and appreciate the contributions of Mexican culture.

Mr. DOMENICI

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, it is with great pride that I rise today to recognize the contestants of the 1999 New Mexico High School Supercomputing Challenge, an impressive group of young people from my home state of New Mexico. I want to extend a special congratulations to the five Albuquerque Academy students who won this intellectually demanding contest. In addition to their normal school work and other extra curricular activities, these students--Tom Widland, Kevin Oishi, Alex Feuchter, Ryan Davies and Ryan Duryea-- diligently worked on their project for nearly a year to compete in this competition. For the past 9 years, High school students from around the state have competed against each other in the Supercomputing Challenge. The student's projects are done on high-speed supercomputers at the Los Alamos National Laboratory with the winners of the competition receiving an award, a $1,000 savings bond, a plaque, several boxes of software, and a computer for their schools. In light of recent events in the news, it has been easy for us to focus our attention on the problems seriously troubling our Nation's youth. That is why, now, more than ever, I believe it is essential that we encourage our kids by recognizing and praising their outstanding accomplishments. These young Americans exemplify, the character our Nation was founded on and set a positive example for their peers to follow. The participants of the 1999 New Mexico High School Supercomputing Challenge, deserve to be recognized, and I am proud to salute them on this worthy accomplishment.

Mr. DOMENICI

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, today I am joining my cosponsors, Senators Bingaman, Frist, Lieberman, and Snowe, in introducing the Private Sector Research and Development Investment Act of 1999. This bill makes the research tax credit permanent and significantly improves the structure of that credit. Many Senators are for this extension, and it is high time, and for the permanentization of this credit. This also adjusts the credit to today. That credit was put in place many years ago, and much of what it does doesn't fit today's industrial base, including many startup companies that cannot take the right kind of credit. We have made some changes which will make it cost a little bit more, but I think the Finance Committee should take a look at some of the changes that are in this Domenici-Bingaman bill, because it will make the credit more effective and more available. In March of 1998, 150 of our Nation's top decisionmakers met at MIT for the first national innovative summit. The summit leaders included CEOs, university presidents, labor leaders, Governors, Members of Congress, and senior administrative officials. In essence, they conclude that in order to keep the United States of America on the cutting edge of research that can be applied to innovative things for America's future and for our businesses, that we must make this tax permanent, that dollar for dollar it is the best investment in both general research and specific research to keep America strong and competitive in the world. When those people say dollar for dollar it is the most effective, they are saying it is more effective than programmatic assistance to research, which obviously is very necessary, and we continue to expand upon and have it grow. But if you don't make this permanent, you are losing a lot of research by American businesses, No. 1. If you don't correct it, you will lose the effectiveness among companies that need it the most. And third, you will see to it that more, rather than less, American companies do research overseas. Research jobs are great jobs. They are just as much a part of America's basic prosperity as are the jobs that come from that research by way of products or activities. Mr. President, advanced technologies drive a significant part of our nation's economic strength. Our economy and our standard of living depend on a constant influx of new technologies, processes, and products from our industries. Many countries provide labor at lower costs than the United States. Thus, as any new product matures, competitors using overseas labor frequently find ways to undercut our production costs. We maintain our economic strength only by constantly improving our products through innovation. Maintaining and improving our national ability to innovate is critically important to the nation. The majority of new products requires industrial research and development to reach the market stage. I want to encourage that research and development to create new products to ensure that our factories stay busy and that our workforce stays fully employed at high salaried jobs. I want more of our large multi-national companies to select the United States as the location of their R&D. R&D done here creates American jobs. And since frequently the benefits of research in one area apply in another area, I want those spin-off benefits here, too. Congress created the Research Tax Credit to encourage companies to perform research. But many studies document that the present form of this Tax Credit is not providing as much stimulation to industrial R&D as it could. Today, we're introducing legislation to improve the Research Tax Credit. In March of 1998, 150 of our nation's top decision makers met at MIT, for the first National Innovation Summit. The Summit included corporate CEO's, university presidents, labor leaders, governors, members of Congress, and Senior Administration officials. At the Summit, these experts discussed the health of the future national research