Chuck Grassley

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, on behalf of the leader, I ask for a second reading of the bill that I understand is at the desk.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I have come to the floor to speak as a member of the Judiciary Committee, but I will back up the Senator from Arkansas on one very key point that I hope can happen in this Congress. I urge, as she has done, that a bill to reauthorize the Older Americans Act come to the floor of the Senate because it has been so long since that law has been reauthorized on a permanent basis. I understand it has been reauthorized on a year-to-year basis, but not on a permanent basis as it ought to be, or at least for a multiyear basis. So I urge that action to be taken at this particular time.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. I ask unanimous consent that we extend for our side as well.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I come to the floor to speak on the subject of technology. The message on technology is very simple. Technology is moving fast, but somehow Congress does not pass laws that keep up with the technology. I wish to state the proposition that, from the standpoint of the right to privacy, our laws cannot be left behind. Every day, more and more Americans are waking up to what technology can do to improve their lives. Thanks to the hard work of the American people in the technology sector, we live in an amazing time. Congress didn't bring about this revolution, and Congress should not do anything to impede the rapid changes taking place in technology. However, one of the main threats to the growth of electronic commerce is the risk of a massive erosion of privacy. While the Internet offers tremendous benefits, it also comes with the potential for harm. If we lack confidence that our privacy will be protected online, we won't take full advantage of what the Internet has to offer. The Judiciary Committee is now considering a bill to protect the privacy of Internet users. I want to focus on one particular issue, and that is maintaining privacy of personal health information obtained by web sites. I happen to believe, as a matter of basic principle, that information about my health is very personal, and nobody else should know that without my permission. So I am pleased to join my colleague from New Jersey, Senator Torricelli, in cosponsoring an amendment on this issue before the Judiciary Committee. I think it will be up this week, on Thursday. The amendment Senator Torricelli and I plan to sponsor will give citizens a chance to control any health information that they might provide while surfing the web. None of that will be passed on to others without their explicit permission. Our amendment simply provides that a commercial web site operator must obtain permission from a person before sending health information to another entity. In addition, it would require that individuals be told to whom their medical information will be released if permission is given. I know to people watching this sounds like a pretty simple, commonsense thing, that there would be no dispute and it ought to be part of the laws of our country under our Constitution that personal information not be sold or used by anybody else without the personal permission of the person who that medical information is about. It sounds pretty simple that it ought to be part of our law. It appears to be such common sense that maybe we should not even have to deal with that; it is just common sense that nobody else should profit from your personal information without telling you about it and without your permission. It is only fair--it seems to myself and to Senator Torricelli--to put that burden on the web site operator and not on the consumer. Medical information can be highly personal, and consumers face serious risk if it becomes a public commodity that can be bought and sold without the individual's consent. If that is allowed, then we are all at risk. As far as your own personal information being a public commodity that can be sold--outside the fact that it shouldn't be done without your permission, not only to protect your privacy but you ought to know about the information being disseminated and to whom it is going, it is also the fact that personal health information, if it is a commodity, is under your personal, private property rights, and they ought to be protected just as personal property rights are protected under our Constitution. The Department of Health and Human Services is working on regulations to finalize medical privacy rules this summer. I understand that for the most part those rules would set up a mechanism so individuals would have to opt into the procedure of giving permission for their medical information to be disseminated--opting in meaning that you have to actually say, I give permission for my medical information to be used in such and such a way, as opposed to kind of an opt-out situation where your personal medical information will be disseminated unless you say it can't be disseminated. From that standpoint, the Department of Health and Human Services rules, which they say will actually come out this way, will be in agreement with the goals of our amendment. I see the need to allow the process in the Department of Health and Human Services to finish. The current draft of our amendment explicitly will not interfere with those rules and the rulemaking process now going on, and it also does not apply to entities subject to those proposed rules, such as health plans and providers. Our amendment gets at those commercial health web sites to which the protections of Health and Human Services rules will not apply. But having said that, our amendment is pending. Having made clear that our amendment does not interfere with the Department of Health and Human Services rulemaking now going on, I want to put President Clinton on notice, if it turns out that the final Health and Human Services rules are inadequate from the standpoint of protecting the personal privacy of health information of individuals, having this amendment in the bill as a placeholder will provide those of us in Congress who are concerned about this issue of privacy of medical health information a vehicle to strengthen the HHS rules legislatively in the future if necessary. There should be ample time for that because realistically we all know that more work will have to be done on Internet privacy before final enactment. Senator Torricelli and I are open to ideas on how to improve the amendment. But let me make clear that I am adamant on the point that people should have a basic right to control their medical information, and to control it from the standpoint of making a separate individual decision as to whether that information can be disseminated--not from the opposite point of view that