Wayne Allard

Mr. ALLARD

Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, I would like to take this opportunity to commend a constituent of mine from Fort Collins, Colorado--Lieutenant Commander Carl Oesterle, an F-18 pilot on the air craft carrier U.S.S. Constellation. Colorado is a state blessed with a large number of dedicated active duty personnel and retired military, and as a member of the Armed Services Committee I like to take the opportunity to commend our personnel when they conduct themselves in a top notch manner. I am sure that LCDR Oesterle would insist that he was doing nothing more than his duty on June 23, while participating in a night training mission in the Pacific. But his actions in salvaging his seriously disabled fighter by conducting an emergency landing on the Constellation demonstrate the excellent training and dedication of our nation's fighter pilots. The episode is outlined very well in a July 9, article in the Washington Times and I ask unanimous consent that this article be printed in the Record.

Mr. ALLARD

Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, I rise in strong support of the Intelligence Authorization Act. While we cannot discuss the details of the bill, I can say that as a member of the Intelligence Committee, we have provided the necessary funds to the intelligence community to do their job. One matter of controversy for some is the Kyl-Domenici-Murkowski DOE reorganization amendment. I strongly support this amendment. In the last year, the Cox report has shown us why we need to improve the security structure at DOE, and the President's Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board, headed by Senator Rudman, shows us the way. The Kyl amendment before us is nearly identical to the President's own Advisory Board recommendation. The President's Advisory Board report states that the problems at DOE are worse than most people could have ever imagined. Quoting from the report: In response to these problems, the Department has been the subject of a nearly unbroken history of dire warnings and attempted but aborted reforms . . . sSecond only to its world-class intellectual feats has been its ability to fend off systematic change. I know that Secretary Richardson has put forward a reorganization plan, and I commend him for taking the initiative. I have known him for some time and I know he is doing what he believes is right for the Department. However, my concern is that he will not be the Secretary forever, and I am worried that the Department's ``ability to fend off systematic change'' will prevail once he leaves. The only way to fix the security problems are to make radical changes at the Department, as recommended in the DOE study headed by then chairman of Motorola, Bob Galvin. The amendment before us is not the most ``radical'' idea which could have been presented. In many ways, I believe that a separate agency for the nuclear programs could be the best way to enhance security, but I am a realist and know that if the amendment before us causes such heartache, I can only imagine the reaction to a separate agency amendment. Basically, the Kyl-Domenici-Murkowski amendment would establish a separate entity, the Agency for Nuclear Stewardship, within the Department of Energy. The Agency will have clear lines of authority, accountability, and an independent budget. The new Agency will be headed by an Under Secretary of Nuclear Stewardship who reports directly to the Secretary. The Directors of the 3 national labs and the nuclear labs will report to the Under Secretary. First, I understand the amendment creates a ``security czar,'' for the lack of a better term, who will be in charge of security for all the nuclear lab programs under the Under Secretary. While I understand why this position would be placed under the Under Secretary, I also understand how bureaucracies work and the perception they hold for their hierarchy of authority. That is why I believe the security czar position should be placed directly under the Secretary, if for no other reason than to show that he is in charge and will be held accountable. However, I have also heard the concern that if this person is placed under the Secretary then his attention may be diverted to the other matters outside of the nuclear programs. For this reason, I hope that it will be understood that the security czar has the authority, both real and perceived, and will be solely focused on the real security concerns of the nuclear programs but also with the flexibility to not be tied to nonnuclear concerns. Second, Secretary Richardson believes that this amendment would only divide the Department into more fiefdoms. I do not agree with this assessment. We must break the nuclear stewardship programs out of the main programs of DOE. This new Agency for Nuclear Stewardship is too important and sensitive to treat it like the power marketing administrations, fossil energy, or any other area of the Department. The reports from the last year show that we need to break the nuclear programs out and the approach in this amendment will raise the stature of the programs and will improve the security for our nation. Let me end by stating that after five internal DOE reviews, four outside studies, six GAO reports, and three blue ribbon commissions, it is time to make these much needed changes at the Department. I ask that all my colleagues support the Kyl-Domenici-Murkowski amendment and the Intelligence Authorization Act. I yield back the remainder of my time. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to lay the pending amendment aside and that I be able to speak for 10 minutes on the bill.

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

Mr. ALLARD

Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, over the course of the last week the Senate has examined at great length many of health care's problems in America. On the floor we have discussed various legitimate problems and anecdotal horror stories to such an extent that I fear we may have obscured what is positive about health care in the United States. Each year US News and World Report magazine recognizes American hospitals that practice health care that all Americans can be proud. These hospitals perform at the very highest levels, demonstrating excellence in general care and specific areas of medical specialty. This year the magazine analyzed each of our nation's 6,299 hospitals, and I am proud to rise today to recognize a number of hospitals from my home state of Colorado that have been recognized by US News and World Report for their outstanding work. In Colorado we have long understood the value these fine institutions bring to their communities, our state, and the Rocky Mountain region. I would like to recognize Children's Hospital in Denver, ranked 12th nationally in the specialty of Pediatrics, and 2nd in the Western Region. I would like to recognize Craig Hospital in Denver, ranked 5th nationally in the specialty of Rehabilitation, and 2nd in the Western Region. I would like to recognize University Hospital in Denver, ranked 37th nationally in the specialty of Ear Nose and Throat, 4th in the Western Region; ranked 23rd nationally in the specialty of Rheumatology, 4th in the Western Region; and ranked 15th nationally in the specialty of Rehabilitation, and 4th in the Western Region. Finally, I would like to salute National Jewish in Denver, for their overall number one ranking as the finest American hospital for Respiratory Disorders. I know I speak for all Coloradoans when I say that I am thankful to have these fine institutions in our state. I congratulate Children's Hospital, University Hospital, Craig Hospital and National Jewish for this recognition of their exemplary work.