base. More than three-quarters of them thought that the quality of that base would be no better or worse than it is today, with nearly one third projecting that it would be weaker. The Summit participants singled out the Research Tax Credit as the policy measure with the greatest potential for a positive near-term impact. The Council on Competitiveness, who co-sponsored that Summit, stated that ``making the [Research] Tax Credit permanent reflected a widely share consensus among leaders whose companies and universities contribute decisively to the nation's economy.'' The single most important change in our bill is to make the Credit permanent. Many studies point out that the temporary nature of the Credit has prevented companies from building careful research strategies. Many of my colleagues in Congress have also expressed interest in making the Credit permanent. But we're urging them to go beyond that action and, at the same time, address shortcomings that have been identified in the current Credit. I want to use the current enthusiasm for permanence to also craft a Credit that will better serve the nation. For example, the current Credit references a company's research intensity back to 1984-88. That's too outdated to meet today's dynamic market conditions. Many companies are involved today in products that weren't even invented in 1984. Our legislation allows a company to base their credit on their research intensity averaged over the preceding eight years. It also allows companies to stay with the current formulation of the Credit if they prefer. Our bill builds other improvements into the Credit as well. For example, the Alternative Research Credit component has been criticized because it only rewards the maintenance level of a company's research, it does not provide significant motivation to increase research intensity. With our proposed changes, the Alternative Credit now incorporates the same 20 percent motivation for increased research intensity that is found in the regular Credit--this is a major improvement. We also increase the base level of the Alternative Credit significantly. The current Credit has a provision that severely restricts the ability of start-up companies to fully benefit. Analysis by the Congressional Research Service showed that 5 our of 6 start-up companies received reduced benefits because of a current provision that limits their allowable increase in research expenditures. I'm concerned when start-up companies aren't receiving full Credit. These are just the companies that drive the innovative cycle in this country; they are the ones that frequently bring out the newest leading-edge products. Our legislation thus drops this limitation and introduces additional help for start-up businesses. Our legislation addresses several other shortcomings in the current Credit as well. Now there is a ``Basic Research Credit'' allowed, but rarely used. This should be encouraging research conducted at universities. But that part of the Credit is now defined to include only research that does ``not have a specific commercial objective.'' There aren't many companies that want to support--much less admit to their stockholders that they are supporting--research with no commercial interest. The idea of this clause was to encourage support of long term research, which is a fine idea. This is the kind of research that benefits far more than just the next product improvement. It can enable a whole new product or service and we need to encourage it. Our legislation adds major incentives for basic research by dropping the requirement that only increments above a baseline can be used and by including any research that is done for a consortium of U.S. companies or any research that is destined for open literature publication. We're also allowing this Credit to apply to research done in national labs. And finally our legislation recognizes the importance of encouraging companies to use research capabilities wherever they exist in the country, whether in other businesses, universities, or national labs. The current credit disallows 35% of all expenses for research performed under an external contract--our legislation allows all such expenses to apply towards the Credit when the research is performed at a university, small business, or national laboratory. In summary, this bill incorporates all the improvement suggested in other bills that primarily make the credit permanent and provide some increase in the alternative credit. But this bill goes further and corrects weaknesses in the current formulation of the Credit. I want to seize this opportunity to make the Research Tax Credit a tool that will truly meet the goals for which it was established. The fact that this bill addresses significant shortcomings in the current Credit has not gone unnoticed. Spokesman for several groups that endorse this bill are here with us today. After Senator Bingaman speaks, I'll invite representatives from the Council on Competitiveness, the National Association of State Universities and Land Grant Colleges, the National Coalition for Advanced Manufacturing, and the American Association of Engineering Societies to add their perspectives. With this new bill, we will significantly strengthen incentives for private companies to undertake research that leads to new processes, new services, and new products. The result will be stronger companies that are better positioned for global competition. Those stronger companies will hire people at higher salaries with real benefits to our national economy and workforce. I ask unanimous consent that the text and a summary of the bill, section by section, be printed in the Record.