if they fail to say it can't be used it can be legally disseminated. I believe that very strongly. We all know there are special interests out there that do not agree with us. I happen to think they are wrong. I look forward to having this issue aired fully in the committee. We should protect citizens' most confidential information from those who misuse it. I suppose there is a lot of confidential information other than just medical information about an individual that we ought to be concerned about. But I can't think of anything more personal or that could be more destructive to the individual than medical information. We should also arm our citizens to make a thoughtful and informed decision on how their health information will be used--even educating them about the possibility that because they use the Internet certain health information about them can be disseminated. I am not so sure that we don't take the use of the Internet and technology so much for granted today that we often don't think about what we are doing and what we are putting into it about ourselves, and who might be making use of that. It is important for us to be informed about the possibilities. Once we have done that, I think the American people can be assured that they can go online without having surrendered their privacy rights. I yield the floor.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, recently Congress passed the Agricultural Risk Protection Act. This legislation provides reform for the Federal Crop Insurance Program, economic assistance to farmers, and the establishment of new, innovative programs to assist the agricultural community. One of the innovative programs established in the bill is what I have termed the Agriculture Marketing Equity Capital Fund. The Agriculture Marketing Equity Capital Fund will assist independent grain and livestock producers nationwide develop new value-added agricultural opportunities. Independent producers will use these funds to develop business plans, feasibility studies, and business ventures with packers and processors. While I was able to garner the support of many of the nation's largest commodity organizations, I met fierce opposition from the American Meat Institute's Washington lobbyists. My floor statement during the debate over the crop insurance conference report was highly critical of their efforts. It is not my intent to attack the individual members of AMI, but I believe it is important that they understand my position. AMI's Washington lobbyists misrepresented the provision. A story written within ``Inside AMI'' recently explained: Senator Chuck Grassley pushed conferees to provide for a $35 million Agriculture Marketing Equity Capital Fund. The proposal was yet another attempt to fund an NPPC proposal that seeks to secure government funding to establish a national pork cooperative and use government funds to buy, build or purchase equity in a pork slaughter and processing facility. This a blatant misrepresentation of the facts. My provision never had anything to do with publicly financing the construction of a pork plant. My staff did contact AMI's Washington lobbyists who explained the opposition was based on the possibility of government-funded competition and specifically that funds would be used to develop a plant. In good faith, my staff offered AMI's Washington lobbyists an opportunity to offer their input on the legislation. I cannot guarantee that AMI's input would have been acceptable to me, but we will never know if a mutually beneficial position could have been established because my office never received a response. I have been a friend of the agriculture community for a very long time. I am disappointed and dismayed by the way this was handled by AMI's Washington representatives. As I promised in my crop insurance floor statement, I am today asking unanimous consent to place a list of AMI's member companies in the Congressional Record. Once again, I'm not saying that every processor or packer on this list knew what AMI's Washington lobbyists were doing, but I hope to inform every member what happened and why independent producers won't have the funds to reach out to processors in joint ventures and receive working capital to help everyone survive and thrive. I am also enclosing the text of a letter I recently sent to AMI's members. It is my hope that members of AMI see the value of my efforts and work with me in the future to improve the plight of the independent producer. Providing stability to family farmers through joint ventures with AMI's membership would only serve to benefit both parties in the long-run.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I am submitting, along with Senators Biden, Thurmond, Bryan, Jeffords, Moynihan, Helms, Levin, DeWine, Kennedy, Sessions, Murray, Schumer, and Inouye, a bi-partisan resolution designating Monday, June 19, 2000 as ``Eat Dinner with your Children Day.'' We also join with our House colleagues Congressmen Rangel and McCollum as they take the lead on this bipartisan issue in the House of Representatives. This resolution recognizes the benefits of eating dinner as a family, especially as a way to keep children from using illegal drugs, tobacco, and alcohol. Last October I came to the floor seeking to increase awareness of the important roles parents play in their children's lives. A recent study by the National Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse, or CASA reinforced our understanding of the importance of this role. CASA is a national resource that monitors and reports on drug abuse trends, risks, and solutions affecting all Americans. Last September they released their annual back to school survey on the attitudes of teens and parents regarding substance abuse. The survey stressed how essential it is for parents to get involved in their children's lives. The survey indicates that kids actually do listen to their parents. In fact, 42 percent of the teenagers who have never used marijuana credit their parents with the decision. Unfortunately, too many parents--45 percent--believe their teenagers' use of drugs is inevitable. In addition, 25 percent of the parents said they have little influence over their teen's substance abuse. But the kids have got it right. Parents are critical. So are families. That is why the sponsors of this bill are happy to work with Joe Califano, the head of CASA, to help remind all of us of this simple fact. The family unit is the backbone of this country. Solutions to our drug problems involve all of us working together. Parents and communities must be engaged and I am committed to help making that happen. Parents need to provide a strong moral context to help our young people know how to make the right choices. They need to know how to say ``no,'' that saying no is okay, that saying no to drugs is the right thing to do--not just the safe or healthier thing, but the right thing. I urge our colleagues to join us.