Mr. ALLARD

Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Georgia, Mr. Coverdell, for leading the discussion this morning on the need to have tax cuts for all Americans. I agree with my colleague from Missouri, Senator Ashcroft, and his call to action. He said: Americans have earned it; Uncle Sam ought to return it. I agree with my colleague from Idaho, Senator Craig, who pointed out that right now Americans are facing the highest tax burden since World War II. I also would like to associate myself with the comments of my colleague from Minnesota, Senator Grams, who says we can save Social Security, we can pay down the public debt, and we can still provide tax cuts for Americans. My colleague from Kansas, Senator Brownback, will probably talk about the need of cutting taxes for the benefit of American families. These are all very good points on why we should cut taxes. In talking with my constituents in town meetings across Colorado, one thing I hear in every meeting is that Congress should cut taxes. The legislature in the State of Colorado, and the Republican Governor in the State of Colorado, have heard the same message. This year there were some major tax cut provisions for the people of Colorado. The Governor of Colorado, Governor Owens, has pointed out that he plans on making another major tax cut for the people of Colorado next year. They recognize that government is receiving a windfall with our good economy, and we ought to cut taxes to give people the power to determine how they want to spend that money. The government in Colorado or the Government in Washington should not be spending those dollars. The power really does belong with the people, not with the government in Colorado or, particularly, with the Government in Washington, DC. People of all ages, professions, and positions in life believe they send too much of their paycheck to Washington. I happen to agree with that. Taxes are currently at a record high level. According to the Tax Foundation, Tax Freedom Day, the day in the year to which the typical American family must work to pay their combined Federal, State, and local taxes, was May 11 this year. This is the latest day ever, but it is hardly surprising in light of the fact that the combined effective tax rate is also the highest ever. When you add in the cost of Government regulations, Americans did not finish paying for the cost of Government until June 22nd. I believe Congress should downsize Government and return power to the States, localities, and individuals. Part of the effort to downsize Government must also include a tax cut. I believe Americans should be able to keep more of their own money. American workers already pay 38 percent of their income in taxes, which is more than they spend on food, clothing, and housing combined. For the average family, this translates to a large percentage of their paycheck going straight to Uncle Sam. A tax cut means they could keep more of their money to use for their priorities, not Washington's priorities. Some families may choose to use that money for a downpayment on a house, others, for education, and other families will now have the money to work fewer hours and spend more time together. The important point is, they know their own family needs and we, in Washington, do not. I realize some question the wisdom of tax cuts. We always hear from those, sometimes I think louder than we do from others, except when it comes to election time, and then their voice is heard. They believe the budget cannot be balanced or Social Security cannot be saved if they return taxpayer money. However, according to a recent Congressional Research Service study, there will be an additional $800 billion on budget surplus over the next 10 years, even after assuring that all our obligations to Social Security and Medicare have been met. The study also found the average household will pay $5,000 more in taxes than the Government needs to operate over the next 10 years. This money belongs to the American people. We must refund the excess in the form of tax cuts and not spend it. At the very least, we should reduce the excessive recent growth of the Federal tax burden. During the Clinton administration, Federal tax receipts have increased by over 54 percent. Tax revenues have grown twice as fast as our economy and twice as fast as economic growth for working Americans. Clinton tax hikes have left each American $4,000 per year poorer, yet the President is not done. His budget for Fiscal Year 2000 proposes $96 billion in new taxes. Congress should reject new taxes and new spending in favor of meaningful tax relief. In conclusion, I point out that it is time we return Government money to its rightful owner, and that is the American people. I thank the Senator from Georgia for allowing me to join with him and my other colleagues in the Senate to deliver this very important message.

