Chuck Grassley

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate completes its business today, it adjourn until the hour of 10 a.m. on Tuesday, March 7. 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 a period of morning business until 12:30 p.m. with Senators speaking for up to 5 minutes each, with the following exceptions: Senator Brownback, 30 minutes; Senators Murkowski and Hatch, 20 minutes total; Senator Collins, 15 minutes; Senator Grams, 45 minutes; Senator Dorgan, 20 minutes; and Senator Durbin, 20 minutes.

Mr. GRASSLEY. I further ask consent that the Senate recess from 12:30 to 2:15 on Tuesday for the weekly policy luncheons.

Mr. GRASSLEY. I ask unanimous consent that at 2:15 on Tuesday, the Senate proceed to executive session to consider en bloc Executive Calendar No. 159 and No. 208, the nominations of Marsha Berzon and Richard Paez.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Madam President, there are a number of misconceptions about the upcoming vote in the Senate to grant China permanent normal trading relations or, as we often call it, PNTR. I will refer to it as normal trading relations. Today, as chairman of the International Trade Subcommittee, and to inform my colleagues about the importance of this issue because I favor normal trading relations with China, I want to address two misunderstandings regarding China. The first misconception is that a vote by the Senate on normal trading relations is a vote to admit China to the World Trade Organization. We do not have anything to do with China being in the World Trade Organization. It is a wrong misconception. Also, there is a belief if we do not approve PNTR, China will not be able to join the World Trade Organization. As a member of the World Trade Organization, we can say something about it through our representative there, but in the Senate our vote on PNTR will not affect China's ability to join the WTO. I want to tell my colleagues what will be consequence of not approving permanent normal trading relations with China. The only thing that will happen if we vote against permanent normal trading relations with China is that American farmers and all of our businesses will miss out on lower tariff rates and the other market-access concessions China will grant to farmers and businesses in other countries. Remember, China is not just a big chunk of land; China is 20 percent of the world's population. When we talk about doing business with China, we are not talking about doing business in East Podunk; we are talking about doing business with 20 percent of the people of this Earth. Let me explain what the PNTR vote is really about. Congress has placed conditions on our trade with China. These stipulations are not consistent with the core World Trade Organization obligations for member countries to grant each other unconditional, most-favored-nation treatment. If we do not grant permanent normal trading relations with China, thus removing the Jackson-Vanik restrictions, and if, at the same time, China eventually becomes a World Trade Organization member-- and this is going to happen sooner or later--then the World Trade Organization rules will require the United States to opt out of the tariff and market access concessions we helped negotiate. It does not hurt China, it does not hurt any of the other 137 members of the World Trade Organization, but it is going to help us because these other countries will get market access. Other countries will gain and build market share in China while the United States is sitting on the sidelines. This will be at the expense of the American soybean farmers, at the expense of the American pork producers, at the expense of the American insurance companies, and other financial service providers. You can list any segment of the American economy. I happen to list those that are very much related to the economy of my State. In the process, China--this country with 20 percent of the world's population--will not be hurt one bit, either. Let's make it clear. Let's say somehow the Congress decides we do not want permanent normal trading relations with China, and China joins the World Trade Organization. China gets the benefit of that. All the other countries get the benefit of that. Let's say we decide to not complete the agreement with China. China is not going to be hurt one bit. In fact, hundreds of millions of Chinese consumers--20 percent of the world's population--will reap the benefits of free trade. Our farmers and businesses will surely suffer. This is not fair. Since I am a Republican, I would like to quote a Democrat. Within the last week, before the Senate Agriculture Committee, Secretary of Agriculture Glickman said something very interesting. He said that for a couple decades we have been letting almost anything from China they want to export come into our country, with few restrictions. Yes, this open access has certainly helped our consumers. When we talk about the difficulty of getting our goods into China, we have to deal with state trading organizations, and with a lot of nontariff trade barriers. So it is quite obvious this agreement with China would be a win-win situation for the United States of America. That is Secretary of Agriculture Glickman speaking not only about agriculture but speaking about all the nonagricultural manufacturing products and services that we can send to that country as a result of this agreement. Remember, the first misconception I cited is that some believe if China does not get permanent normal trading relations, that it is going to keep China from joining the World Trade