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I yield myself such time as I might consume, obviously up to the limit, but I will not use all of it. I will make a few brief remarks about the pending amendment which I laid down last night and spoke shortly on that particular time. My amendment requires the Department of Defense to match disbursements with obligations before making payments. I know this sounds like commonsense stuff--it is really basic accounting 101--but it goes to a very major problem we have within the Department of Defense. They don't always make payments based on invoices. They don't always match the check being mailed out for certain goods or services received. I am sure my colleagues must be wondering why the Senator from Iowa has to offer an amendment such as this. They must be asking themselves this question: Isn't DOD already doing it? Unfortunately, the fact remains that the Pentagon bureaucrats are not doing it. Businesses do it on a routine basis. And most citizens do it, too. You just don't write out a check and pay a bill until you are absolutely certain that you owe the money. You must first verify that you have a legitimate obligation to pay the bill. And you have enough money in the bank to cover it. This amendment and device that has been used now for several years to try to straighten things out in the Pentagon is a handy device also for deterring fraud. And it helps to prevent mismanagement and other abuses in the Pentagon's vast financial accounts. This policy has been incorporated in the last six appropriations acts. Each year we have ratcheted down the threshold or dollar level where the matching must be done. In 1995, we started out with payments of $5 million. Each year since then, we have gradually lowered the threshold but always keeping the pressure on for reform. Last year the Senate voted to lower the threshold to $500,000. This year--in the amendment--I am recommending that the threshold be maintained at $500,000. I think we should keep it at the current level for another year. I am not sure DOD is ready to move to a lower level--not meaning that it wouldn't be right to move to a lower level. But if they don't have the mechanical capability of moving to a lower level, we want to make sure that we make progress in this area. However, we don't want to hold up the normal way of doing business or the process of doing business in the Defense Department. The General Accounting Office will look at this issue again and determine when and how the threshold should be lowered in the future, and in future years I would follow their recommendations. I also take this opportunity to thank my good friend from Alaska, the chairman of the committee, Senator Stevens, and my good friend from Hawaii, the ranking minority member, Senator Inouye, for their support of this amendment. I urge my colleagues to join me in voting for this measure. I yield the floor. If it is the desire that other Members yield back the remainder of their time, I will yield my time.

Mr. GRASSLEY. I yield back my time.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, on behalf of the Chairman of the Budget Committee, who is necessarily absent, I submit his budget statement and scoring table on S. 2593, the Department of Defense appropriations bill. I support S. 2593, the Defense appropriations bill for fiscal year 2001. As scored by the Congressional Budget Office without any further adjustments, the pending bill provides $287.6 billion in total budget authority and $178.9 billion in new outlays for the Department of Defense and related activities. When adjusted for outlays from prior years, the bill totals $277.2 billion in outlays. The bill, as reported, is consistent with the level of budget authority made available by the 2001 congressional budget resolution. It is also within the allocation of budget authority and outlays made available pursuant to section 302(b) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974. S. 2593 provides a 2.4 percent increase in overall procurement spending, a 4.5 percent increase in research and development, and a 0.4 percent increase in Operations and Maintenance. I support this bill, and I urge its adoption. I want to complement the chairman of the Appropriations Committee for his work on this legislation. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a Senate Budget Committee table displaying the budget impact of this bill be placed in the Record.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. I ask unanimous consent reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. GRASSLEY. I send my amendment to the desk.

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, this amendment pertains to Department of Defense (DOD) disbursements. It requires DOD to match certain disbursements with obligations prior to payment. This policy has been incorporated in the last six appropriations acts: Fiscal years 1995, 1996, 1997, 1998, 1999, and 2000. Each year we have ratcheted down the threshold. The threshold is the dollar amount of the disbursement that must be matched with its corresponding obligation. We started at the $5 million level. Under current law, the threshold is now set at 500,000.00 dollars. In 1999, the Senate voted to lower the threshold from $1 million to the current level. Both the DOD Inspector General and the General Accounting Office have repeatedly stated that policy is a good idea. It is helping the department to control the flow of money. First, it is an important internal control procedure. It is a first- line of defense against fraudulent payments. If a corresponding obligation cannot be identified, the payment cannot be made. It is as simple as that. Second, it is helping the department avoid ``problem disbursements'' or unmatched disbursements. A few years ago, the department had unmatched disbursements totaling about 50 billion dollars. This situation created gaping holes in DOD's books of account. And these gaping holes in the books of account are one big reason why DOD consistently fails to earn a ``clean'' opinion in the annual CFO audits. Those are the audits required by the Chief Financial Officers Act. And third, it is helping the department avoid overobligations, that is, making payments in excess of available funding. This year I am recommending that the threshold be retained at the current level of 500,000.00 dollars. The General Accounting Office needs to do more audit follow-up work before the threshold is lowered any further. I thank the chairman and the ranking minority member for supporting this policy and urge my colleagues to vote for the amendment. I should ask the chairman of the committee if he wants to order a rollcall at this point because it is my understanding he wanted a rollcall vote on it.

