Wayne Allard

Mr. ALLARD

Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, I have come to the floor to support eliminating the marriage penalty. I think it is timely that we have some votes scheduled this evening, I understand about 6:15 p.m. By eliminating the marriage penalty, we eliminate one of the most egregious examples of unfairness and complexity in the Tax Code to date. Another example of that would be the death tax or the inheritance tax. We dealt with that issue last week. I am extremely excited that it has passed the House, passed the Senate, and is now going on to the President for his signature. Both these taxes are prominent concerns of my constituents, at a time when the tax burden is at record high levels in this country. When we are talking about eliminating the death tax, we are talking about the family business and what happens to a family business after an unexpected death without any estate planning, and how much the Government takes of that estate, forcing the sale. Many times it is a farm or a ranch that has been in the family for many, many generations. When we talk about the marriage penalty--we are eliminating that unfair burden--we are talking about the family. We are talking about reducing the tax burden. We are talking about fairness and Tax Code simplification. Just a brief description needs to be made of the marriage penalty. The marriage penalty exists when a married couple, filing a joint tax return, pays higher taxes than if the same couple were not married and were filing as individuals. The penalty varies, depending on the tax bracket in which the couple may find themselves. The example that has been used before is based on an assumption that both spouses are each holding down separate jobs, each earning about $30,000, in 1999. It is determined they would pay about $7,655 in Federal income taxes. If these two individuals were not married and both earned the same amount of money, and had each filed a single tax return, they would pay only $6,892 in combined tax liability. There is a $763 difference in tax liability. This is what we refer to when we talk about the marriage tax penalty. According to the Congressional Budget Office, almost half of all married couples--it figures out to about 22 million--suffered from the marriage tax penalty last year. The average penalty paid by these couples was around $1,500. In the previous example, the marriage penalty was the result of a higher combined standard deduction for two workers filing as singles than for married couples, and the income tax bracket thresholds for married couples are less than twice the threshold for single taxpayers. We are trying to eliminate this problem. The best illustration of the real tax burden faced by families is to compare today's tax burden of an average family with the tax burden of a family with average income of four decades ago. The total tax burden for the family today is 39 percent of its income. That is up from 18 percent in 1955. The Federal payroll taxes and State and local taxes have literally doubled the total tax burden faced by families. As a result, the middle-income family today has 25 percent less disposable income than a similar family in 1955. The bill we have been working on in the Senate, and which many of us support, addresses the standard deduction problem I alluded to, and it increases the standard deduction for married couples filing jointly to twice the standard deduction for single taxpayers. According to the Subcommittee on Taxation, this provision provides tax relief to approximately 25 million couples filing joint returns. Hopefully, it can be made effective after December 31, 2000. That is what we are talking about in this particular marriage penalty relief bill. It also raises the tax brackets. The bill expands, over a 6-year period--this is not happening all at once, it is gradually happening over a 6-year period--the 15-percent and 28-percent income tax brackets for a married couple filing a joint return to twice the size of the corresponding brackets for an individual filing a single return. This is a phase-in provision, ultimately providing relief to 21 million married couples, including 3 million senior citizens. We also try to address the earned-income credit. This bill increases the beginning and the end of the phase out of the earned-income credit for couples filing a joint return. Currently, for a couple with two or more children, the earned-income credit begins phasing out at $12,690 and is eliminated for couples earning more than $31,152. Under this bill, the new range would be $2,500 higher. The maximum increase in the earned-income tax credit in this provision for an eligible couple is $526. As you recall, the earned-income tax credit was put in place to try to help low-income individuals so they would be encouraged to go out and get a job and to stay off welfare. Also, there is a provision preserving the family tax credits. The bill permanently extends the current temporary exemption from the individual alternative minimum tax for family-related tax credits. This is so that, once you grant tax deductions and credits, the alternative minimum tax doesn't come in and take that all away. One of the complaints I hear from my constituents is it seems as if Congress has been working on tax cuts, they pass tax cuts, they get signed by the President, but we don't seem to feel it when we are paying our taxes on April 15. One of the reasons that you do not feel it is because, in some cases, the alternative minimum tax kicks in, it takes effect, and that means the previous tax cuts that were applied to a particular taxpayer did not take effect because of the alternative minimum tax. Members of the Democratic Party have thwarted passage of any kind of relief for marriage, as far as the Tax Code is concerned, since 1995. In 1995, we had the marriage tax penalty bill passed by the Congress, sent to the President, a Democratic President. He vetoed it. In 1999, we sent a bill to the Democratic President and he vetoed it. Earlier this year, in April, there was a Democratic filibuster that prevented a marriage penalty bill from moving forward. We need to pass and the President needs to sign a marriage tax penalty provision to give relief to married couples. This year I have held town meetings in all 63 of Colorado's counties. At those meetings I heard from many of my constituents about how strongly they feel about tax relief. In Colorado, over 400,000 couples incur an additional tax burden simply because they are married. I have some numbers here, numbers from the Congressional Budget Office. I find them very disturbing. Almost half of all married couples, the 22 million couples I mentioned earlier, suffered from the marriage penalty provisions last year. Again, as in the rest of the country, many of these couples on average have suffered a $1,500 penalty where, if they had not been married, they would not have had to pay this amount. Cumulatively, the marriage tax penalty increases the taxes on affected couples throughout the United States by about $32 billion per year. That is money that families could use toward their own needs, rather than Washington trying to set the priorities for American families. This penalty is not a tax on the rich. The marriage tax penalty exists because of multiple tax brackets and the fact that the standard deductions for married couples are not twice those given to single people. This tax can be incurred by folks in every tax bracket. In fact, families with two wage earners are the hardest hit by the marriage penalty. There are more and more of these families in today's workforce. Many of these folks are in the lower to middle class--people working hard to provide for their children. Taxing these folks for being married is plain wrong. Another one of the groups implicitly taxed under the marriage penalty is the working poor. The earned-income tax credit is an effective tool in helping these low-income workers, but the EITC is phased out more quickly for married couples than for individuals. So the families incur a greater tax burden simply for being married. Some colleagues of mine call for more Government spending for education, health care, and housing. I believe if we simply allow the American family to keep more of their money, we permit them to better afford the things they need. In this time of a historic budget surplus, we still have nearly record high taxation. Hard-working American families deserve to keep some of this money. It is theirs in the first place, and I see it as the responsibility of Congress to return some of this money to the people. To permit the marriage tax penalty to continue is wrong. Allowing American families to keep this money is the right thing to do, and I believe it is time to do away with the marriage tax penalty. I yield the floor.