Organization. But if China does get in the World Trade Organization, she will have a fairly free trade relationship with 137 other countries. And then we will not have that same agreement with China. It will be a lose-lose situation for America. The second misconception I want to address is that even if China does get into the World Trade Organization, it will not mean that much right away for American manufacturers and American agriculture. That is something that could not be further from the truth because we are going to reap immediate benefits from China having normal trading relations with us. As well, with China being a member of the World Trade Organization, we will benefit from that relationship with China. Because we are also in the WTO, we will benefit from what happens with the increased trade that results from that. The fact is, China is not only a large economy, it also happens to be a very dynamic economy. Because they have made economic reforms there, China's leaders have sparked an economic renewal that has led to growth rates of 7 to 10 percent every year of the last decade, easily dwarfing the rates of our own superheated economy in the United States. China's economy has grown 7 to 10 percent. Quite frankly, I do not know whether they want to admit this, but China's economy has to grow at least 5 percent for them to make room for all the young people coming into the workforce. Any way you look at it--the 5 percent they have to have to keep people employed or the 7 to 10 percent they have had in recent years-- there is a lot of new prosperity in China. As a consequence of this, China is buying a great deal of everything, especially agriculture products. But because about one-third of China's economic activity is generated and controlled by state-owned enterprises, China often manipulates its markets in a way that harms its trading partners. This agreement we have with China takes care of this problem. I would like to give you an example. It is one that is well known to the soybean farmers of my own State of Iowa. In 1992, China soybean oil consumption shot up from about 750,000 metric tons to 1.7 million metric tons. Keeping pace with this increased new demand, soybean oil imports also more than doubled. In order to keep up with surging domestic demand, China imported more soybeans and soybean meal, much of it from the United States, and, in fact, much of it from my State of Iowa--the leading producer of soybeans of the 50 States. When China's soybean imports hit their peak in 1997, soybean meal in the United States was trading at an average base price of about $240 per ton. This meant for a while farmers were getting a lot better price than they are now for soybeans, sometimes close to $7 per bushel. Everyone was better off. China's consumers got what they wanted. American soybean growers prospered. Of course, this is the way trade is supposed to work. But suddenly, Chinese state-run trading companies arbitrarily shut off imports of soybeans. Soybean meal that was selling in 1997 for $240 per ton in the United States plummeted to $125 per ton by January 1999. Soybeans selling for over $7 per bushel in 1997, fell to just over $4 per bushel by last summer. So you can imagine what happened on the farm with the loss of that income. Combined with other factors, farmers were unable to pay their bills. Many farmers who were considered by their bankers to be well off are struggling to recover. In trade, what happens in China does make a difference in the United States of America, at least with our economy. This shows what occurs when protectionism, when trade barriers, when tariffs, and when government-run controls take the place of the free market. Trade is distorted. Consumers abroad have less choice. And American family farmers suffer. It also demonstrates how important China's entry into the World Trade Organization is for America's farmers. With a new bilateral market access agreement in place, and with meaningful protocol agreements that should soon be in place, China will not be able to use straight state trading enterprises to arbitrarily restrict and manipulate agriculture trade, and trade in any product, for that matter. Once China has entered the World Trade Organization, they will have to do away with those organizations that violate the principles of a free market economy because they will have to in order to get into the World Trade Organization. For the first time in history, China would be bound by enforceable international trade rules. When we trade with other countries, we export more than farm equipment, soybeans, computer chips, insurance, banking, a lot of services. We export part of our society and what our society stands for, the American values and ideals that can be communicated sometimes in commerce, that can never be communicated by American political leaders and by American diplomats. I think the exporting of our values and our ideals is very good. This is surely good for the World Trade Organization. It is good for China. It is good for the United States. I believe it is part of the process of keeping the peace. We seldom get a real chance in Congress to make this a better and safer world in a very large way without expending American blood and deploying American military might around the world. This is one of those rare opportunities, through commerce and through a very peaceful approach, to do something for peace around the world. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting permanent normal trading relations with China. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Mr. GRASSLEY

