Chuck Grassley

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. If there is no further business to come before the Senate, I now ask unanimous consent the Senate stand in adjournment under the previous order.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I am here to discuss the achievements of an outstanding student athlete at an outstanding institution. Tony Davis, a secondary education major at the University of Northern Iowa--my alma mater--was recently named the NCAA Champion for wrestling in the 149-pound division. Tony was born and raised in Chicago. Before coming to UNI, he wrestled at Mount Carmel High School in Chicago and Iowa Central Community College, where he received two national junior college championships. Tony chose to come to UNI for two reasons: to wrestle at a Division I school and to study to be a teacher and coach. Before the 1999-2000 season, Tony was ranked first in the nation in his weight division. And, he maintained that ranking and came to the NCAA finals with a 26-1 record. Tony's life philosophy is this: focus and dedication lead to success at all levels. Looking at the road Tony has traveled to reach this point, it is evident focus and dedication played a large role in his success. And, to quote Tony: God played a big role in . . . getting on the right track of life. I have a lot of people to thank along the way. It was a long way to come. The most important thing is I got here. This past week was finals week at UNI. And, I want to commend Tony Davis for his commitment and dedication--not only to sports but also to academics. Next year, Tony Davis will return to UNI--again for two reasons. Tony will be finishing up his academic degree while also serving as an assistant wrestling coach. UNI has a long tradition of excellence in training teachers. This legacy of excellence in education will be continued as Tony has an opportunity to train wrestlers to succeed--both on and off the mat. And so, I salute Tony Davis, his teammates, Coach Mark Manning, and the University of Northern Iowa for supporting each student on and off the mat. Go Panthers!

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of H. Con Res. 317, just received from the House.

Mr. GRASSLEY. I ask unanimous consent the concurrent resolution and preamble be agreed to en bloc and the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. I yield.

Mr. GRASSLEY. The Senator has expressed a perception that is very important. It is because of that perception that the Senator was able to include this in the bill.

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I once again come before the Senate to discuss an often-overlooked population in our schools, talented and gifted students. It's time that we recognized the nearly three million students who are talented and gifted and provide them with the assistance they need. For the past three years, I've been working to change the way people think about talented and gifted students. In order to do this, several destructive myths must be dispelled. Currently, many schools operate under the false assumption that these students are just ``extra-smart'' and can fend for themselves with a little help. One such example of this faulty thinking is giving a talented and gifted third grader a fifth grade math textbook. Students who display gifted qualities look at the world and think in a very different way from other pupils. Instead of thinking in a sequential or linear fashion like most students, they jump from one concept or idea to another. Specialized teaching and activities, designed for their thought process, will help these students excel. In addition, these students often have problems fitting in socially because they are `different' and suffer emotionally from peer rejection and stigmatization. Tragically, as a result, some talented and gifted students experience depression, eating disorders and high levels of anxiety. Some are also vulnerable to violence and antisocial behavior. Another myth is that gifted and talented programs only help middle and upper-class white students. Talented and gifted students cover the entire spectrum in terms of race, background, geographical region, and economic status. In other words, gifted students can be found in every classroom. Along with getting rid of false notions and stereotypes about gifted and talented students, we need to direct resources to these kids to ensure that they will have an educational program that fits their needs. I would like to thank Senator Jeffords for his leadership and for including provisions to help talented and gifted students in the Educational Opportunities Act, S. 2. The provisions found in S. 2 are based on a bill I introduced as the Gifted and Talented Education Act, S. 505. These provisions establish a program through which states can apply for grants in order to fashion their own talented and gifted programs. States can use the money for a number of activities such as teacher training, equipment, materials, and technology. Under this program, states have a great deal of leeway in determining how best to meet the needs of their students. It also ensures that 88 percent of these funds will go toward enhancing student learning, not administrative costs. These talented and gifted student provisions fill a gap in current education policy. There is no federal directive to serve this student population. The only federal program dealing directly with talented and gifted education is the Jacob Javits Program. However, that program is directed toward research, not the students themselves. Furthermore, there is a great deal of disparity between the programs available to meet the needs and quality teacher preparedness of talented and gifted students. While most states do have some kind of talented and gifted program, the programs are not uniform across school districts and grade levels. I think all of us, regardless of party affiliation, agree that all students should get the education they need. While all students have the potential to make great contributions to society, the reality, Mr. President, is that talented and gifted students have the greatest potential to be either the leaders of tomorrow or a burden to society. These students will either put their talents to good use or they will direct their energy and gifts toward destructive, wasteful activities. It's important that we help to direct these students in a positive way. As a fiscal conservative, I have always fought for the wise and efficient use of the public's money. Investing in our future leaders, artists, scientists, and law enforcement officials, among others, is the most sound investment we can make. Again, I applaud Senator Jeffords for including this important provision in the bill and I urge you to join us in making a commitment to our nation's talented and gifted students.