Mr. ALLARD

Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, the Feingold amendment would undermine the U.S. sea-based deterrent force by killing the Trident D-5 missile program. Such a decision would cut the Navy's requirement short by 53 missiles resulting in the deployment of three fewer submarines that DOD currently believes are required. I move to table the amendment. I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. ALLARD

Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, I believe I need to respond again. We have had a report as late as January of this year, and it is that we should maintain 14 Trident submarines not only through START I and II, but also START III. So I think this is forward looking. I think it helps us assure our goals of a strong defense. It maintains a versatile force and keeps us technologically advanced, with the mobility we need. I think it is an essential aspect of our defense, and I think it would be foolhardy for us to cut the funds necessary to fully develop the 425 D- 5 missiles for the Trident submarine. I yield back the remainder of my time.

Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, I will respond, if I may. The amendment cuts funds which would require termination of the program, plain and simple. DOD has repeatedly reviewed that very question. Each time they have concluded we need 53 additional missiles. Keep in mind, the goal originally was set up that we needed to maintain a submarine force in the Pacific Ocean as well as the Atlantic Ocean. It was determined that, at a minimum, we had to have 14 submarines, and we needed to have them adequately armed in order to provide the defenses we need. The Trident submarine is the core of the U.S. strategic deterrent force, and the Trident force is the most survivable leg of our strategic triad. I think it is important we go ahead and complete this program, recognizing that we are towards the end of manufacturing of the missiles. I think it only makes sense that we complete it and maintain a strong defense. I believe a strong defense does serve as a deterrent, and it helps assure world peace. For that reason, I strongly oppose the amendment of the Senator from Wisconsin. I yield the floor.

Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, I yield back the remainder of our time on this side.

Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, I rise in opposition to the Feingold amendment. I happen to believe we need a strong national defense. I think an important ingredient in having a strong national defense is that we have a defense system that is technologically advanced over any opposition we may face in the world; that we have a versatile defense system; and that we have some mobility so we can avoid duplication. A key ingredient of a strong national defense is our submarine program, which includes the submarine-launched ballistic missile. An important part of a submarine-launched ballistic missile is the D-5. The Feingold amendment would cut $462.7 million in funds to procure the Trident D-5 missiles and, in effect, would terminate the D-5 production program. For that reason, I strongly oppose this amendment. The Department of Defense also happens to oppose this amendment. That was not an easy decision. There was a lot of consideration on what should be the proper level of defense and how submarine defenses should be a part of that. The Navy, after a considerable amount of thought, decided they needed to outfit a total of 14 Trident submarines with the D-5 missile. This will require a total inventory of 425 Trident missiles. With the fiscal year 2000 budget, the Navy will have 53 missiles left to procure to meet this inventory objective. We have gone through most of the program. We are not going to have much left, as far as funding missiles, after this fiscal year. In 1994, there was a nuclear posture review. This review was done by the Department of Defense and it has been persistently evaluated. The conclusion is that the U.S. needs 14 Trident submarines at a minimum to be able to maintain a two-ocean SLBM force that is stabilizing, operationally effective, and which enhances deterrence. The Department of Defense is planning on maintaining 14 Trident submarines for the foreseeable future regardless of arms control developments. Current plans are to maintain 14 boats under START II as well as under START III. Terminating the D-5 program, after fiscal year 2000, would mean the Navy would only have enough missiles to outfit 11 boats. Over time, as operational flight testing uses up an already inadequate missile inventory, you begin to reduce the number of submarines you would be able to maintain on operational status even further. We would decidedly have a lack of missiles to meet the goal for a two-ocean SLBM force. The Feingold amendment cuts the entire fiscal year 2001 budget request for D-5 production. However, even if the Congress wanted to terminate the D-5 program following the fiscal year 2001 procurement, the Navy would still need to spend over $330 million in procurement funds to terminate the production program. Hence, the Feingold amendment would not only prematurely stop production, but it would also preclude orderly termination of the program. Way back in January of this year, in a report to Congress, the Secretary of Defense stated that the impact of procuring less than 425 of the D-5 missiles would be very severe. Specifically, the Secretary of Defense indicated that such a decision would have adverse impacts on the effectiveness of the U.S. strategic deterrent, severely weaken reliability, accuracy, and safety assessments associated with the D-5 operational flight test program, and would undermine the strategic missile industrial and production base of the United States at a time when the D-5 missile is the only strategic missile still in production. The Secretary's report also indicated that termination of the D-5 missile before the planned completion of 425 missiles would result in a unilateral reduction of deployed U.S. strategic warheads in both the START I and the START II regimes and is not consistent with U.S. START III plans. The Navy also looked at retaining older C-4 missiles to fill in the lack of the D-5 missiles. It concluded that this would be even more costly and inefficient than simply completing the D-5 production run. With only 53 missiles to procure, termination at this point will produce only marginal savings and will have a severe operational impact on our ability to maintain a stable deterrent force. It is based on these factors that I strongly urge my colleagues to oppose the amendment by the Senator from Wisconsin. I yield the floor.

Mr. ALLARD

Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, I rise to comment on some significant developments that have recently taken place in my home state of Colorado that will positively benefit the entire world of telecommunications. Qwest Communications International, Inc. of Denver, a young, worldwide leader in broadband Internet-based communications, continues to expand its technologies and vision for the coming century. Just three and one-half years ago, this innovative company catapulted the world into the Information Age beginning by branding its nation-wide fiber-optic network and developing connections into Mexico, intercontinental cable to Europe and transpacific submarine capacity to the Pacific Rim. The Company's services provide a full range of leading-edge data, voice, video, e-commerce, web-hosting and related services to consumers and business customers, including a variety of multimillion dollar government contracts recently awarded to Qwest, such as the Treasury Department and DOE's Energy Sciences Network. Qwest has positioned itself for the new Information Age economy by combining its strengths and forming numerous strategic alliances, partnerships and evolving its next-generation infrastructure through a variety of acquisitions. About one year ago Qwest and U.S. WEST announced their intent to merge. On Friday, June 30 that merger became reality. I applaud the FCC, the states and other appropriate agencies for reviewing and approving this complementary merger in a respectable timeframe and in accordance with the 1996 Telecommunications Act. This now allows the ``new'' Qwest to bring a different competitive dynamic to the global marketplace. I ask my colleagues today to join me in commending the regulatory bodies for enhancing the process of this merger and to the Companies' merger review team, led by Drake Tempest and Steve Davis, as well as other Company officials. In closing, I extend my best wishes for continued success to Qwest and its Chairman and CEO, Joe Nacchio. Mr. Nacchio will resume the leadership of the ``new'' Qwest to bring the benefits of this global Company to all of our constituents.