Mr. ALLARD

Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, in the 1970s, the State of Colorado adopted a well-child care law, legislation concerning the treatment of alcoholism and mental health, as well as legislation concerning insurance coverage of psychologists. In the 1980s home health care, hospice care, and mammography screening legislation was passed into law. In the 1990s, those who represent the people of Colorado in the State House saw fit to pass laws concerning the coverage of nurses, nurse midwives, nurse anesthetists, nurse practitioners, psychiatric nurses, the continuation of coverage for dependents and employees, and conversion to non-group health care. This decade the Colorado Legislature also passed consumer grievance procedures, children's dental anesthesia and general dental provisions, direct access to OB-GYN, direct access to midwives for OB-GYN, emergency room services legislation, a ban on gag clauses, prostate cancer screening, breast reconstruction, maternity stay, and mental health parity legislation. Last, but certainly not least, among State laws enacted in my home State is a law concerning independent external appeals for patients and a comprehensive Patients' Bill of Rights, passed in 1997. I am proud to have served in the Colorado State Senate, and I am proud to say that today I represent a state that has been responsive and aggressive in addressing health care issues and patients' rights. At the same time, Mr. President, I am deeply troubled that there are those in this body who are advocates of Senator Kennedy's Patients' Bill of Rights that would preempt a number of the laws that I just mentioned in the State of Colorado. In this country of 260 million Americans throughout the fifty states I believe that the people of those States are in the best position to make these specific decisions. I come from our nation's 8th largest State with a population of just 3.9 million people. I will not assume that any federal entity is more prepared to develop policy for Colorado than the people of Colorado, nor would I impose the policies unique to Colorado's needs on another State. Something I find equally troubling is that in addition to infringing on the laws of the State of Colorado, the legislation that Senator Kennedy and the Democrats have developed has the potential to increase health care costs, deprive 1.9 million Americans of health insurance who are currently covered, and cast heavy mandates down on individual states who are in a far better position to make these decisions for themselves. I will speak today about a number of things I believe will enhance the quality of health care, increase access to care, and provide important protections for patients without unnecessarily placing mandates on individual states. These provisions are all part of a comprehensive package called the Patients' Bill of Rights Plus Act, which I feel properly addresses the needs of America's patients, physicians and health care providers. The Patients' Bill of Rights Plus Act establishes consumer protection standards for self-funded plans currently governed by the Employee Retirement and Income Security Act (ERISA). 48 million Americans are currently covered by plans governed by ERISA--these are American health care consumers who are not under the jurisdiction of state laws. Our bill would eliminate gag rule clauses in providers' contracts and ensure that patients have access to specialty care. The legislation also requires that health plans that use formularies to provide prescription medications ensure the participation of doctors and pharmacists in the construction of the formulary. Further addressing patient choice and access, health plans would be required to allow women direct access to obstetricians and gynecologists, and direct access to pediatricians for children, without referrals from general practitioners. These provisions are important steps in removing barriers that may prevent patients covered under ERISA from receiving necessary and proper treatment in a timely manner. As a former small business owner I have a keen understanding of the issues that confront the self-employed. I also have experience in balancing the wages and benefits you extend to an employee with a healthy bottom line. I think it is important that we remember throughout the course of this debate that employers provide health care benefits as a voluntary form of compensation for their employees. We must be wary of legislation that will increase costs and liability for employers in a way that may reduce the quality and scope of benefit packages for employees. Our bill, the Patients' Bill of Rights Plus, would make health insurance deductible for the self-employed and increase the availability of medical savings accounts. I believe that each of these provisions would give greater power to the individual and make private insurance more affordable for families and individuals. Large corporations can claim a 100 percent deduction for health care and small business should be treated the same. Medical savings accounts, otherwise known as MSAs, combine a high deductible and low cost catastrophic policy with tax free savings that can be used for routine medical expenses. We should increase the availability to all families who desire MSAs. These efforts will prove particularly helpful to those individuals working for small business, and those in transition from one job to another since MSAs are fully portable. I want to stress that our legislation will not mandate these accounts for everyone, but will simply establish the accounts as an option to those who feel they will be best served by MSAs. I believe that medical savings accounts are particularly important for uninsured, lower income Americans. Allowing consumers to pay for medical expenses through these affordable tax-deductible plans, tailored to their needs, is a viable free-market approach to decreasing the number of uninsured in America. This is a question of providing greater choice for health care consumers. The Patients' Bill of Rights Plus Act would also permit the carryover of unused benefits from flexible spending accounts, again increasing the number of options available to the consumers of health care. In keeping with presenting more options to the consumer, The Patients' Bill of Rights Plus Act includes language that would require all group health plans to provide a wide range of comparative information about the health coverage they provide. This information would include descriptions of health insurance coverage and the networks who provide care so that consumers covered by self insured and fully insured group health plans can make the best decisions based on their needs and preferences. One of the most contentious issues in health care has been the issue of malpractice liability, grievance procedures and the mechanism for the appeal of decisions made by managed care companies. My colleagues across the aisle are interested in taking the grievance procedure into a court of law, allowing a patient greater access to litigation as a means of challenging a managed care organization's decision. Lawsuits and the increased threat of litigation will demand that more money to be funneled into non-medical administration and away from what patients really want--quality health care. Furthermore, making the courts a de facto arbiter of health care decisions seems to me to be less efficient and less effective in dealing with the interests of the patient. The Kennedy bill is an enormous gift for the trial lawyers in America who stand to profit by high cost, long-term cases. Patients, not lawyers, will fare far better under the Patients' Bill of Rights Plus. I am also concerned that expanding medical malpractice liability will lead to more defensive medical decisions regardless of the merit of a particular treatment. High liability exposure and cost has driven countless physicians from their profession for years, particularly in high-need rural areas. This is not a provision we can afford in rural areas of western States like Colorado that are already under-served. Rather than take health care out of the doctor's office and into the courts, the Patients' Bill of Rights Plus Act establishes strict time frames for internal and external appeals for the 124 million Americans who receive care from self insured and fully insured group plans. Routine requests would need to be completed within 30 days, or 72 hours in specific cases when a delay would be detrimental to the patient. Rather than use the courts in cases of health care appeals our legislation would establish a system of independent, internal and external review by physicians with appropriate expertise. We are talking about doctors with years of experience and medical training making health care decisions, not legal arguments. I believe that such a system will be more responsive and more tailored to the needs of every individual patient--and it will do so without creating unnecessary bureaucracy. It is also important to note that these internal and external appeals will cost patients and employers considerably less than the alternative proposal that is heavy on lawsuits, lawyers and litigation. Another area of concern that I believe needs to be incorporated in any sensible managed care reform legislation is the inclusion of protections for patients from genetic discrimination. The Patients' Bill of Rights Plus Act would prohibit all group health plans and insurers from denying coverage or adjusting premiums based on predictive genetic information. The protected genetic information includes an individual's genetic tests, genetic tests of family members, or information about the medical history of family members. No one should live in fear of being without health care based on genetic traits that may not develop into a health problem. Mr. President, I believe these provisions will empower the individual, not the lawyers or bureaucracies. I am committed to the notion that each individual American consumer of health care is in the best position to chose where his or her health care dollar is best spent. An administrative issue involved in this debate that I am very concerned with is the effort to attempt to force all health plans--not just HMOs--to report the medical outcomes of their subscribers and the physicians who treat them. This makes sense for a managed care plan such as an HMO, but it would be virtually impossible for a PPO or indemnity plan to monitor and classify this data without becoming involved in individual medical cases. I believe that if we require all health plans to collect and report data like this we will be requiring all plans to be organized like an HMO. This would significantly reduce the number of choices consumers and employers currently enjoy in selecting their health care. The Congressional Budget Office recently determined that if S. 6, the Kennedy version of the Patients' Bill of Rights, were to pass that this country would see private health insurance premiums increase 6.1 percent above inflation. What appears to be a minor increase to health care premiums would have disastrous and immediate consequences around the country, adding 1.9 million Americans to the ranks of the uninsured. In my home state that translates to 32,384 people. In Colorado the average household would lose $203 in wages and 2,989 jobs would be lost by 2003 for this ``minor'' increase. We are talking about people in Colorado losing their jobs and their health care coverage because Washington wants to do what the State of Colorado has been working on for the last thirty years. The Congressional Budget Office determined that our bill, the Patients' Bill of Rights Plus Act, would increase costs by less than 1 percent. While I urge my colleagues to be wary of any potential increase in costs for the American people, I also believe that the Patients' Bill of Rights Plus, and not the current Kennedy bill, directly addresses health care quality issues and increases choice for consumers with a minimal cost.