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

Mr. GRASSLEY. Madam President, regardless of the conditions for speaking in morning business, I ask unanimous consent to speak for 15 minutes.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, today I introduced a companion piece of legislation to H.R. 3822, the Oil Price Reduction Act of 2000. This bill will help to address the problems our constituencies are experiencing throughout the nation due to climbing fuel prices. Last weekend I traveled back to my home and held a briefing near Des Moines to explain to my constituents that prices will likely rise significantly past current levels. I had the displeasure of looking truckers and farmers in the eye and telling them there is no relief in sight. In my home state we are experiencing price levels not seen in almost a decade, but all I could tell them was that it is going to get worse. Many of my colleagues know the cold, hard truth of the matter. When the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) finally makes a substantive, definitive decision to increase oil production, it will still most likely take 60 days before adequate levels of fuel can be distributed throughout the U.S. That means if the OPEC Cartel decided to remedy the harm they have imposed on the American consumer today, we are still at least six weeks away from witnessing the peak in the price increase. We could very well see $2 per gallon gasoline by May and that is not acceptable. Iowans and the rest of the nation should not have been subjected to this price spike. The monopolistic production controls promulgated by OPEC in March of 1999 should have been challenged by our administration upon establishment, not when we finally felt the pinch. In addition, the Administration's energy policy is an aberration. This crisis only accentuates the problem with relying on foreign energy instead of expanding domestic opportunities. Since 1992, U.S. oil production is down 17% while consumption has risen 14%. We now import 56% of our oil and that number is growing rapidly. DOE predicts that by 2020 we will import 65% of our oil. Guess which country has benefited the most from the Administration's energy policy? As unbelievable as this seems it's Iraq. Saddam Hussein's Iraq. Iraq is now our fastest growing source for oil. How can we be administering a policy that strengthens this dictator's grip on our economy and the Middle East? The bill I introduced today would require the President of the United States to cut off foreign aid and arms sales to countries engaged in oil price fixing. Specifically, the legislation would require the President to send a report to Congress, within 30 days of enactment, detailing the U.S. security relationship with each OPEC member and any other major oil exporting country; assistance programs and government-supported arms sales provided to those countries; and his determination regarding the extent each country is engaged in oil price fixing and whether such price fixing is detrimental to the U.S. economy. The bill would then require the President to reduce, terminate or suspend any assistance or arms sales to the country or countries determined to be fixing oil prices. In addition, the legislation would require the President to submit a report to Congress 90 days after enactment describing the diplomatic efforts by the U.S. to convince all major net oil exporting countries that current price levels are unsustainable and will cause widespread economic harm in oil consuming and developing nations. Even if the production quotas put in place last year are lifted, low reserves may continue to plunder American consumers and farmers during the busy summer vacation and planting seasons. The Clinton administration was caught off-guard this year without much of an energy policy. Now, the President needs to exercise his authority to help solve the problem, which is going to get worse before it gets better.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Special Committee on Aging be permitted to meet on March 6, 2000, from 1:00 p.m. to 4:00 p.m. in Hart 216 for the purpose of conducting a hearing.

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Subcommittee on Emerging Threats and Capabilities of the Committee on Armed Services be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Monday, March 6, 2000, at 2:30 p.m., in open and closed sessions to receive testimony on the Department of Defense's Cooperative Threat Program and the Department of Energy's Russian Threat Reduction Programs.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Madam President, for our leader, I ask unanimous consent that at 5 p.m. on Tuesday, March 7, the Senate proceed to executive session and immediately proceed to a vote on the confirmation of Calendar No. 423, the nomination of Julio M. Fuentes to be United States Circuit Judge for the Third Circuit. Finally, I ask unanimous consent that following the vote, the President be notified of the Senate's action, and the Senate then resume legislative business.

Mr. GRASSLEY. I now ask unanimous consent that it be in order to ask for the yeas and nays on the nomination.

Mr. GRASSLEY. Therefore, I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. If there is no further business to come before the Senate, I now ask that the Senate stand in adjournment under the previous order, following the remarks of Senator Durbin.