Mr. ALLARD

Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, Trinidad State Junior College, the oldest two-year college in Colorado, is celebrating 75 years of excellence. Established in 1925 by the Colorado Legislature, the College can look back with pride over its 75 years of service to its community, the State of Colorado, and the Nation. Throughout its history, Trinidad State Junior College has attracted students from across Colorado, from many areas of the United States, and from numerous foreign countries. The result has been the creation of an environment that is significantly more cosmopolitan than is found in other rural two-year colleges. Trinidad State Junior College will carry forth its strong tradition of scholastic excellence into the new century and will continue to provide its students with the knowledge, skills, and experiences necessary to meet their educational and personal goals. Congratulations to Trinidad State Junior College on its seventy-fifth anniversary.

Mr. ALLARD

Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, I would like to make a statement concerning the Federally funded research that is conducted at the various Centers for Disease Control (CDC) around the country. February of this year I met with the Director of the CDC, Jeffrey Koplan. CDC was highlighted in newspaper articles concerning the misuse of research funds targeted for hantavirus disease. Because of the presence of this disease in our state, as with other neighboring states, I am very concerned at the lack of accountability from the CDC. I expressed my concern for the correct utilization of funding for the disease research programs that are mandated by Congress. I stressed the importance of CDC's accountability and obligation to carry out the letter of our laws. Mr. Koplan assured me that they have taken measures to complete a full audit of the misdirected funds and that they will follow the intent of Congress in the future. Being a member of Congress, I for one can fully understand that the process of appropriating funds for research is complicated at best. Although Congress designates specific funds for certain diseases, there are several levels of bureaucracy through which the dollars must pass before they are received by the appropriate agency. This still does not account for an agency's lack of dedication in meeting congressional direction that is law. Part of my responsibility as a U.S. Senator is the oversight of various agencies and their accountability to Congress to carry out the language of our laws. Hantavirus outbreaks have rapidly affected the U.S., reaching as far as Vermont. Most recently, a 12-year-old girl who lives in Loveland--my hometown--was diagnosed with the disease. Doctor's believe she may have contracted the disease while visiting a ranch in Arizona last April. Once hantavirus is contracted it can be anywhere from one week to as little as one day before symptoms appear. Once symptoms are prevalent, it rapidly progresses to respiratory distress as the lungs fill with fluid. Colorado has had 23 cases of hantavirus since 1998--with three cases already this year. It is time to act with no further delay by the CDC laboratory. I hope that the CDC has worked out it's problems and will carry out what Congress expects of an agency.

Mr. ALLARD

Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, today I am introducing a bill to improve the healthcare options for veterans in southern Colorado. To do this, I am expediting the transfer of the Ft. Lyon facility to the State of Colorado, which will allow the Veterans Administration (VA) to implement their plan to use the annual $8.6 million in savings from the closure of Fort Lyon to provide better service to Colorado's veterans through new outpatient clinics in La Junta, Lamar and Alamosa and a smaller, more efficient nursing home in Pueblo, CO. Ft. Lyon is a historical building, but it is simply not more important than the needs of those who served us. I would prefer that the money currently used to maintain the facility was instead used to provide medical care for those veterans who need it. This bill will lead to an improvement in medical services for veterans in several ways. With the estimated $8.6 million in savings to be realized after the Ft. Lyon closure, clinics will be set up in local communities which will be closer and more responsive to their local veteran communities. This bill mandates that the VA must open the replacement clinics before they convey Ft. Lyon to the State of Colorado, to ensure there is no gap in service. This bill will help to ensure that no service-connected veteran's needs are unmet. No veteran will go homeless. Every veteran who needs a nursing home bed due to service connected illness will still be granted one. Those veterans currently in Ft. Lyon will continue to receive nursing home care, at no additional charges to them. The cemetery and historic Kit Carson chapel will remain fully accessible to the public. And the people of the region will also be assisted by the opening of a state facility to replace Ft. Lyon in the local economy. Without this legislation, there are no guarantees any of this would occur. I hope that this bill will be considered and pass quickly, so that the savings and the improvements in veteran's healthcare can begin as soon as possible.