Mr. GRASSLEY

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

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate completes its business today, it adjourn until the hour of 10 a.m. on Tuesday, May 9. I further ask unanimous consent that on Tuesday, immediately following the prayer, the Journal of proceedings be approved to date, the morning hour be deemed expired, the time for the two leaders be reserved for their use later in the day, and the Senate then begin debate on the Lieberman amendment to S. 2, the Elementary and Secondary Education Act.

Mr. GRASSLEY. Further, I ask consent that the Senate stand in recess from the hour of 12:30 p.m. to 2:15 p.m. for the weekly policy conferences to meet.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as if in morning business for 7 minutes.

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

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. If there is no further business to come before the Senate, I ask unanimous consent the Senate stand in adjournment under the previous order.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I announce that tomorrow morning the Senate will begin consideration of the nuclear waste bill and overriding the President's veto. Under the previous order, there will be 90 minutes under the control of Senator Murkowski and 90 minutes under the control of the Senators from Nevada. At 2:15 p.m., following the weekly party conferences, the Senate will resume consideration of the veto override for 1 hour, with a vote scheduled to occur at 3:15 p.m. Following the vote, the Senate is expected to resume consideration of the Elementary and Secondary Education Reauthorization Act. Further votes could occur throughout tomorrow's session of the Senate.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. I further ask unanimous consent that on Tuesday the Senate recess from 12:30 p.m. to 2:15 p.m. to accommodate the weekly party conferences.

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate completes its business today, it adjourn until the hour of 9:30 a.m. on Tuesday, May 2. I further ask unanimous consent that on Tuesday, immediately following the prayer, the Journal of proceedings be approved to date, the morning hour be deemed expired, the time for the two leaders be reserved for their use later in the day, and the Senate begin consideration of the veto override of the nuclear waste bill.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, for the leader, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate immediately proceed to executive session to consider all nominations on the Secretary's desk in the Coast Guard. I further ask unanimous consent that the nominations be confirmed, the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table, the President be immediately notified of the Senate's action, and that the Senate then return to legislative session.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, in 1968 the Congress of the United States passed the Wholesome Poultry Product Act of 1968. A former Congressman from Iowa by the name of Neal Smith--Members of the present Congress will remember--was a person who served the people of Iowa very well and spent a considerable amount of time during his years in Congress trying to build consumer confidence in poultry and other meats American consumers buy. In 1960, there were 1.8 billion chickens produced in the United States and consumed by the public. In 1998, it was up to 8 billion chickens. There has been a very dramatic rise in the consumption of chicken by the American consumer, all the more reason to make sure the Wholesome Poultry Products Act of 1968 is followed. There is a dismal picture painted about the inspection of poultry slaughterhouses in the United States and some question about whether the meat consumed by the American public is as wholesome as the 1968 act intended. This question arises because of a proposal in the Department of Agriculture to shift some routine Federal inspection from Federal inspectors to inspectors hired by the poultry slaughtering companies. An article was in yesterday's Des Moines Register, by Register Washington reporter George Anthan, who has been reporting on the subject of wholesome inspection of meat by the Department of Agriculture for almost his entire journalistic career. George Anthan is very much an authority on both what was intended and the enforcement of that law. Rather than summarizing, I will read what was reported yesterday in the Des Moines Register by George Anthan. The Agriculture Department admits consumers may detest chicken or turkey that contains pus from a pneumonia-like disease called air sacculitis. But the condition fails to threaten human health, federal officials say, and the issue of dealing with it can be left largely to the employees of meat processing companies, rather than to federal inspectors. The poultry condition is at the center of a dispute between the U.S. Department of Agriculture and the union that represents federal inspectors over how best to safeguard America's meat. A former Iowa Congressman, Neal Smith, says, ``I suppose you could sterilize pus and maybe it would not hurt you . . . but the fact is, we should not be eating that kind of stuff.'' Continuing the article: The Department of Agriculture is implementing a new inspection system that assigns many of the more routine duties now handled by federal inspectors to the companies they regulate. The inspectors, in turn, are supposed to look for systemic problems