Mr. GRASSLEY. I yield the floor.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I oppose Senator Kennedy's amendment. Introducing this amendment at this time is a clear statement that Democratic leaders want an election issue, not a Patients' Bill of Rights. It is a cynical ploy, made in bad faith, and they ought to be ashamed of themselves. The Senate voted on this bill last year, after full debate, and rejected it in favor of a better product. Since that time, the conferees have been working on a compromise. In the past week, Republican negotiators made an offer with major new concessions. Was this greeted with a Democrat counteroffer that moved toward the middle? No, it's answered with this attempt to blow up those negotiations. If my colleagues don't want to legislate, if they just want to create election issues, they don't deserve to be here. Let me be specific. Republican negotiators have made an offer to their Democrat counterparts that would allow lawsuits to be brought if a health plan has rejected the decision of an independent reviewer and the enrollee has fully utilized the plan's appeal mechanism. Full economic damages could be sought, and punitive damages would be available, subject to limits. Employers, however, would be expressly protected from lawsuits, addressing a key concern of those who provide coverage to workers. These are major, major concessions. That's obvious. In my view, this offer reasonably balances the need for fairness to consumers who are wronged with the need to keep health insurance costs low so that employers continue to offer coverage. But it was dismissed without even a serious response by the other side. If no agreement is reached this year, let everyone understand who will be to blame. It is the Democrats who have decided that they're better off with no bill than with a bill. After this stunt fails, I hope that the President and Congressional Democrats will change their obstructionist strategy so that the Patients' Bill of Rights can become a reality, this year. In the meantime, I am voting against Senator Kennedy's attempt to short- circuit our legislative process.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I rise today to commend many of my colleagues who were instrumental in the development of this legislation. The conference report before us today represents new opportunities for family farmers through a reformed crop insurance program and short term assistance in the form of an additional economic relief payment equivalent to the levels established last year. The conference report before us today provides Congress with an opportunity to assist farmers during this time of need. My friends and neighbors just came off a year in which they lost tremendous amounts of equity due to commodity prices hitting twenty year lows. If we would not have provided an economic relief payment last year we would have lost many more family farmers. What does a strong agricultural economy mean for my home state of Iowa? The agricultural industry contributes a total of around $70 billion and 446,000 jobs in Iowa. Therefore, when things are in bad shape down on the farm, all Iowans feel the negative economic effects. While commodity prices have improved slightly from last year, margins are still tight. We promised our constituents a smooth transition from the failed, government-dominated farm policies of the last 63 year period prior to 1996. We must follow through on that promise, and this legislation helps us fulfill that goal. This bill provides tremendous opportunities for farmers. The Crop Insurance title helps farmers utilize additional risk management activities. Farmers can increase their individual coverage levels thanks to better premium subsidies. And for the first time, pilot programs will be available to determine how livestock producers can be included as an insurable commodity. I also want to thank the members of the Senate Budget Committee in supporting my efforts earlier this year in crafting a budget resolution which set aside over $15 billion to help farmers. The bill before us today would not have been possible otherwise. The Budget Committee's work and cooperation allowed the Agriculture Committee to supply farmers with the funds necessary for the smooth transition farmers deserve by providing what is viewed as an additional AMTA payment at 1999 levels. The package also includes $500 million for oilseeds, $7 million to cover pseudorabies vaccination costs incurred by pork producers, and $15 million for what I have termed the Agricultural Marketing Equity Capital Fund. The Agriculture Marketing Equity Capital Fund will provide $10 million to establish grants for developing new value-added agricultural markets for independent producers. This fund will assist agricultural producers by providing grants for ventures to capture a greater share of the consumer food dollar. It is my hope that the fund will help independent grain and livestock producers find real solutions to address the loss of competition in agricultural markets, to combat concentration in food production and processing, and create new value-added business opportunities for groups like: The Iowa Cattlemen, who are developing a regional ``grid'' of producers to supply cattle to a proposed harvest facility being developed with the cooperation of one of the nation's largest processors; Heartland Grain Fuels, a group of grain producers who have banded together in Huron, South Dakota to develop an ethanol facility; Iowa Premium Pork, a group of 1,400 pork producers across my home state which have joined together in a cooperative venture to market their hogs; Sunrise Energy, an ethanol plant in Blairstown, Iowa; The 21st Century Group, independent dairy producers from Kansas; Pork America, a national cooperative of independent pork producers; and The New Jersey Farm Bureau, which recently commissioned a study to determine the feasibility of ethanol production and held a meeting at which 300 New Jersey farmers attended due to their interest in value- added opportunities. An informal poll by my office found hundreds of millions of dollars in possible requests for this type of program. The reason for this is that family farmers cannot compete with an industry that has billions of dollars in equity and capital resources and which seems to be willing to use this advantage to kill any producer driven competition. Industry's aggressive stance toward competition from farmers made it impossible for me to provide more money for independent producers. In fact, the American Meat Institute, which is the political muscle behind 70 percent of the packers and processors in the US, fought against this provision tooth and nail. When I found out that AMI was opposing my efforts to help farmers I knew that I must be doing something right. I just want the leadership of AMI to know that I was very aware of his efforts and I hope that AMI's successful opposition to my request for $35 million to help America's family farmers was worth it to them. I plan to publish AMI's membership in the record and I hope that every independent producer in the nation takes a good look at who is trying to limit value-added opportunities for family farmers. I'm not saying that every processor or packer knew exactly what AMI's Washington lobbyists were doing, but I sure hope to inform every member, through one medium or another, what happened and why independent producers won't have the funds to reach out to processors in joint ventures and receive working capital to help everyone survive and thrive. One last point, if you thought I was pushing hard for my agri- industry concentration legislation before, hold on to your seat. Regardless of my disappointment in industry's effort to kill my provision, on the whole, this bill includes a bold new approach that will help create a brighter future for family farmers and their rural communities. Mr. President, in summation I want to thank my colleagues on the Ag Committee who worked hard to develop this package. This bill is good for Iowa and good for agriculture and the family farmer nationwide. I look forward to sending it to the President and for the President to sign it quickly so that we may provide family farmers with the tools they need to be successful in today's marketplace.