Mr. ALLARD

Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, today I am introducing legislation to repeal the federal death tax, otherwise known as the estate and gift tax. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record. I also ask unanimous consent that Colorado Senate Joint Memorial 99-004, approved by the Colorado Legislature be printed in the Record. This memorial resolution urges the immediate repeal of the Federal estate and gift tax. Finally, I ask that an article I recently wrote on this topic be printed in the Record. The material follows:

Mr. ALLARD

Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, today I am introducing legislation to repeal the federal death tax, otherwise known as the estate and gift tax. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record. I also ask unanimous consent that Colorado Senate Joint Memorial 99-004, approved by the Colorado Legislature be printed in the Record. This memorial resolution urges the immediate repeal of the Federal estate and gift tax. Finally, I ask that an article I recently wrote on this topic be printed in the Record. The material follows:

Mr. ALLARD

Mr. ALLARD. I share the chairman's concern. The sale of IMF gold would have the effect of depressing gold prices well beyond the twenty year low to which the price of gold has already plunged. As I think the Senator from Kentucky well knows, a further drop in the price of gold will not only hurt American industry but cost thousands of U.S. workers their jobs. Equally important, falling gold prices will directly impact 36 of the 41 nations that are slated to benefit from the HIPC program. This is because those 36 nations are in fact gold producers, and their economies would suffer to such a degree that the damage done to their economies resulting from depressed gold prices would be greater than any debt relief they might receive. Does the Senator agree with that analysis?

Mr. ALLARD. I thank the chairman.

Mr. ALLARD. Will the distinguished Senator from Kentucky yield for a question?

Mr. ALLARD. As the chairman of the Foreign Operations Appropriations Subcommittee, is the Senator aware of a proposal by the Administration to support the sale of some ten million ounces of gold by the International Monetary Fund (IMF) from its gold reserves in order to provide debt relief for countries under the Heavily Indebted Poor Countries Initiative (HIPC)?

Mr. ALLARD. I ask the chairman, is it the case that in order for this proposed IMF gold sale to go forward, that the Congress must specifically authorize the U.S. representative to the IMF to cast a vote in favor of such a sale?

Mr. ALLARD. I thank the chairman for that clarification. Would it be fair to conclude, I say to my friend from Kentucky, that you are not in a position to support legislation that would seek to have this Congress authorize U.S. approval of the sale of IMF gold?