Mr. ALLARD

Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, on May 4, 2000 those attending the National Day of Prayer luncheon in Denver, Colorado got to hear an electrifying talk by Dr. Condoleezza Rice. I found the speech so moving, so inspiring that I wanted to share it with those who could not be in attendance that day to her remarks. ``Condi,'' as she likes to be called, grew up in Denver, graduated Magna Cum Laude from Denver University and has served our country in many ways including service to former President George Bush as a chief expert on Russia. I ask that her speech be printed in the Record. National Day of Prayer, Denver, Colorado, May 4, 2000 (By Dr. Condoleezza Rice) Thank you very much. It is indeed a delight to be with you here in Denver for the Colorado Prayer Lunch. I do know quite a few people in the room, and there are good friends here from very far back in my history. I'm not going to tell you who they are because I don't want you to go up to them and ask them how I really was at fifteen or sixteen years old. But it's awfully nice to back here--home in Denver. I bring you greetings from my family. My parents and I moved to Denver when I was twelve years old, and this is just a great place to live. I think the reason that it is such a great place to live is events like this. You look around and you see the love in the community, you see the strength in the community. It's nice to be back. When I thought about what I'd like to talk with you about, I immediately reflected on the fact that this is of course our National Day of Prayer as well as the day for the Colorado Prayer Luncheon. And I thought about spending a few minutes with you talking about the relationship of personal faith, to faith in a community, to strength and forward movement in a community. Because very often we think about where we would like the community to go, we think about where we would like our leaders to take us. We very often forget that strong communities are built person by person, step by step, by the responsibility of each and every one of us. That responsibility and that strength, I believe, can come from many different sources, and certainly it comes from different sources for different people. But for many of us, and perhaps for most of the people in this room, it certainly relates to deep and abiding faith in God, whatever one's religious background. For me it comes from a deep and abiding faith in Jesus Christ. Now I have to tell you that I was born into the church. I didn't have much choice. In fact, on the day that I was born which was a Sunday, at 11:48 my father was preaching a sermon. He had been told on Friday night that his child probably wasn't going to be born for a couple of days, so go ahead on Sunday and preach the sermon. And my goodness when he came out of the pulpit on Sunday, he had a little girl. We lived in the back of the church until I was three and then moved into a parsonage. My grandparents were religious people. I studied piano from the age of three. I could read music before I could read. But the first song that I learned was ``What a Friend We Have in Jesus.'' And then I learned to play ``Amazing Grace,'' etc. etc. My grandfather was a deeply religious person. Indeed I have a lot of heroes in my life, but Granddaddy Rice is perhaps the most remarkable because you see back in about 1920 he was a sharecropper's son in Ewtah, Alabama. One day he decided he wanted to get book learning, heaven knows why. And so he asked people how could a colored man go to college, and they said, ``Well, you see if you could get to Stillman College (which is this little Presbyterian college down the road) then you could go to college there.'' So he saved up his cotton, went to Stillman College, paid for his first year and then the second year they said, ``Now how do you plan to pay for your second year?'' And he said, ``Well, I've used all the money I have.'' And they said, ``Well, you'll have to go home,'' And he said, ``Well, how to those boys go to college?'' They said, ``Well, you see they have what's called a scholarship, and if you wanted to be a Presbyterian minister, then you could have a scholarship too.'' My grandfather said, ``You know, that's exactly what I had in mind,'' and he became college educated, and my family has been Presbyterian ever since. So I was born into the church. My earliest memories are of Sunday school and choir practice and youth fellowship, and indeed if you're a minister's child, you have some kind of strange memories because you see when I heard that story about Christ coming again, I figured when I was about six years old that if he was going to come again anyway, He might as well come to Westminster Presbyterian Church because that would certainly help the flagging attendance in the summer. And so I would pray, ``If you're going to come, Christ, come to my father's church. He could use the help,'' You see you had different ways of thinking about religion when you were a preacher's child. But because I was born into the church, I never really doubted the existence of God. I can tell you that I accepted from the earliest years the whole mystery of the faith, the birth, the life, the death, and the resurrection as truth. Mine then is not a story of conversion to faith. The existence of God was a given for me. That Jesus Christ was His son was a given for me. But while mine is not a story of conversion, it is a story of a journey to deepen my personal faith, and I would imagine that for many of you, a story that resonates, a story that has a familiar ring. You see, it's easy when you are born to religious faith to take that faith for granted, and not to deepen and to grow in it, not to question, and to become comfortable with it. When we moved here to Denver, I was at Montview Boulevard Presbyterian Church. I was in the choir. I met some members of Montview Boulevard here today with whom I sang in the choir. It was a wonderful church, a large church. And then I moved to California, and for awhile I continued to go to church as I had done every