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I am pleased to be joining my colleague, Senator Graham, to cosponsor the Ecstasy Anti-Proliferation Act of 2000. This legislation is vital for the safety of our children and our nation. Around the country, Ecstasy use is exploding at an alarming rate from our big cities to our rural neighborhoods. According to Customs officials, Ecstasy is spreading faster than any drug since crack cocaine. This explosion of Ecstasy smuggling has prompted Customs to create a special task force, that focuses exclusively on the designer drug. Along with my colleague Senator Graham, I believe it is important that we act to stop the spread of this drug. I join with Senator Graham in urging our colleagues to support the Ecstasy Anti-Proliferation Act of 2000, and pass this measure quickly. By enacting this important bill, we will get drug dealers out of the lives of our young people and alert the public to the dangers of Ecstasy.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I'd like to take a few moments to address a health issue of critical importance to Americans, especially older women. Osteoporosis affects 28 million Americans, 80 percent of whom are women. Nearly one in every two women and one in every eight men over age 50 will experience an osteoporotic fracture in his or her lifetime. This disease measurably impact the ability of many older Americans to maintain the independence and mobility so integral to mental well-being. Osteoporosis is estimated to cost the United States care system $14 billion annually. In my home state of Iowa, it is estimated that $2.9 billion will be spent over the next 20 years as a result of hip, wrist and vetebral fractures. Annual costs are expected to increase from $76 million in 1995 to more than $229 million in 2015. According to the Iowa Department of Elder Affairs, Iowa is the state with the highest proportion of people considered to be the ``oldest old'' in the country. Twenty percent are 80 years of age and over. The people in this age segment are more frequently women. They are usually living alone; and they are probably the persons with the lowest incomes. One of the most sobering facts is that osteoporosis is largely preventable. Prevention is a key element in fighting the disease, because while there are numerous treatments for osteoporosis, there is no cure. According to the National Osteoporosis Foundation, there are four ways an individual can prevent osteoporosis. First, maintain a balanced daily diet rich in calcium and vitamin D. Participate in weight-bearing exercise. Do not smoke or drink excessively. And finally, when appropriate, have your bone density tested and take any physician-prescribed medications. All this to say, osteoporosis is a disease which we in the Senate cannot afford to take lightly. The National Osteoporosis Foundation has declared May to be National Osteoporosis Prevention Month. In my capacity as an honorary member of the foundation's board of trustees, I am glad to have the opportunity to come to the floor to raise the issue of osteoporosis and speak on the need for continued vigilance in battling this disease. In addition to being National Osteoporosis Prevention Month, May also marks a one-year anniversary for a special group in Iowa. In May 1999, a group of Newton, Iowa, residents formed the Newton Support Group under the leadership of Peg Bovenkamp and with the help of Skiff Medical Center. The Newton group is the first Iowa support network affiliated with the National Osteoporosis Foundation. Today, the members of the Newton Support Group are participating in Newton's Senior Citizen's Health Fair. I wish them success as they provide information to older Iowans about osteoporosis prevention and treatment. It is my sincere hope that in coming years we will see similar groups form in other parts of my great state and throughout the region. Throughout my years in Congress, I have championed effort to increase awareness and research funding for osteoporosis. In the 102nd Congress, I introduced legislation to increase research at the Arthritis Institute, form a research center on osteoporosis, and create a Health and Human Services interagency council to set priorities for osteoporosis research. More recently, I cosponsored legislation which passed as part of the Balanced Budget Act (BBA) of 1997. The Bone Mass Measurement Coverage Standardization Act, as included in the BBA, provides Medicare reimbursement for bone mass density tests for vulnerable beneficiaries. This benefit took effect July 1, 1998. And, yesterday I sent a letter to the Health Care Financing Administration (HCFA) requesting information and the most recent data possible on program utilization. Osteoporosis deeply affects the lives of older Americans, mostly women. And, it is preventable if healthy lifestyle choices are made at a young age. As we recognize National Osteoporosis Prevention Month, I would commend the National Osteoporosis Foundation, the Strong Women Inside and Out coalition, Peg Bovenkamp and the Newton Support Group, and all those working to raise awareness of the disease. It is my sincere hope that someday in the not too distant future, I can again come to the floor with news of a cure for osteoporosis. Until that time, I will continue supporting efforts to eradicate this devastating disease.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I am pleased to be joining my colleague, Senator Graham, to cosponsor the Ecstasy Anti-Proliferation Act of 2000. This legislation is vital for the safety of our children and our nation. Around the country, Ecstasy use is exploding at an alarming rate from our big cities to our rural neighborhoods. According to Customs officials, Ecstasy is spreading faster than any drug since crack cocaine. This explosion of Ecstasy smuggling has prompted Customs to create a special task force, that focuses exclusively on the designer drug. Along with my colleague Senator Graham, I believe it is important that we act to stop the spread of this drug. I join with Senator Graham in urging our colleagues to support the Ecstasy Anti-Proliferation Act of 2000, and pass this measure quickly. By enacting this important bill, we will get drug dealers out of the lives of our young people and alert the public to the dangers of Ecstasy.