Mr. ALLARD

Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, in the June edition of Leatherneck magazine, the Commandant of the Marine Corps, General Charles Krulak, quotes his father as saying: ``The American people believe that Marines are downright good for the country.'' I agree with The Commandant's father. And I am pleased General Krulak also holds that well founded opinion. The United States Marine Corps is collectively good for this country, and the services of individual marines such as General Krulak are a big part of that positive contribution made by the Corps. Unfortunately, the title of the article in which General Krulak quoted his father was ``A farewell to the Corps.'' General Krulak will be retiring after four years from his position as Commandant at the end of this month. I would like to thank him for his service and efforts on behalf of his Corps and his nation. Although I have been on the Armed Services Committee a short six months, I have had several good experiences with the Commandant. I think the most notable was in May of this year, when a large group of my constituents were taking a tour of the Pentagon, and the Commandant invited them into his office. He said then that he usually tries to do something similar--bring tourists into his personal office--everyday. I do not think Krulak was fully aware of what he was getting himself into, but all fifty or so crowded their way into his office, and listened while he spoke about the Corps, the moving of his office down from the `barbed wire surrounded hill of the Naval Annex' to the corridors of the Pentagon, and the Corps' efforts and ability to turn young men and women into marines. Let me tell you, they were impressed. They were impressed with his position, they were impressed with his efforts, they were impressed with his commitment, and they were impressed with the man. I have also had correspondence with General Krulak relating to our work on S.4, and for the process of preparing the defense authorization. He consistently strikes me as a man who is well aware of the challenges his position holds, and works to meet them. He has been straightforward and dependable. Hearing testimony from him at committee hearings is always a pleasure. He does not rattle off bland platitudes. I felt that I could always rely on his opinion to be the truest possible interpretation of the situation, and one that held the best interests of the country at the foremost. Let me end by repeating: General Krulak has been fundamentally good for this country. I wish him well in whatever new course he sets for himself. Also, I would like to welcome General James Jones into his role as the 32nd Commandant of the Marine Corps. I have met with him only very briefly, but I look forward to working with him. I am sure he will follow in the able footsteps of all the past United States Marines Corps Commandants, and serve the Marines and America admirably.