Mr. GRASSLEY. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. For the information of all Senators, following the party luncheons tomorrow, the Senate will begin consideration of two Ninth Circuit judges who are on the calendar. There are a number of Senators who have expressed a desire to speak with respect to those nominations. Under a previous order, at 5 o'clock p.m. on Tuesday, the Senate will vote on the confirmation of Executive Calendar No. 423, the nomination of Julio Fuentes. Senators can, therefore, expect the next vote to occur at 5 o'clock tomorrow afternoon. Votes are expected each day and possibly evening this week as the Senate attempts to finish its business prior to the upcoming adjournment.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, presently we are experiencing the country's highest petroleum prices this decade. And there is every indication the price is going to go higher and higher. I think we need to start looking at why and not look at where to place blame. I think we have to find a common sense solution to the situation because it's not going to get any better in the short term even if OPEC decides to pump more oil and ship more oil to the United States. The fact of the matter is that regardless whether OPEC complies with our wishes there are still two reasons we are bound to face a similar dilemma again in the future. The No. 1 reason is that the United States and other energy-consuming nations are going to continue to consume a greater amount of gasoline and petroleum products over the next several decades. The demand is going to increase. The second reason is that as long as OPEC remains a powerful cartel willing to violate the principles of a free marketplace and continue its stranglehold on the production of oil, it will be able to radically effect our economy and financial stability. As I look at how this administration is responding to the high price of oil, all I can see is that Secretary of Energy Richardson has been dispatched to the various oil-producing nations. The administration in a sense is having the Secretary get down on his knees and beg for OPEC nations to produce more oil. Even if he is successful--some indications are that he might be to the tune of 1 million or 1\1/2\ million barrels--it is going to be another 60 days before that oil makes any impact on the price of gasoline at the pump in my State of Iowa or anyplace in the United States. Regardless of whether he is successful or not, this is a pretty poor energy policy. Every time the price of oil gets so high that administration sends the Secretary of Energy around to beg for more oil to be produced, we ought to be looking at what we can do to be energy independent. This sort of extreme energy policy that President Clinton has seemingly implemented is gouging the consumers of America. One example of something the President could do right now would be to develop greater reliance upon alternative energy and renewable sources. The President should be relying upon the ethanol and other renewable fuels instead of the ability of his Energy Secretary to be persuasive. I am not only speaking for the economy of my State when I make this point about ethanol. I am talking about all renewable fuels. Ethanol is one of those renewable fuels. The reason I continue to hound the administration about ethanol is that right now the Environmental Protection Agency has an opportunity, if the President would bring it to their attention--and I called upon him in a letter last year to do this--to eliminate MTBE from gasoline nationwide and replace it with ethanol. MTBE, a nonrenewable source of oxygenated fuel which is a competitor to ethanol, is already documented as poisoning water and has been outlawed in the State of California. The EPA should make the decision that MTBE ought to be outlawed in all 50 States, as the Governor of California has decided to do in the State of California. This action would encourage the production of ethanol and fill the void which MTBE has left in California. The amount of ethanol that could be marketed in California is equal to the use of ethanol in all 50 States right now. The President, in making that decision, would be able to not only continue to use oxygenated fuel to clean up the air, he could also help agriculture, create new jobs, and make us less dependent upon foreign sources of oil, which strengthens our economy and national security. Obviously, since one-third of our trade deficit comes from the importation of oil, he would also reduce our trade deficit by relying on renewable fuels. But the most important aspect is that to the extent which we rely on domestically produced renewable sources of energy, we would not be forced to plead with OPEC every time they meet and decide they are going to gouge the American consumer. Just the fact that the members of OPEC, many being Arab nations, agreed to reduce production and dramatically increase our cost bothers me tremendously. Is this how they show their respect for the Americans who shed their blood in the Persian Gulf war so that the region would not be dominated by Saddam Hussein? This surely is true of Kuwait, the third leading exporter of oil in the world. Kuwait ought to show a little sense of gratitude to the American military and American taxpayers for saving them from that sort of dominance. But this only goes to show me we are actually dealing with a domestic problem. We seemingly cannot force OPEC to act reasonable, because if these nations want to continue their monopolistic practice, unless we are willing to take retaliatory action, we are going to be beholding to them. Consequently, this extreme policy of having no domestic policy on energy is devastating the consumers of America. We need to have that reliance upon alternative fuels. Another glaring problem with the Administration's energy policy is their policy has reduced the domestic production of energy, oil, natural gas, et cetera, by limiting the areas in the United States where exploration can take place. If they had anticipated $30 oil, I don't think they would have followed that policy. They had other thoughts in mind when they adopted that policy and restricted the exploration of