Sunday since I could remember. But you know pretty soon things got busy. And so before you knew it, Sundays were for something else. Maybe I had to work. Maybe I had to do something about that lecture that I had to give on Monday. I was always traveling because I'm a specialist in international politics, so maybe I was in some other time zone, and when I got home I was just too tired to go to church. And slowly but surely my faith which I'd always taken for granted was there, but it was rather in the deeper recesses of my mind, not front and center in the way that I lived my life daily. A funny thing happened in that period to me. One Sunday morning when I knew I should have been in church, I was in the Lucky Supermarket instead. And I was walking among the spices buying food, and I'll never forget running into a black man there. And if you know Palo Alto, that's a rare occurrence anyway. And he told me he was buying some food for his church picnic, and we talked a little, and then he looked right at me and he said, ``Do you play the piano?'' And I said ``Yes, I play the piano,'' And he said, ``You know my church, Jerusalem Baptist Church down the road here just a little bit, needs somebody to play the piano. Would you come and play the piano for us?'' And so I did for several months go and play the piano for Jerusalem Baptist Church. And I thought, ``If that's not the long reach of the Lord into the Lucky Supermarket on a Sunday morning, what is?'' But as a result of going there and playing and getting involved again with the church community, I began to see how much my faith, which I'd taken for granted, was becoming unpracticed, that it was no longer really becoming a part of the way that I lived my daily life. And so I started seeking out a church home, and I found Menlo Park Presbyterian in Menlo Park right next to Palo Alto. And one of the first sermons that I heard at Menlo Park Presbyterian Church just reached out and grabbed me because it said where I was in my own faith. And it was the story of the prodigal son. But it was the story of the prodigal son told from the perspective of the older son, not from the son who had to come home, but the son who had always been there. And the minister talked about how the older son was really appalled, angry, and couldn't quite understand why while be had been there toiling in the fields and had been a good son and had supported his family, why there was all this excitement when the prodigal son came home. And I thought about it, and maybe what Christ was saying here, what God was saying, was that the prodigal son who had to be born again to this faith was being brought powerfully back to his faith. While the older son who had always been there doing what he was supposed to do but maybe just doing it in the most routine fashion was losing what's most important about faith, and that's the deepening and the fire that comes from having it tested, from having to worry about it, from having to think about it, from having to bat it around in your mind from time to time so that it doesn't become stale. And I suddenly saw myself as the elder son. And I thought at that time, it's time to renew my faith and not to take it for granted. And you know, it's a good thing that I did because I was soon to learn why faith is so important in your daily life. It was about a year and a half after coming back to my faith that I lost my mother, and I can tell you that I could not have gotten through that without a strong and robust faith. You see the preparation for struggle that faith accords you is not something that you can call on the day that it happens. You have to have honed it, you have to have worked at it, it has to have become a part of you. I began to understand during that period of time when I really was experiencing the peace that passeth all understanding, that faith is honed in struggle, that Paul was absolutely right when he wrote in Romans that we are justified in faith and that struggle brings patience, and patience hope, and hope is not disappointed. Because it is in that time of struggle that we learn that we are resilient human beings, that we have at our core the ability to rebound and to go on. Over the years, I have become more and more interested in the stories of struggle--whether it is the death of a loved one, whether it is what Colorado went through in Columbine, whether it is the struggle that interestingly built Stanford University. Do you know that Stanford University was built by Governor and Mrs. Stanford to honor their only child who died of typhoid at sixteen years old? And Mrs. Stanford writes in her letters that she wanted to die too when her son and then her husband died shortly thereafter, but she understood that her faith was telling her to go on, to pick up the pieces, to do something for other people's children. And so Stanford University was from the Stanfords a living monument to other people's children, born of the test of faith, the test that is struggle. And I began to understand too the words of an old Negro spiritual that had always been somewhat confusing-- ``Nobody knows the trouble I've seen. Glory Hallelujah''? What does that mean? It means that out of struggle, faith is honed. Now why is faith honed out of struggle? First of all, because you are at that time forced to confront the relationship between faith and doubt. When my mother died, I didn't have any good answers. Did I on the one hand pray to God for understanding and on the other hand doubt why this had happened? Of course when Columbine happened, did you on the one hand pray for understanding and doubt why had it happened? But faith, and indeed the lessons of Christ teach us that faith can be strengthened by doubt. It doesn't have to be weakened by it. Some of my favorite stories in the Bible actually come from the time when Christ is preparing to die. And when the disciples--men who had walked with Him for the entire time of His ministry, men who knew Him better than anyone else--found themselves doubting and fearful of what was to come. He said, ``I'll go to