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, the U.S. Postal Service provides a vital and important communication link for the Nation and the citizens of my state of Iowa. Rural Letter Carriers play a special role and have a proud history as an important link in assuring the delivery of our mail. Rural Carriers first delivered the mail with their own horses and buggies, later with their own motorcycles, and now in their own vehicles. They are responsible for maintenance and operation of their vehicles in all types of weather and road conditions. In the winter, snow and ice is their enemy, while in the spring, the melting snow and ice causes potholes and washboard roads. In spite of these quite adverse conditions, rural letter carriers daily drive over 3 million miles and serve 24 million American families on over 66,000 routes. Although the mission of rural carriers has not changed since the horse and buggy days, the amount of mail they deliver has, as the Nation's mail volume has continued to increase throughout the years, the Postal Service is now delivering more than 200 billion pieces of mail a year. The average carrier delivers about 2,300 pieces of mail a day to about 500 addresses. Most recently, e-commerce has changed the type of mail rural carriers deliver. This fact was confirmed in a recent GAO study entitled ``U.S. Postal Service: Challenges to Sustaining Performance Improvements Remain Formidable on the Brink of the 21st Century,'' dated October 21, 1999. As this report explains, the Postal Service expects declines in its core business, which is essentially letter mail, in the coming years. The growth of e-mail on the Internet, electronic communications, and electronic commerce has the potential to substantially affect the Postal Service's mail volume. First-Class mail has always been the bread and butter of the Postal Service's revenue, but the amount of revenue from First-Class letters will decline in the next few years. However, e-commerce is providing the Postal Service with another opportunity to increase another part of its business. That's because what individuals and companies order over the Internet must be delivered, sometimes by the Postal Service and often by rural carriers. Currently, the Postal Service has about 33% percent of the parcel business. Carriers are now delivering larger volumes of business mail, parcels, and priority mail packages. But, more parcel business will mean more cargo capacity will be necessary in postal delivery vehicles, especially in those owned and operated by rural letter carriers. When delivering greeting cards or bills, or packages ordered over the Internet, Rural Letter Carriers use vehicles they currently purchase, operate and maintain. In exchange, they receive a reimbursement from the Postal Service. This reimbursement is called an Equipment Maintenance Allowance (EMA). Congress recognizes that providing a personal vehicle to deliver the U.S. Mail is not typical vehicle use. So, when a rural carrier is ready to sell such a vehicle, it's going to have little trade-in value because of the typically high mileage, extraordinary wear and tear, and the fact that it is probably right- hand drive. Therefore, Congress intended to exempt the EMA allowance from taxation in 1988 through a specific provision for rural mail carriers in the Technical and Miscellaneous Revenue Act of 1988. That provision allowed an employee of the U.S. Postal Service who was involved in the collection and delivery of mail on a rural route, to compute their business use mileage deduction as 150% percent of the standard mileage rate for all business use mileage. As an alternative, rural carrier taxpayers could elect to utilize the actual expense method (business portion of actual operation and maintenance of the vehicle, plus depreciation). If EMA exceeded the allowable vehicle expense deductions, the excess was subject to tax. If EMA fell short of the allowable vehicle expenses, a deduction was allowed only to the extent that the sum of the shortfall and all other miscellaneous itemized deductions exceeded two percent of the taxpayer's adjusted gross income. The Taxpayers Relief Act of 1997 further simplified the tax returns of rural letter carriers. This act permits the EMA income and expenses ``to wash,'' so that neither income nor expenses would have to be reported on a rural letter carrier's return. That simplified taxes for approximately 120,000 taxpayers, but the provision eliminated the option of filing the actual expense method for employee business vehicle expenses. The lack of this option, combined with the dramatic changes the Internet has and will have on the mail, specifically on rural carriers and their vehicles, is a problem I believe Congress can and must address. The mail mix is changing and already Postal Service management has, understandably, encouraged rural carriers to purchase larger right-hand drive vehicles, such as Sports Utility Vehicles (SUVs), to handle the increase in parcel loads. Large SUVs are much more expensive than traditional vehicles, so without the ability to use the actual expense method and depreciation, rural carriers must use their salaries to cover vehicle expenses. Additionally, the Postal Service has placed 11,000 postal vehicles on rural routes, which means those carriers receive no EMA. These developments have created a situation that is contrary to the historical congressional intent of using reimbursement to fund the government service of delivering mail, and also has created an inequitable tax situation for rural carriers. If actual business expenses exceed the EMA, a deduction for those expenses should be allowed. To correct this inequity, I am introducing a bill today, along with Senator Roth, that would reinstate the ability of a rural letter carrier to choose between using the actual expense method for computing the deduction allowable for business use of a vehicle, or using the current practice of deducting the reimbursed EMA expenses. Rural carriers perform a necessary and valuable service and face many changes and challenges in this new Internet era. Let us make sure that these public servants receive fair and equitable tax treatment as they perform their essential role in fulfilling the Postal Service's mandate of binding the Nation together. I urge my colleagues to join Senator Roth and myself in supporting this legislation.