to prevent disease outbreaks before they happen. But the union maintains the change breaks a sacred trust with American consumers, who see the Department of Agriculture approval as proof that an independent inspector has signed off on the meat they put on their dining room tables. The controversy revolves around the Wholesome Poultry Products Act of 1968. Smith said he ``carefully and deliberately'' included the word ``wholesome'' in the law's title because ``people don't want to eat pus, and scabs, sores and malignant tumors.'' Officials at the Department of Agriculture's Food Safety and Inspection Service said that even though inspecting birds for air sacculitis will be the responsibility of the poultry companies, federal inspectors will monitor the process. Parenthetically, the question for the consumers in America is whether or not they can be satisfied that their food is safe because there is some Federal inspector monitoring it as opposed to Federal inspectors actually inspecting it. Continuing the article: They said if the inspectors determine birds with air sacculitis and other defects that don't affect human health are being passed for human consumption, they will notify companies, who are supposed to take corrective actions. ``The only thing an inspector could do under the new system is inform the plant that something is going wrong,'' said Felicia Nestor, a food safety specialist at the Government Accountability Project, a group that supports government whistle-blowers. ``They have no club, especially over the products that already have gone out the door,'' Nestor said. The Department of Agriculture's office of the Inspector General recently interviewed federal inspectors at a Gold Kist, Inc., chicken processing plant at Guntersville, Ala., where the inspection system is being tested. According to the inspector general's March 3 report, federal inspectors at the plant said that before the system was installed ``the inspectors were removing bad products from the lines.'' After the new system was implemented, government food inspectors ``were told to stop removing products from the lines,'' according to the report. Spot checks of the Guntersville plant found nine of 60 birds with air sacculitis on Feb. 5 and 20 of 70 birds on Feb. 7. The bad birds had not been removed by company employes ``who had taken the place of (Department of Agriculture) line inspectors,'' the report said. Air sacculitis can fill a bird's respiratory system, body cavity and hollow avian bones with pus and bacteria. While the controversy over air sacculitis involves mainly questions about the wholesomeness of pus-filled chickens and turkeys, the disease also was linked to human health problems at a recent meeting of a Department of Agriculture advisory committee on implementing the new inspection system. Daniel Lafontaine of Columbia, S.C., a veterinarian representing the American Veterinary Medicine Association, said he told agriculture officials at the meeting that ``birds that have air sacculitis may be a wholesomeness issue today and a day or two later these birds may be septicemic.'' After the blood stream has been invaded by virulent microorganisms, a chicken or turkey ``is not safe for human consumption,'' said the South Carolina state meat and poultry inspection system. Even if cooked properly, he said, ``pus can get pretty gross. You sure don't want to eat it.'' Kenneth Petersen, senior program manager in the Department of Agriculture's food inspection service, said birds with severe air sacculitis are supposed to be condemned by company employees. If monitoring federal inspectors determine through twice daily checks that they aren't, the firms involved can be cited for failing to meet food safety standards, he said. Under the new inspection system, as under traditional systems in which federal inspectors examine each carcass, birds with less serious cases of air sacculitis can be ``reworked'' by either cutting away pus-filled air sacs and other tissues or by using a vacuum device to remove the material, Petersen said. ``We recognize that wholesomeness issues are also important and we check for them,'' Petersen said. ``But our emphasis is on those things that may cause an ailment. So, we are seeking an appropriate balance.'' I ask the consumers of America to be aware, as they buy chicken and turkey, of whether or not the wholesomeness act of 1968 is being followed by the Congress of the United States. I yield the floor.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I would like to say a few words today about biotechnology and trade. As a working family farmer, I see the effects of this debate nearly every week at the grain elevators in my hometown of New Hartford, Iowa. With the benefit of this personal experience, and as chairman of the Senate Finance Committee's International Trade Subcommittee, I have addressed the issue of biotechnology and trade in many ways. Last October, my Trade Subcommittee looked at the biotechnology issue during hearings on agricultural trade policy. Last fall, I brought Charles Ludolph, the Deputy Assistant Secretary of Commerce for Europe, to Iowa to hear the concerns our corn and soybean growers have about the European food scare over GMO products. Last December, I addressed this issue at the WTO Ministerial Conference Meeting in Seattle. And I have continued to have high-level discussions about trade in genetically modified foods with the European Commission. I recently had another meeting in this city with David Byrne, the EU Commissioner