Mr. ALLARD

Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, most of my colleagues in this body, I'm sure, remember my predecessor, Hank Brown. He represented me for 10 years as the Congressman from Colorado's 4th district, and I had the further privilege of working with him during my 6 years in the House. Since he retired from this body in 1996, I have relied on his knowledge and experience. As you might know, Senator Brown is now President Brown, the head of the University of Northern Colorado, in Greeley, the Senator's hometown. Recently, President Brown spoke at the Colorado Prayer Luncheon in Denver. He spoke on God's love, and our role in this world. His thoughts are, as always, particularly insightful and relevant. I ask to have these inspirational words printed in the Congressional Record. The remarks follow. Remarks of Hank Brown, Colorado Prayer Luncheon Ladies and Gentlemen, today is a day of renewal. It is a renewal of our commitment to our Maker as well as a renewal of our commitment to each other. The fact that so many different faiths join together in this luncheon is a sign of our commitment to each other's religious freedom. The incomprehensible tragedy at Columbine is on all of our minds. It will reshape our lives as well as the families of the victims. Its impact will be with us for many years. Next month it will be 46 years since my brother died in a gun accident. He was only 16--not much younger than the children who were murdered at Columbine. The other day my mother said to me that not a day goes by that she doesn't think of him and miss him. I suspect that the parents and loved ones of the victims at Columbine will be the same. The memory of those children will be with them every day for the rest of their lives. How do we explain it? How do you reconcile the tragedy in your own mind? We believe our God is good, we believe our God, is love, we believe our God is all-powerful and capable of controlling everything. How could something this evil be allowed to happen? It's not a new question. It's been with mankind throughout history. A few thousand years ago, a fellow by the name of Job had the same questions. He was devout, religious and pious. He was committed to carrying on the work of his Lord, yet great tragedies were visited upon him. He lost his home. He lost his fortune. He lost his health. He even lost his beloved children. But he didn't lose his faith. And throughout it, he asked ``Why?'' Was he being tested? Was he being punished? I'm not sure we know. His friends came and talked to him, and they suggested that he must be being punished, that he must have done something wrong. And yet, of course Job hadn't. He hadn't been evil; he hadn't sinned. He'd kept the faith. The attitude of his friends perhaps is parallel to the way many of us think. It is natural to think that if we are good, if we follow the rules, if we observe the mandates, good things will happen to us. And yes, if we sin, we'll be punished. And yet, Job hadn't sinned. I don't pretend to know the answer. But I want to speculate with you this afternoon, and I want to suggest that part of the answer lies in God's purpose for our lives in this world. What if this earthly existence is not intended to be a paradise? What if our Maker's real kingdom is not of this world? What if the purpose of our earthly existence is to train us, to prepare us, to test us--not for this world, but for the next? What if the commandments of Moses and the admonition to love each other is not a checklist for prosperity in this world, but guidance for how we'll behave when we truly accept grace? Not a way to earn grace, but what we'll do if we accept it. What if those commandments are the best advice in history on how to live a joyous life and find happiness on earth? It's a different thought, isn't it? If it's so, then our earthly existence may not be about earning our way to heaven or even enjoying a perfect life on earth. It may be about learning and preparing for the next life. Parents face every day, something of the challenge that our Lord must experience. How do you prepare children for life? We love our children more than life itself. Do we do their homework for them? Perhaps some of you have faced that question. If you don't help them with their homework, they may fail and they may not have the chances you hope for them. But the story doesn't end there. If you do it for them, what do they learn? How do they learn that they have to prepare in advance for the next time? How have you helped them learn a lesson for life? Growing up, I couldn't understand my mother. How could she be so tough? She never once bought the stories I brought home about how everyone did it, how it must be OK because everyone else got by with it. In fact, she was never even tempted by them. I recall a series of incidents of her forcing me to confess my sins--once to a storeowner a few blocks from here where I'd taken some gum, once to my grandmother, once at school. Those forced confessions resulted in unbelievable embarrassment. How could she do such a thing? If I wanted something, her answer was, ``I'll help you find a job.'' I worked 20-40 hours a week while I was in high school, and, in the summers I had one or two full-time jobs, depending on the summer. My parents were divorced. She worked full-time. She didn't have a lot of time to supervise me. But her strength was to keep me busy, and she kept me so busy I almost stayed out of trouble. As I look back, I wonder whether I have been near as good a parent as she was. I will never forget the Clarence Thomas hearings, and I suspect some of you may have that feeling as well. One of the instances I recall was a question posed by a senator--a person of great integrity--who had very strong doubts about Clarence Thomas' judicial philosophy. When his turn came to ask questions, the senator said, ``Clarence Thomas, I see two Clarence Thomas's, not just one. I see one that seems so kind, generous, thoughtful and warm. And then I see one that is mean, cruel and hard. Which one are you?'' Justice Thomas responded immediately. He said, ``There is only one Clarence Thomas. And I am him. I used to wonder how my uncle could pretend to care for me so much and be so hard on me. It wasn't until later that I learned that he was the one who loved me the most.'' I wonder if our Lord has in mind to prepare us for a life to come. Could tragedies and trials in this life prepare us for the next? It's a question worth asking. The year my brother died, I was 13. My grandfather gave me a book, It was written by Woodrow Wilson. It was a wonderful little book called ``When a Man Comes To Himself.'' It had as strong an influence on me as any book I've read. Wilson, as you know, was an idealist. In the book he talks about what the real joys in life are. He observes that the real pay one gets from a job is not the paycheck at the end of the month, although that's important. The real joy comes from what you do. A bricklayer or carpenter can drive through town and see the homes they've built providing shelter and warmth for families. Others can look at the work they've done and see how it impacts lives and changes the people they know. Wilson's thesis was that you are what you do with your life. You've seen those ads where they say you are what you eat. I sincerely hope that's not true. His thesis was that you are the role you play among your fellows. If that's true, ask what your life amounts to. Wilson's thought was that we are the sum total of how we help each other and the role we play amongst others. Perhaps that's a good guide for us to evaluate what we do in life. It's also a pretty good guide to examine whether you've found the real joy in life. I don't know the answer to Job's question. Like you, I am troubled by the events and the currents of evil in the world. I, like you, suspect that our responsibility is to do what we can to make sure the tragedy never happens again. I'm not sure there's a surefire formula to prevent disasters. But I do believe that the freedom God gives us to live our lives and make our choices surely must be designed to prepare us for another world and help us understand that we have a role in making this world better. If we learn from this, and all of us go forth determined to make a difference from this moment on, the tragedy, in one way, will have served to make our world a better one. Thank you.

Mr. ALLARD

Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, in the June edition of Leatherneck magazine, the Commandant of the Marine Corps, Gen. Charles Krulak, quotes his father as saying: ``The American people believe that Marines are downright good for the country.'' Mr. President, I agree with the Commandant's father. And I am pleased General Krulak also holds that well founded opinion. The U.S. Marine Corps is collectively good for this country, and the services of individual marines such as General Krulak are a big part of that positive contribution made by the corps. Unfortunately, the title of the article in which General Krulak quoted his father was ``A farewell to the Corps.'' General Krulak will be retiring after 4 years from his position as Commandant at the end of this month. I would like to thank him for his service and efforts on behalf of his corps and his nation. Although I have been on the Armed Services Committee a short 6 months, I have had several good experiences with the Commandant. I think the most notable was in May of this year, when a large group of my constituents were taking a tour of the Pentagon, and the Commandant invited them into his office. He said then that he usually tries to do something similar--bring tourists into his personal office--everyday. I do not think Krulak was fully aware of what he was getting himself into, but all 50 or so crowded their way into his office, and listened while he spoke about the corps, the moving of his office down from the `barbed wire surrounded hill of the Naval Annex' to the corridors of the Pentagon, and the corps' efforts and ability to turn young men and women into marines. Let me tell you, they were impressed. They were impressed with his position, they were impressed with his efforts, they were impressed with his commitment, and they were impressed with the man. I have also had correspondence with General Krulak relating to our work on S. 4, and for the process of preparing the defense authorization. He consistently strikes me as a man who is well aware of the challenges his position holds, and works to meet them. He has been straightforward and dependable. Hearing testimony from him at committee hearings is always a pleasure. He does not rattle off bland platitudes. I felt that I could always rely on his opinion to be the truest possible interpretation of the situation, and one that held the best interests of the country at the foremost. Mr. President, let me end by repeating: General Krulak has been fundamentally good for this country. I wish him well in whatever new course he sets for himself. Also, I would like to welcome Gen. James Jones into his role as the 32d Commandant of the Marine Corps. I have met with him only very briefly, but I look forward to working with him. I am sure he will follow in the able footsteps of all the past U.S. Marine Corps Commandants, and serve the Marines and America admirably.