prepare a place for you.'' They said, ``Take us with you because we don't actually know where you're going.'' This isn't very reassuring. And of course the story of Thomas which we had always been taught in a kind of pejorative sense ``the doubting Thomas,'' but in fact what did Christ say? ``Here, feel my side. Touch the wounds.'' He didn't say just ``Leave.'' Doubt and faith have gone together from the beginning of our religious experiences. And in times of struggle, we are forced to work through our doubts in order to re-energize our faith. Times of struggle also challenge us on the relationship between faith and reason because most of us live most of our lives in our heads. We try and understand why. And if you are like me and you live in an intellectual community, if you can't prove it, if you can't see it, then you can't possibly believe it. And yet there are those times when reason just will not do the job. I noticed the little quote by Abraham Lincoln in the bulletin this morning. ``I've been driven many times to my knees by the overwhelming conviction that I had nowhere else to go. My own wisdom and that of all about me seemed insufficient for the day.'' How many times has your reason, your intellect failed you and you've had to fall back on faith? In times of struggle, we learn to trust, we learn to fall back on faith, we learn to fall back on that which cannot be seen and cannot be understood, and it makes us stronger. Finally, in times of struggle, perhaps more than at other times, we are reminded also of the responsibilities of faith, particularly if we've been through struggles ourselves and we are called on to participate in, to be a part of someone else's struggle. And it is that relationship between personal faith and taking one's faith into the community to make it better that I want to explore for a moment now--to take the lessons and the power of faith outside of our own personal experiences and into the community at large. Now in order to do that, you have to draw on other parts of your faith. You have to draw on what has been honed and toughened inside you when you yourself have struggled. But you also have to draw on the power that is there for you to first and foremost be optimistic. When I am very often asked what has faith done for me that is most important, I say that yes it's been there for me in tough times and struggle, but I think it's also made me an optimistic person. It's made me a person who believes that there can be a better tomorrow. If you don't believe that faith plays its role in making you an optimistic person, think of the people who built this country and the optimism that must have come from their faith. Have you ever wondered what it must have been like to come across the Continental Divide without roads? They must have had faith that they were going to make it. They must have had optimism about what was possible on the other side. They must have gone together and indeed from that they built a great country. Have you ever wondered about the faith and optimism of my ancestors, slaves who were three-fifths of a man who endured the most awful hardships of day-to-day life and yet somehow looked optimistically to a future? They must have done it out of the strength of their faith. They must have done it out of the optimism that only faith can give. But imparting that optimism to people who are in need, imparting the mysteries and the lessons of faith to people who are in struggle is sometimes, oddly enough, easier than imparting and using the lessons of faith in everyday life. Sometimes we mobilize to use our faith when things are tough. This city mobilized around Columbine. People are able to bring themselves to love one another--Greeks and Turks after the earthquake in Turkey, because you're mobilized in your faith to help. But what about day to day in your interactions with people in the community? Can you mobilize your faith in the same way? I think sometimes the biggest impediment to mobilizing our faith in our day to day interactions in trying to make our communities better is really in our lack of humility about what we as mere human beings can bring to the table. You know sometimes people of faith are wonderful at dealing with people in need. But in more normal times we're our own worst enemy because sometimes the shouting, the desire to lecture, overwhelms the desire to lecture, overwhelms the desire to listen and to understand. I think sometimes that the greatest impediment to people of faith in really making a difference in their communities to people on a daily basis--not just when we need to be mobilized--is that we sometimes have trouble, as people of faith, meeting people where they are, not where we would like them to be. And hereto, I draw on a lesson from Christ. Have you ever noticed that when Christ was interacting with people, He found a way to meet them where they were? With the rich young leader, it was confrontational--to give up everything and to give it to the poor was pretty confrontational. With Lazarus and the sisters, it was dramatic--a miracle. With the woman at the well, it was kind and understanding and quiet. How many of us as people of faith have that entire repertoire at our disposal? When we deal with people, do we ever stop shouting so loud that they can hear through us the still, small voice of calm, remembering afterall that we will not personally work miracles in people's lives? That is the work of God. But if we are to be a conduit, we have to be a conduit that is willing to listen, a conduit that is willing to help with humility, and a conduit that is willing to meet people where they are. Those I think are the lessons of faith--to hone our personal faith, to practice it every day, to pray for our leaders and for those who must carry the heavy burdens, and to try to use our faith and its lessons, not just when we need to be mobilized, but in our everyday interactions. Because only then can people of faith really make a difference in communities at home and communities abroad. Thank you very much, and God bless you.