for Consumer Health and Safety Protection. This was a very informative meeting. If followed a lengthy session I had with Commissioner Byrne in Seattle. In our Washington meeting, Commissioner Byrne and I discussed recent developments affecting trade and biotechnology within the European Union. It is with this deep background, and my long-standing concern about biotechnology and trade, that I would like to report to the people of Iowa and America that I still have great concerns about what we are seeing in Europe, and now in Japan. For nearly 30 years, Europe's governments have been telling their people that modern agricultural technology is dangerous. First, it was the pesticide scare of the 1970s. Even though we have added eight years to our life spans since we started widely spraying modern pesticides on our crops. Then it was growth hormones in meat. Even though European scientists have confirmed the safety of these hormones. Now it's genetically modified foods. Even though not one person has ever caught so much as a cold from eating a genetically enriched product. Now we learn that just last week, Japan's Ministry of Health and Welfare is getting set to require mandatory safety tests on genetically modified foods before they can be imported into Japan. This will dramatically and adversely affect our farmers, who ship about $10 billion worth of products a year to Japan. Every year, Japan relies on United States production for 80 percent of its corn imports. Japan is taking this action even though genetically modified products produced in the United States must be approved by a food regulatory agency that the world looks to as the model for what a food safety agency should do. And both the Japanese and the European Union governments know that genetically modified foods are only approved for sale after thousands of field trials and rigorous testing. So what's going on? Mr. President, I am convinced that a good part of these developments can be explained by a desire to restrain trade. Non-tariff trade barriers we've been fighting to eliminate for 50 years. Agricultural producers in Europe, and in Japan, can't grow corn, or soybeans, or many other products more efficiently, at better prices, than we can. So they look for other means to counter the competitive edge we enjoy. After the United States and our trading partners agreed to the Agreement on Agriculture, one of the Uruguay Round Agreements, it is more difficult now to use quotas, tariffs, and subsidies to favor domestic producers. So fear is used instead. Mr. President, it was a Democrat President, Franklin Roosevelt, who said, ``The only thing we have to fear is, fear itself.'' As far as biotechnology is concerned, the only thing Europe, and now Japan, have to offer is fear. It's how the Europeans have protected their domestic agricultural markets from American competition for 30 years. Just look at the comment by Germany's environment minister, Jurgen Tritten, when the European Commission proposed a redrafting of the legislation governing the admission of genetically modified products into the EU. Just as they planned it, this new European Union legislation has the effect of slowing the approval of new U.S. genetically modified products in Europe to a trickle. The German minister was elected. He hailed this legislation as a ``de facto moratorium.'' And if it's not the case that the Europeans, and now Japan, are using fear as a new trade barrier, why is it that these governments, and the antibiotechnology activists who are so worried about the impact of genetically modified foods, seem completely unconcerned about biotechnology in medicine? Is it because they really know that medical uses of biotechnology are completely safe? I don't want to give the impression that all of this consumer fear has been whipped up just to restrain trade. There is always legitimate concern about new technology, especially in food. But in my view, the unprecedented safety record of our food regulatory system completely eliminates this concern. And it appears that Europe's governments have overplayed the extent of consumer concern. A recent poll of 16,000 Europeans by the European Commission's own Environment Directorate found that Europe's citizens are less concerned about GMOs than they are over other environmental issues. When asked to rank their chief environmental concerns on a list of nine issues, GMOs finished ninth, in last place. There is also another dimension to this issue you don't hear the antibiotech activists talk about. That is the fact that we can now prove that biotechnology is the most powerful tool for good that our researchers have ever had. Right now, some 400 million people currently suffer from Vitamin A deficiency, including millions of children who go blind every year. A new genetically-enhanced form of rice containing beta-carotene, called ``golden rice,'' will mean these children will not be cruelly robbed of their sight. Another form of ``golden rice'' included genes to overcome the chronic iron deficiency suffered by 2 billion people in rice cultures. Women have always been subject to extra risk from birth complications because of anemia. What are the terrible risks in our food approval system that would justify blinding children, or subjecting Asian women to birth complications? The answer is simple: there are none. There is just the polities of fear. Because biotechnology is such a great force for good, this must change. What can we do about it? I don't have all the answers. But I do know this. We