Mr. ALLARD

Mr. ALLARD. I thank the Senator from Vermont for yielding to me. I am not going to take a lot of time. I want to recognize the leadership and fine work he has done in fighting to get this to the floor of the Senate. I am obviously disappointed, as he is, in the fact we are not going to have a vote on this. But I do have some charts and, like my colleague, will talk about the importance of renewable energy, particularly in the context of wind energy, geothermal, and solar energy. The Senator's State, like the State of Colorado, has done a considerable amount in this area. It is important to the State of Colorado. In fact, we have a research laboratory in Colorado just to address things we are talking about on the floor. I just wanted to recognize in a public way the Senator's contribution and effort in trying to move forward with renewable energy. It has been a pleasure to be associated with my colleague on this amendment. I thank my colleague, the Senator from Vermont, for once again standing firm in his commitment to renewable energy. I concur with the Senator from Vermont and would like to share my thoughts on the importance of funding the Department of Energy's renewables budget. While the record clearly shows that I am a dedicated fiscal conservative, I also see the importance of spending a little now, to save a lot more later. By investing in the research and development of these energy sources today, we are saving taxpayers billions of dollars tomorrow in costs associated with much more than energy. Mr. President, it is not an exaggeration to say that our future as a nation and a community depends in part on the decisions we make today when it comes to energy matters. In this modern day of technological boom, energy literally runs the world in which we live. From the cars we drive to the homes we live in, without affordable, accessible sources of energy, we open ourselves up to dangers that we simply cannot allow to happen. In their paper titled The New Petroleum from the January/February 1999 issue of the publication Foreign Affairs, my colleague from Indiana, Senator Lugar, and former CIA Director James Woolsey argue the importance of increasing our use of alternative energy sources, in this case, biofuels. They appropriately note that, ``New demand for oil will be filled largely by the Middle East, meaning a transfer of more than $1 trillion over the next 15 years to the unstable states of the Persian Gulf alone--on top of the $90 billion they received in 1996.'' As a member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, and Select Committee on Intelligence, I hear first-hand about foreign nations that are working to use energy sources to neutralize. I would hope that the rest of my colleagues share my concerns about sending $1 trillion over the next 15 years to rogue nations in the Middle East who are developing weapons of mass destruction as we speak, with an intent to harm American interests. We must be firm in our decision to develop accessible, affordable and dependable sources of energy here at home-- our security may depend on it. The environmental benefits of renewable energy are also well noted and do not need too much repeating. Not only are renewable sources of energy beneficial to our national security, but they reduce, and in fact help to eliminate harmful greenhouse gas emissions. Wind, solar, geothermal, biomass, photovoltaic and other renewable energies have few if any harmful by-products. It is simply good policy to do all we can to effectively harness and utilize the natural, clean, re-usable sources of energy that are abundantly all around us. I would like to illustrate a few Colorado-specific points if I may. The Solar Energy Research Facility at the Department of Energy's National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) in Golden, Colorado houses over 200 scientists and engineers. This building was designed to use energy efficient and renewable energy technologies--like the photovoltaic panels seen here--and reduce costs by 30% from the federal standard. Much of the Department's funding that was cut by the Committee goes to this vital facility in my state. NREL is on the cutting edge in bringing renewable energy technologies out of the laboratory and into the mainstream of American business and society. Recognizing that America has rivals in many Asian and European nations in investing in the development of these technologies, NREL deserves credit for many wonderful accomplishments. Wind power use in Colorado is becoming increasingly popular. If you've ever spent any time along the foothills of the Rocky Mountains, you know that the wind can whip down from the mountains quite fast. That wind can be easily harnessed for energy. Public Service Company of Colorado operates several wind powering facilities, one of which is in Northern Colorado on the Wyoming border in Ponnequin. Expansions of many wind facilities in Colorado are taking place as we speak. In many Northern Colorado communities, demand for wind energy has risen so dramatically that the Platte River Power Authority of Ft. Collins is planning to more than triple the installed capacity of its wind farm just across the border in Medicine Bow, Wyoming. Residents in this area can look forward to making a positive contribution to the environment. The current levelized cost of wind energy is between 4 and 6 cents per kilowatt-hour, with a goal approaching 2.5 cents by 2010. According to NREL, the cost of this technology has already decreased by more than 80% since the early 1980's due to continued cost-shared R&D partnerships between industry and DOE. The developable, windy land in just 5 western states could produce electricity equivalent to the annual demand of the contiguous 48 states. Total worldwide wind energy generating capacity now exceeding the 10,000 megawatt point with expectations of 100,000 megawatts by 2020. Thanks to continued research and development, the industry has grown from being California-based to having wind sites in 18 states. Photovoltaic water pumping systems are being used on hundreds of ranches and farms across the U.S. to bring power to remote locations-- like in some parts of Colorado--that would otherwise cost tens of thousands of dollars in extending existing power lines. In locations where solar resources are not bountiful, other renewable technologies, like wind energy, can be used in a similar fashion. This is an application of renewable energy that interests me greatly. For those farmers who live in remote areas, renwable energy systems also offer distinct advantages in agricultural applications where power lines are subject to failure due to flooding, icing or other seasonal changes. These energy technologies also make sense where electrical needs are relatively small or are seasonal. In conclusion, I want to reiterate my belief that investing in research and development of renewable energies is a win-win solution in every sense. Jobs are created, taxpayer money is saved, our national security is enhanced and the environment is protected. The future of our security and prosperity depends on the commitments we make today.