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, the U.S. Postal Service provides a vital and important communication link for the Nation and the citizens of my state of Iowa. Rural Letter Carriers play a special role and have a proud history as an important link in assuring the delivery of our mail. Rural Carriers first delivered the mail with their own horses and buggies, later with their own motorcycles, and now in their own vehicles. They are responsible for maintenance and operation of their vehicles in all types of weather and road conditions. In the winter, snow and ice is their enemy, while in the spring, the melting snow and ice causes potholes and washboard roads. In spite of these quite adverse conditions, rural letter carriers daily drive over 3 million miles and serve 24 million American families on over 66,000 routes. Although the mission of rural carriers has not changed since the horse and buggy days, the amount of mail they deliver has, as the Nation's mail volume has continued to increase throughout the years, the Postal Service is now delivering more than 200 billion pieces of mail a year. The average carrier delivers about 2,300 pieces of mail a day to about 500 addresses. Most recently, e-commerce has changed the type of mail rural carriers deliver. This fact was confirmed in a recent GAO study entitled ``U.S. Postal Service: Challenges to Sustaining Performance Improvements Remain Formidable on the Brink of the 21st Century,'' dated October 21, 1999. As this report explains, the Postal Service expects declines in its core business, which is essentially letter mail, in the coming years. The growth of e-mail on the Internet, electronic communications, and electronic commerce has the potential to substantially affect the Postal Service's mail volume. First-Class mail has always been the bread and butter of the Postal Service's revenue, but the amount of revenue from First-Class letters will decline in the next few years. However, e-commerce is providing the Postal Service with another opportunity to increase another part of its business. That's because what individuals and companies order over the Internet must be delivered, sometimes by the Postal Service and often by rural carriers. Currently, the Postal Service has about 33% percent of the parcel business. Carriers are now delivering larger volumes of business mail, parcels, and priority mail packages. But, more parcel business will mean more cargo capacity will be necessary in postal delivery vehicles, especially in those owned and operated by rural letter carriers. When delivering greeting cards or bills, or packages ordered over the Internet, Rural Letter Carriers use vehicles they currently purchase, operate and maintain. In exchange, they receive a reimbursement from the Postal Service. This reimbursement is called an Equipment Maintenance Allowance (EMA). Congress recognizes that providing a personal vehicle to deliver the U.S. Mail is not typical vehicle use. So, when a rural carrier is ready to sell such a vehicle, it's going to have little trade-in value because of the typically high mileage, extraordinary wear and tear, and the fact that it is probably right- hand drive. Therefore, Congress intended to exempt the EMA allowance from taxation in 1988 through a specific provision for rural mail carriers in the Technical and Miscellaneous Revenue Act of 1988. That provision allowed an employee of the U.S. Postal Service who was involved in the collection and delivery of mail on a rural route, to compute their business use mileage deduction as 150% percent of the standard mileage rate for all business use mileage. As an alternative, rural carrier taxpayers could elect to utilize the actual expense method (business portion of actual operation and maintenance of the vehicle, plus depreciation). If EMA exceeded the allowable vehicle expense deductions, the excess was subject to tax. If EMA fell short of the allowable vehicle expenses, a deduction was allowed only to the extent that the sum of the shortfall and all other miscellaneous itemized deductions exceeded two percent of the taxpayer's adjusted gross income. The Taxpayers Relief Act of 1997 further simplified the tax returns of rural letter carriers. This act permits the EMA income and expenses ``to wash,'' so that neither income nor expenses would have to be reported on a rural letter carrier's return. That simplified taxes for approximately 120,000 taxpayers, but the provision eliminated the option of filing the actual expense method for employee business vehicle expenses. The lack of this option, combined with the dramatic changes the Internet has and will have on the mail, specifically on rural carriers and their vehicles, is a problem I believe Congress can and must address. The mail mix is changing and already Postal Service management has, understandably, encouraged rural carriers to purchase larger right-hand drive vehicles, such as Sports Utility Vehicles (SUVs), to handle the increase in parcel loads. Large SUVs are much more expensive than traditional vehicles, so without the ability to use the actual expense method and depreciation, rural carriers must use their salaries to cover vehicle expenses. Additionally, the Postal Service has placed 11,000 postal vehicles on rural routes, which means those carriers receive no EMA. These developments have created a situation that is contrary to the historical congressional intent of using reimbursement to fund the government service of delivering mail, and also has created an inequitable tax situation for rural carriers. If actual business expenses exceed the EMA, a deduction for those expenses should be allowed. To correct this inequity, I am introducing a bill today, along with Senator Roth, that would reinstate the ability of a rural letter carrier to choose between using the actual expense method for computing the deduction allowable for business use of a vehicle, or using the current practice of deducting the reimbursed EMA expenses. Rural carriers perform a necessary and valuable service and face many changes and challenges in this new Internet era. Let us make sure that these public servants receive fair and equitable tax treatment as they perform their essential role in fulfilling the Postal Service's mandate of binding the Nation together. I urge my colleagues to join Senator Roth and myself in supporting this legislation.