have got to talk about finding a worldwide solution. And we can only do that if the United States leads. Right now, the Quad Countries--the United States, the European Union, Japan, and Canada--lack a coherent vision for how to address the biotechnology issue. This is largely because the senior Quad partner, the United States, has backed away from its traditional leadership role in shaping global trade policy. In fact, as a result of this administration's lack of focus and vision, this is the first time in 50 years that we have not succeeded in going forward with a new global trade liberalization agenda. As a result, the United States is reduced to agreeing to half-hearted ideas put forward by the European Commission in Geneva, like a ``consultative forum'' to look at biotech issues. Mr. President, I'm not even sure what a ``consultative forum'' is, or what it is supposed to accomplish, but we have agreed to it. Another sign of this administration's failure of leadership on trade is the fact that at Seattle, we refused to seek a comprehensive round, knowing this unreasonable posture would never be accepted by our trading partners. In fact, the administration's refusal to negotiate a comprehensive round was a complete reversal of United States policy that successfully launched and completed the last round of global trade negotiations, the Uruguay Round. In 1986, our then United States Trade Representative, Clayton Yeutter, said only a comprehensive round would result in the greatest gains for the United States. He was right. It did. I have a high regard for Ambassador Rita Hayes and her team in Geneva. They are leading agriculture negotiations that started about one month ago. But their hands are tied. They have to negotiate within a very narrow framework because a political decision made months ago to limit the scope of new global trade negotiations made it all but certain that the talks in Seattle would not succeed. This is certainly a far cry from the traditional, bold United States trade agenda that has brought us such tremendous prosperity. Right now, agriculture is struggling. Our farmers are struggling. Mr. President, I said a few moments ago that Europe and Japan are using fear in place of facts with regard to trade and biotechnology. But we cannot counter fear with uncertainty. We cannot combat false information with confusion. And we cannot oppose political expediency in Europe with a lack of resolve at home. There is a great debate going on about extraordinary new technology and trade that we must lead. that sort of focused international leadership can only come from the White House. Because America speaks diplomatically only thru the Office of the President, we need an administration that understands that we must trade globally, so we can prosper locally. I urge the administration in the strongest possible terms to rise to this challenge.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, every young person in our country should have the opportunity to grow and learn in an environment that is free of drugs and violence. This is the type of environment Safe and Drug Free Schools promotes. With the recent results of the annual Monitoring the Future study, it is obvious that we need to continue to provide our young people with effective programs, such as Safe and Drug Free Schools, to assure positive learning environments. This year Monitoring the Future reported that nearly 55 percent of our high school seniors have used an illicit drug in the past month. In addition, the study found that nearly 50 percent of high school seniors have used marijuana in 1999 and this percentage has remained unchanged in 1998, as well as 1997. Sadly, the study also found that the percentage of 10th graders who reported use of marijuana increased from 39.6 percent in 1998 to nearly 41 percent in 1999. With these discouraging drug use and abuse trends, it is clear that we need to use every resource available for anti-drug efforts. Safe and Drug Free Schools provides our state and local education agencies with the funding necessary to implement effective, research- based programs that prevent and reduce violence and substance abuse in our schools. Studies show a high correlation between drug use and availability and school violence. We need to create a drug-free environment to promote a safe environment. In fact, many states have reported decreases in incidents of violence and drug use because of Safe and Drug Free Schools funds. It is imperative that we continue to provide our communities with the resources necessary to protect our children from violence and drugs. With our leadership and support, it is certain that these disturbing trends of drug use and increasing school violence will be reduced. I am committed to providing our young people with a positive learning environment free of drugs and safe from harm.