Mr. ALLARD

Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, I would like to join the Colorado banking industry in saluting an outstanding member of the Colorado community, Don Childears, President/CEO of the Colorado Bankers Association. Mr. Childears, a native of Colorado, born in Saguache, received his undergraduate degree from Colorado State University and his Juris Doctor from the University of Denver, College of Law. For over 25 years, Mr. Childears has worked tirelessly building alliances between bankers, community leaders, and legislators. As the voice of commercial banking in Colorado, Don has effectively and faithfully championed the vital role of banking in our economy on both a national and state level. As a national leader in banking, Don chaired the American Bankers Association (ABA) State Association Division in 1991-1992; he assumed the post of Vice Chairman of this division the previous year. As Chairman, he guided the representation of all state bankers associations in the United States. Don was also Chairman of the ABA Regulatory Burden Task Force from 1992-1994 and was given the honor of addressing the General Session of the ABA's Annual Convention and Banking Industry Forum in Boston during 1992. Don was the only state association executive to have done this in 17 years. This year, Don was asked by the Governor of Colorado, Bill Owens, to serve on Colorado's Task Force on Y2K Preparedness. Don has served educational institutions as a Trustee for both the Graduate School of Banking at Colorado, University of Colorado, University of Colorado, Boulder, and the Graduate School of Banking, University of Wisconsin-Madison, since 1980. As a banking spokesman, Don has always made himself available to public speaking opportunities, which has included everything from teaching courses on government, political influence, and banking at the Graduate School of Banking at Colorado to addressing civic groups of all sizes and descriptions on a variety of topics. He has also been heavily involved in various charitable fund-raising and political campaign committees across the state. The recognitions and awards that have been bestowed upon Don are many, as you may have gathered. He is a leader in his community on many different levels. Beyond that, though, Don is an invaluable resource to the banks of our nation, and in particular in my state of Colorado. I am proud to call Don Childears my friend and to recognize his efforts.

Mr. ALLARD

Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, I thank both the manager for the minority and the manager for the majority for their favorable comments.

Mr. ALLARD. I am glad to yield to the Senator from Arizona.

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

Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, first of all, I want to say that I support the piece of legislation that has been brought forward by Senator McCain, working with the Senator from Oregon, and also the efforts of the Senator from Connecticut in that regard. I believe that we need to address a very important issue that is in this amendment. I appreciate the work that Senator McCain and the Commerce Committee have done to craft this important and vital piece of legislation, especially in our high-technology society. I support this effort to encourage prompt resolution of Y2K problems, minimize business disruptions, and discourage unnecessary and costly lawsuits. However, I am concerned about one aspect of this proposal: State laws addressing year 2000 liability issues will be preempted by Senate bill 96 unless we specifically provide for protection of stronger State statutes. I am proposing an amendment to do just this. The Colorado State Legislature passed a strong statute which specifically addresses the Year 2000 liability issue. Our Governor signed the legislation on April 5, 1999, and it will be effective July 1, 1999. Colorado's law provides certain protections from damages for businesses that experience a year 2000 problem. While the intent of this state law is similar to that of S. 96, the state's protections are stronger than those proposed in S. 96. Colorado's statute will be overridden by the Federal legislation we are considering today. My State is not the only one in this situation; Texas, North Dakota, South Dakota, Virginia, Florida, and Arizona have also passed Year 2000 liability legislation that is stronger than this Federal law would be in one way or another. The State laws are consistent with the intent of S. 96 and were supported by a broad cross-section of concerned groups. In addition, 17 other States have pending Y2K legislation that is near passage. We should not be working to nullify the States' efforts. I am offering this amendment in order to allow the greater State limits on damages and liabilities to stand. The intent of S. 96 as it relates to State law is confusing, and most troublesome is the provision stating that the Federal law will supersede State law to the extent that it is inconsistent with the Federal law. I am sure that several of my colleagues will be interested in protecting their States' Year 2000 liability laws. I encourage those Senators to support my amendment, and I encourage others to consider the justification for preempting State laws outright, especially those laws that establish stronger limits than proposed at the Federal level. I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, I withdraw the request.