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, it is my distinct pleasure to pay tribute to John C. Gardner, an exceptionally dedicated public servant. Mr. Gardner is retiring after ten years of service as the President of the Quad City Development Group, a public/private not-for-profit corporation. This organization promotes economic growth in and around the cities of Davenport and Bettendorf, Iowa, and Moline and Rock Island, Illinois. The Development Group markets these communities as locations for companies seeking to expand or relocate. It also works with Quad City communities to improve their climate for job creation. Under his leadership, the Quad City Development Group has been the driving force behind the retention and addition of more than 14,000 jobs and the investment of over $1 billion in the Quad Cities area. John's leadership style, which was developed and honed in the private sector, was ideal for his position as the President of this vital community and business-based group. I would like to take a moment to highlight John's career. Immediately before joining the Quad City Development Group, John was the director of economic development for Lee Enterprises, Inc., the owner of the Quad City Times and the Southern Illinoisan newspapers. Before that assignment, John was publisher of the Quad City Times for five years. He learned the newspaper business in a 23-year career as a reporter, editor and eventually publisher of The Southern Illinoisan newspaper in Carbondale, Illinois. He is active in a number of professional and community organizations, and has been involved in various statewide projects in both Iowa and Illinois. He is a member of the Iowa Group for Economic Development and was chairman of the Iowa Future project, a statewide strategic planning effort. It gives me great pleasure to present the credentials of John C. Gardner to the Senate today. It is clear that the Iowa and Illinois communities he has served so well are losing a great talent. They will miss his leadership, his winning smile, and his personal and professional dedication. I would like to wish both John and his wife, Ann, the best in their retirement and continued success in all their future endeavors.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I am very pleased to join my esteemed colleagues, Senators Graham and Jeffords, in introducing this important piece of legislation. Title XX, the Social Services Block Grant, is crucial to states. Congress needs to meet its earlier commitment to this program and restore funding to the level authorized in 1996. The Social Services Block Grant allows states the flexibility to fill in the gaps in their human services system. Through this funding, states, local governments and non-profit organizations can supplement other federal programs and leverage additional funding and resources to support an array of social service programs that are critical to those in need. Millions of elderly people have benefitted from Title XX as have hundreds of thousand of individuals with disabilities. States use these funds to help support crucial services such as respite care for the elderly, adult protective services, supported living and transportation for the disabled. In recent years, more than a quarter of these funds have been used to support children's services. Child protective services, foster care and adoption programs have all been supplemented with these funds. In my home state of Iowa, Social Services Block Grant funds are used to supplement numerous service programs. One program uses these funds to help transport individuals with developmental disabilities to their jobs and so that they may receive medical treatment. Funds are also used to help people with disabilities live in their communities, saving significant amounts of money that would otherwise go to caring for them in institutions. Congress has consistently cut this important program in order to pay for other things. It is time that we restore funding to the level we authorized in 1996. Without this funding, important services that protect children, the elderly and the disabled will not be provided. I urge my other colleagues in the Senate to support our efforts to restore this program to the necessary level of funding.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I am very pleased to join my esteemed colleagues, Senators Graham and Jeffords, in introducing this important piece of legislation. Title XX, the Social Services Block Grant, is crucial to states. Congress needs to meet its earlier commitment to this program and restore funding to the level authorized in 1996. The Social Services Block Grant allows states the flexibility to fill in the gaps in their human services system. Through this funding, states, local governments and non-profit organizations can supplement other federal programs and leverage additional funding and resources to support an array of social service programs that are critical to those in need. Millions of elderly people have benefitted from Title XX as have hundreds of thousand of individuals with disabilities. States use these funds to help support crucial services such as respite care for the elderly, adult protective services, supported living and transportation for the disabled. In recent years, more than a quarter of these funds have been used to support children's services. Child protective services, foster care and adoption programs have all been supplemented with these funds. In my home state of Iowa, Social Services Block Grant funds are used to supplement numerous service programs. One program uses these funds to help transport individuals with developmental disabilities to their jobs and so that they may receive medical treatment. Funds are also used to help people with disabilities live in their communities, saving significant amounts of money that would otherwise go to caring for them in institutions. Congress has consistently cut this important program in order to pay for other things. It is time that we restore funding to the level we authorized in 1996. Without this funding, important services that protect children, the elderly and the disabled will not be provided. I urge my other colleagues in the Senate to support our efforts to restore this program to the necessary level of funding.

Mr. GRASSLEY

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

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Madam President, on behalf of the leader, I ask unanimous consent that there be a period for the transaction of morning business, with Senators permitted to speak for up to 10 minutes each.