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation which would make Social Security beneficiaries, who had their benefits misused by organizational representative payees, whole. While most people receive their Social Security and Supplemental Security Income benefit payments directly, others must have assistance in money management. Benefits, totaling over $25 billion, to these people are paid through representative payees who receive and manage the payments on behalf of the beneficiaries. Representative payee responsibilities include, but are not limited to, frequently monitoring the beneficiary's current well-being for food, shelter, clothing, medical care, and personal needs; informing the Social Security Administration of changes in the representative payee's own circumstances that would affect the performance of representative payee services; reporting events to the Social Security Administration that may affect the beneficiary's entitlement or amount of benefits; and submitting an annual accounting to SSA reporting about benefits received, used, and conserved. Currently, about 6.5 million Social Security and Supplemental Security Income program beneficiaries rely on representative payees to manage their monthly benefits. SSA usually looks for a payee among the beneficiary's family and friends. For others, those traditional networks of support are not available, and SSA relies on state, local, or community sources to fill the need. Family members serve as representative payees for about 88 percent of the beneficiaries requiring them. 45,050 organizations, such as institutions, government agencies, financial organizations, and qualified fee-for-service organizations, serve as payees for the other 12 percent, totaling 750,570 beneficiaries. As Chairman of the Special Committee on Aging, I am especially concerned about the 795,060 beneficiaries, age 62 and over, who are served by representative payees. With the retirement of the baby boomer generation on the horizon, the number of institutions, such as nursing homes, serving as payees stands to increase dramatically. Therefore, addressing this matter now is all the more urgent. The majority of representative payees provide much-needed help to beneficiaries without abusing this responsibility. A minority of payees misuse their position. SSA's Office of the Inspector General (OIG) has recently investigated several instances of misuse by organizational representative payees. One such investigation served as the subject of a recent ``20/20'' television news program segment. In this segment, several elderly Social Security beneficiaries accused Greg Gamble, of the Aurora Foundation, a former organizational payee, of using their benefits for his own purposes. On March 14, 2000, Mr. Gamble entered a guilty plea in federal court of embezzlement of Social Security funds. As part of the plea agreement, Mr. Gamble agreed to make restitution to SSA in the amount of $303,314.00. Although this is only one example of misuse, SSA's OIG has just begun investigating several instances of misuse. Since FY 1998, it has identified about $8 million in SSA representative payee fraud loss. SSA's OIG expects the number of misuse cases to increase as SSA increases its review of organizational representative payee records. When any payee has been determined to have misused an individual's benefits, SSA reassigns another payee to the beneficiary. Unfortunately, SSA can reissue the benefits only in cases where negligent failure on SSA's part to investigate or monitor the payee resulted in the misuse. In virtually all other cases, the individual loses his or her funds unless SSA can obtain restitution, through civil processes, of the misused benefits from the payee. If SSA is able to recover the misused amount, it may take years to do so. In the meantime, the beneficiary has lost the amount misused and may be temporarily inconvenienced, by not having money to pay rent, utilities, or food, until a new payee is assigned. In order to prevent misuse of benefits in the future, and to provide better accountability of benefits to beneficiaries, I am introducing the ``Social Security Beneficiaries Protection Act,'' along with my co- sponsor and Special Committee on Aging Ranking Member Senator Breaux. This bipartisan bill: (1) gives SSA the authority to re-issue benefits misused by organizational payees on its own determination (presently, benefits are only re-issued when a court finds that SSA negligently failed to investigate/monitor the payee); (2) requires non-governmental organizational payees to be bonded and licensed (presently, there is a bonding or licensing requirement); (3) requires fee forfeiture when payees misuse benefits; (4) gives SSA overpayment recovery authority for benefits misused by non-governmental payees; and (5) extends civil monetary penalty authority to SSA (of not more than $5,000 per violation for misuse offenses). I urge my fellow Senators to support Senator Breaux and me in ensuring that our Nation's most vulnerable citizens, senior citizens and the disabled, will receive every dollar of benefits to which they are entitled. I would also like to remind everyone that the Senate Special Committee on Aging is holding a hearing on misuse of benefits by Social Security organizational representative payees Tuesday, May 2, 2000, at 10:00 a.m. in 562 Dirksen.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation which would make Social Security beneficiaries, who had their benefits misused by organizational representative payees, whole. While most people receive their Social Security and Supplemental Security Income benefit payments directly, others must have assistance in money management. Benefits, totaling over $25 billion, to these people are paid through representative payees who receive and manage the payments on behalf of the beneficiaries. Representative payee responsibilities include, but are not limited to, frequently monitoring the beneficiary's current well-being for food, shelter, clothing, medical care, and personal needs; informing the Social Security Administration of changes in the representative payee's own circumstances that would affect the performance of