Mr. DOMENICI

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I am not a member of the Banking Committee, although I have served there from time to time. I don't have an opening statement in the normal sense of the word because I don't intend to address the specific provisions in the bill, but rather to say to those who are on the committee, and in particular the chairman of the committee, Senator Gramm, while many may not understand and appreciate the significance of the banking and financing institutions of the United States, and some may even come to the floor, as my good friend, Senator Wellstone, and talk about when we might get on to some business in the Senate that really helps people, that prompted me to come down and talk about something that I think is very, very people- oriented. As a matter of fact, I have given a number of talks to fellow Americans. When I have asked, what do you think is the most significant thing institutionally about the United States that contributes to the opportunities we have in our daily lives to live better lives? Then I answer for them and say, it is the financing system in the United States. There is no doubt about what helps the average man buy a car, buy a house, make renovations to his house, perhaps even buy a second cabin, or a second car for his children, those things which, when added up, make America the most prosperous Nation on Earth, the country that has people with more material wealth--if that is what measures the validity of a society--than any other nation in the world. It is that we can finance purchases. We can finance what we buy, we can pay for it over time, and of late we are getting the interest rates down where they ought to be, as low as possible. This is the best thing for Americans in their day-by-day life which permits them to use their salary and their earnings in a way that will let them spread out the costs of items that they need over a period of time, with a reasonable and rational finance plan. It is absolutely important that from time to time, even though in the Congress we don't like to legislate items like a brand-new banking and finance bill--it is tedious for some, it is difficult, and for many it doesn't even seem like anything exciting we ought to be doing in the Senate. However, realizing what it does for our people, it ought to be full speed ahead to get to the floor with a good bill to modernize the banking and financing system of this country. Earlier in our history, almost everything was financed through banks and the type of institutions that are principally the subject matter of this bill. Because we didn't modernize the system soon enough, financing is done in various ways--perhaps there is more financing done outside the banking system than there is in the banking system per se. Insurance companies do financing; companies that are big enough do their own financing of appliances; clearly, institutions that are not banks and not subject to banking rules or financing purchases. When it comes to measuring a country's long-term success and the international markets and the day-by-day availability of good credit and soundness of our economy, we have to always look to the banking system. As a matter of fact, just think a moment of the past 3 years when things have gone wrong in other countries, when some of these countries went almost totally bankrupt. What led such failures? It was frequently led by the failure of their banking system. That should say something when we see that all around us. Why is the country of Japan, that many people 15 years ago said we should mimic--obviously we don't choose to speak that way today; I never spoke about it even 15 years ago--what has happened to Japan today? They don't want to face up to the fact their financing institutions are in a state of chaos, if not bankruptcy. It is tough for them to admit. We didn't want to admit it when our savings and loans were going bankrupt. We didn't want to come up with the money it took to bail out the depositors who were guaranteed their money, up to $100,000, who financed the S&L banking system in the United States, but we finally did it. We saved it. We spent a lot of money doing it. In a very real sense, those who are managing this bill, including my good friend from Maryland, Senator Sarbanes, and obviously the chairman, who I have already mentioned, are contributing a very vital quality to American life by trying to modernize the financial and banking system of the United States. As my good friend from Nebraska said, what we have is too old, too ancient. It is not modern. It is not taking care of modern problems. It is not helping banks grow in a way they can and should to be modern institutions of financing. I commend and laud those on the committee who have worked hard. I hope even with our differences we will get a bill. I read a letter from the President saying if certain things are in the bill, he will veto it. This letter was directed to the distinguished chairman, Senator Gramm. We know the executive branch has a couple of strong feelings about this bill; perhaps the Senate has equally strong feelings about the same items. On the other hand, I believe when we are finished and go to conference and work this through with the House and with the administration in an effort to get a bill that is sound, reform-minded, modern and yet protects certain interests that the banking system is currently helping and protecting, we will get a bill. The opportunity doesn't come very often for Congress to reform a significant portion of our capitalist system. I will make one other observation. For anyone who doesn't think capital--which is the substance of banks--isn't important to a capitalist society, let me suggest that the last 3 years ought to prove it up in America in spades. While many economies in the world were in a state of bankruptcy, couldn't buy our goods and were having great economic difficulty, what happened to America? Our consumers bought more rather than less. Interest rates went down rather than up. There was more money for almost any venture desired because the banking system in our country was the greatest safe haven for capital that the world has ever seen. That meant anyone with extra money sent it here. Thus, that money was available to finance purchases in America, bring interest rates down rather than up. The question is, What will happen when the world economy goes the other direction? Frankly, we ought to have a modernized banking system when that occurs. It is predicted that America's prosperity may turn a little bit in the wrong direction within 3 to 5 years. If it lasts 5 years, it will be astronomical in terms of a previous growth period. We have learned that the availability of a lot of capital in a capitalist system such as ours can make this economy grow and prosper in a way we had never quite figured out until we became almost totally dependent upon that. There are signs all over the place that this great opportunistic land of ours needs a good, sound, solvent, and modern banking system. I came down to make sure those listening understand this is not a bill for bankers. This is not a bill for rich people. This is a bill to let a banking and finance system work for Americans--whether they are financing a home, whether they are moderate-income people, whether they are financing an education for their kids, whatever it may be. We have to have a sound set of financial rules in America for Americans to grow and prosper. American business needs to borrow money, and clearly a banking system has to be ready and able to do that for the American business people here and abroad. It cannot be done with a system that is hog tied with ancient rules and regulations that don't meet today's times.

Mr. DOMENICI

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, pursuant to Sec. 209 of H. Con. Res. 68, the Concurrent Resolution on the Budget for Fiscal Year 2000, I hereby submit to the Senate revised budget levels for fiscal year 1999. The following table displays the appropriations caps and the committee allocation levels that will be enforced for the remainder of fiscal year 1999. I ask unanimous consent to have the table printed in the Record.