Mr. ALLARD

Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, today I am introducing the Federal Deposit and Share Insurance Adjustment Act of 2000. This bill will insure that the value of Federal Deposit and Share Insurance is not eroded by inflation and remains at a steady value of $100,000. This legislation will help consumers to retain their confidence in financial institutions and will provide a constant level of security to depositors. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be included in the Record.

Mr. ALLARD

Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, today I am introducing the Federal Deposit and Share Insurance Adjustment Act of 2000. This bill will insure that the value of Federal Deposit and Share Insurance is not eroded by inflation and remains at a steady value of $100,000. This legislation will help consumers to retain their confidence in financial institutions and will provide a constant level of security to depositors. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be included in the Record.

Mr. ALLARD

Mr. ALLARD. Today, the Senate will be in a period of morning business until approximately 10:45 a.m., with Senators Graham and Voinovich in control of the time. Following morning business, the Senate will resume consideration of the foreign operations appropriations bill. Under the order, Senator Wellstone will be recognized to offer his amendment regarding Colombia. There will be 90 minutes under Senator Wellstone's control and 45 minutes under Senator McConnell's control. As a reminder, first-degree amendments to the bill must be filed by 3 p.m. today. Votes are expected throughout the day, with a vote on final passage anticipated prior to tonight's adjournment. Senators can expect the Labor-HHS appropriations bill to be the next bill for consideration. I thank my colleagues for their cooperation. Order of Procedure Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the morning business time under the control of Senator Graham of Florida be controlled by Senator Durbin, or his designee, with 15 minutes of that time under the control of Senator Torricelli.

Mr. ALLARD

Mr. ALLARD. Objection.

Mr. ALLARD. Objection. Mr. President, was there a unanimous consent request?

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

Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the vote in relation to the Allard amendment be stacked to occur first in any sequence of votes that are scheduled relative to the Transportation appropriations bill. Further, I ask that no amendments be in order to the amendment prior to the vote.

Mr. ALLARD. I withdraw my objection.

Mr. ALLARD. I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, I renew my request for the yeas and nays.

Mr. ALLARD

Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, before I proceed, I yield a minute or two to the Senator from Massachusetts.

Mr. ALLARD

Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, today the Senate will resume debate on the Transportation appropriations legislation. Under the order, Senator Voinovich will be recognized to offer his amendment regarding passenger rail flexibility. A vote on the Voinovich amendment is expected to occur this morning at a time to be determined. Further amendments will be offered and voted on with the hope of final passage early in the day. As usual, Senators will be notified as votes are scheduled. Following the disposition of the Transportation legislation, the Senate may resume consideration of the Department of Defense authorization bill or any appropriations bills available for action. I thank my colleagues for their attention.