representative payee services; reporting events to the Social Security Administration that may affect the beneficiary's entitlement or amount of benefits; and submitting an annual accounting to SSA reporting about benefits received, used, and conserved. Currently, about 6.5 million Social Security and Supplemental Security Income program beneficiaries rely on representative payees to manage their monthly benefits. SSA usually looks for a payee among the beneficiary's family and friends. For others, those traditional networks of support are not available, and SSA relies on state, local, or community sources to fill the need. Family members serve as representative payees for about 88 percent of the beneficiaries requiring them. 45,050 organizations, such as institutions, government agencies, financial organizations, and qualified fee-for-service organizations, serve as payees for the other 12 percent, totaling 750,570 beneficiaries. As Chairman of the Special Committee on Aging, I am especially concerned about the 795,060 beneficiaries, age 62 and over, who are served by representative payees. With the retirement of the baby boomer generation on the horizon, the number of institutions, such as nursing homes, serving as payees stands to increase dramatically. Therefore, addressing this matter now is all the more urgent. The majority of representative payees provide much-needed help to beneficiaries without abusing this responsibility. A minority of payees misuse their position. SSA's Office of the Inspector General (OIG) has recently investigated several instances of misuse by organizational representative payees. One such investigation served as the subject of a recent ``20/20'' television news program segment. In this segment, several elderly Social Security beneficiaries accused Greg Gamble, of the Aurora Foundation, a former organizational payee, of using their benefits for his own purposes. On March 14, 2000, Mr. Gamble entered a guilty plea in federal court of embezzlement of Social Security funds. As part of the plea agreement, Mr. Gamble agreed to make restitution to SSA in the amount of $303,314.00. Although this is only one example of misuse, SSA's OIG has just begun investigating several instances of misuse. Since FY 1998, it has identified about $8 million in SSA representative payee fraud loss. SSA's OIG expects the number of misuse cases to increase as SSA increases its review of organizational representative payee records. When any payee has been determined to have misused an individual's benefits, SSA reassigns another payee to the beneficiary. Unfortunately, SSA can reissue the benefits only in cases where negligent failure on SSA's part to investigate or monitor the payee resulted in the misuse. In virtually all other cases, the individual loses his or her funds unless SSA can obtain restitution, through civil processes, of the misused benefits from the payee. If SSA is able to recover the misused amount, it may take years to do so. In the meantime, the beneficiary has lost the amount misused and may be temporarily inconvenienced, by not having money to pay rent, utilities, or food, until a new payee is assigned. In order to prevent misuse of benefits in the future, and to provide better accountability of benefits to beneficiaries, I am introducing the ``Social Security Beneficiaries Protection Act,'' along with my co- sponsor and Special Committee on Aging Ranking Member Senator Breaux. This bipartisan bill: (1) gives SSA the authority to re-issue benefits misused by organizational payees on its own determination (presently, benefits are only re-issued when a court finds that SSA negligently failed to investigate/monitor the payee); (2) requires non-governmental organizational payees to be bonded and licensed (presently, there is a bonding or licensing requirement); (3) requires fee forfeiture when payees misuse benefits; (4) gives SSA overpayment recovery authority for benefits misused by non-governmental payees; and (5) extends civil monetary penalty authority to SSA (of not more than $5,000 per violation for misuse offenses). I urge my fellow Senators to support Senator Breaux and me in ensuring that our Nation's most vulnerable citizens, senior citizens and the disabled, will receive every dollar of benefits to which they are entitled. I would also like to remind everyone that the Senate Special Committee on Aging is holding a hearing on misuse of benefits by Social Security organizational representative payees Tuesday, May 2, 2000, at 10:00 a.m. in 562 Dirksen.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, many times I have come to the floor to express my concerns regarding the threat of illegal drugs to our young people. Today, I want to address one drug in particular, a designer drug called Ecstasy. Although it has been around a long time, its use has exploded recently. As with most such drugs, drug pushers are marketing it as a safe drug. That's a lie. Ecstasy is a Schedule I synthetic drug with amphetamine-like properties that is inexpensive and easy to make. It acts as a stimulant and a hallucinogen for approximately 4 to 6 hours and gives its users a false sense of ease and relaxation. Because of these effects, Ecstasy is often found in big city club scenes that specialize in attracting young people. Recently, however, the nation is experiencing an Ecstasy explosion, which is spreading this dangerous drug into suburban and rural areas. With the recent release of a study on substance abuse in mid-size cities and rural America by the National Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse (CASA), this is particularly disturbing. In January of this year, CASA warned that Americans need to recognize that drugs are not only an urban problem, but a rural problem as well. I see this in my own state of Iowa. CASA reports that 8th graders living in rural America are 34 percent more likely to smoke marijuana and 83 percent more likely to use crack cocaine, than those in urban areas. It also reports that among 10th graders, use rates in rural areas exceed those in urban areas for every drug except marijuana and Ecstasy. The key here is that Ecstasy is not yet, but is quickly becoming a rural drug. It is imperative that parents and kids become aware of Ecstasy and the dangers of use. Unfortunately, Ecstasy is quickly becoming the drug of choice among many of our young people. It is perceived by many as harmless because negative effects are not immediately noticeable. In fact, Ecstasy is often referred to as a recreational drug. For this reason, it is not surprising that Monitoring the Future, an annual study that monitors illicit drug use among teenagers, reported Ecstasy use growing. Lifetime use among 12th graders increased from one in fifteen in 1998 to one in twelve in 1999. Past year use went from one in twenty-five in 1998 to one in fifteen in 1999. This is a disturbing upward trend. Ecstasy is a dangerous drug that can be lethal. Many are unaware that it can cause increased heart rate, nausea, fainting, chills, and sleep problems. In addition to physical effects, there are also psychological effects such as panic, confusion, anxiety, depression, and paranoia. Scientists are also learning that Ecstasy may cause irreversible brain damage, and in some cases it simply stops the heart. We need to put an end to the spread of Ecstasy into our communities. We need to take away its image as safe. We need to counter the arguments, that it is a fun drug. However, with recent reports of rises in Ecstasy seizures by the U.S. Customs Service, it seems we have a long, hard battle ahead of us. In fiscal year 1999, Customs seized 3 million doses of Ecstasy. In the first 5 months of fiscal year 2000, Customs seized 4 million doses. Ecstasy has become such a threat that Customs has established an Ecstasy Task Force to gather intelligence on criminal smuggling of Ecstasy. Customs has also trained 13 dogs to detect Ecstasy among those crossing the border and entering major airports. Although much is being done to stop the flow into our country, we need to play our part and educate the young people in our communities. In my home state of Iowa, Ecstasy is not yet a major problem and this may be the case in your home states as well. However, I am here today to tell you that if it isn't a problem now, it may be soon. We need to stop the use of Ecstasy before it starts. And the way to do that is to educate the parents and young people in our communities on the dangers. I don't want to see any more innocent lives cut short or careers ruined because of bad or no information.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, today, I am introducing legislation that would give support to community antidrug coalitions nation-wide. The National Community Coalition Institute would strengthen and enhance the role of community coalitions, to reduce and prevent drug use in communities. More specifically, one of the problems we have found in implementing the Drug Free Communities Program has been the inexperience of a lot of the communities, particularly smaller and rural ones in knowing how to evaluate their efforts; get information on best practices from other, successful coalitions, and on how to fill out grant applications. The National Community Coalition Institute would improve the effectiveness of community coalitions by providing state-of-the-art and widely available education, training, and technical assistance for coalition leaders and community teams. The National Community Coalition Institute would ensure that communities nation-wide are adequately prepared to undertake the important work of building drug free communities. Ultimately, the fight against drugs cannot be successful if it does not start in our own backyards. I invite all of my colleagues to join me in supporting this effort.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, today, I am introducing legislation that would give support to community antidrug coalitions nation-wide. The National Community Coalition Institute would strengthen and enhance the role of community coalitions, to reduce and prevent drug use in communities. More specifically, one of the problems we have found in implementing the Drug Free Communities Program has been the inexperience of a lot of the communities, particularly smaller and rural ones in knowing how to evaluate their efforts; get information on best practices from other, successful coalitions, and on how to fill out grant applications. The National Community Coalition Institute would improve the effectiveness of community coalitions by providing state-of-the-art and widely available education, training, and technical assistance for coalition leaders and community teams. The National Community Coalition Institute would ensure that communities nation-wide are adequately prepared to undertake the important work of building drug free communities. Ultimately, the fight against drugs cannot be successful if it does not start in our own backyards. I invite all of my colleagues to join me in supporting this effort.