oil. Consequently, they have put the United States in a position where we have not had much drilling going on in the continental U.S. or offshore. Now we are paying the price. In addition, there is a lot of regulatory red tape involved with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission. One of the pipeline companies put in an application to build a pipeline to the Northeast. The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission put so many conditions upon the building of that pipeline, it became too costly and the pipeline company decided not to build. If one wonders why the price is $2 a gallon for heating oil in New England--when a year ago it was only about 60 cents--it is because of a regulatory policy that makes it almost impossible for people who are willing to invest to derive economic benefit from their investment. We ought to look at some of the regulations of this administration that tend to discourage exploration, that prohibit exploration, or that have made it very difficult to deliver the product from the refineries to the consumers. OPEC's attempt to drive up the price of oil, at great cost to the US consumer, is causing economic instability which also serves to injure our national security. The United States has long been the locomotive preserving peace around the world and when we are in jeopardy, peace is in jeopardy. The concept of world peace promoted by the US has led to an era of trying to free up trade internationally through the World Trade Organization. There are countries in OPEC who want to belong to the World Trade Organization. By simultaneously being a member of the petroleum exporting countries, and being a part of that organization, their whole approach to determining price is antithetical to the free trade principles of the World Trade Organization. I don't think we ought to be supportive of OPEC nations joining the World Trade Organization if they don't want to follow the principles of free trade established within the WTO, which are contrary to OPEC's recent monopolistic action. There is also $415 million of the taxpayers' money that the administration hopes to provide to some of the OPEC nations in the form of foreign aid. While we have traditionally done this for three or four decades, should we continue to give taxpayers' money, paid for by working men and women in this country, to the very same countries that have imposed egregious oil prices upon those same men and women? And at the same time encourage those consumers and working people of America, every day when they go to work, to pay more taxes into the Federal Treasury even though the price of gasoline continues to increase? There is a third lever we can use against some of these countries. Mr. President, 20 percent of all the money for International Monetary Fund loans comes from the American taxpayer. We should encourage the International Monetary Fund to review the anticompetitive energy policy exhibited by foreign states as a factor when considering approval for loans. At the very least our 20% contribution should be conditioned on this criteria. We should not stand by while the same countries who gouge American taxpayers benefit from our 20 percent contribution. I hope we use all the leverage we can against OPEC, but the only real solution is ultimately less reliance upon imported sources of oil and more on domestic production and/or renewable fuels. I yield the floor and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I rise to speak about some provisions in this bill I have long backed to improve education. But before I point my remarks directly to those few provisions of the bill, I would like to put this whole thing into context, if I could. No. 1, the American people are very concerned about education in the United States. If there is any one thing they want the Congress, the State legislatures, and the local schools and municipalities to address, it is the problem of education. I am convinced they want the decisionmaking to be done at the local level, but they would like to have both moral leadership and some resources to come from Washington. I happen to be one who believes those resources that come from Washington, to the extent they are given to States and local communities with few strings attached--less redtape and less paperwork--the better off we are. But I think, in the context of even more money, we want to think in terms of, if the money were the sole solution to the problems of education, then that would be an easy solution: Just appropriate more money. I think in terms of the $5,500 per student per year spent in my State of Iowa and the fact that our graduates end up either first, second, or third on the ACT scores in our competition with Minnesota and Wisconsin. For 7 or 8 years in a row, our graduates have ended up first in the SATs. That is the result. We ought to be concerned about results and not about process when we look at spending the taxpayers' dollars. Compare, on the one hand, that $5,500 per year spent by the State of Iowa--still, my State legislators would say: There is a lot of concern about the need to do more to improve the product of our educational system in our State--with the approximately $11,000 that is spent in the District of Columbia--almost twice the amount spent in my State-- and look at the massive dropout rate from the high schools in the District of Columbia. You can only conclude that there has to be a lot done in the District of Columbia other than just spending more money because if you looked at just more money being the solution to the educational problems, then I would quickly conclude that the District of Columbia ought to be doing much better than my State of Iowa. People are very concerned about education. So in each one of our State capitals, and in the Congress of the United States, there is a great deal of time being spent on education, as there ought to be. We believe every child is entitled to a good education, entitled to that good education in a crime-free environment and with the best of teachers. We also have to remember a basic principle: Education is all about children. The product of our schools is what matters. Does the process have the children in mind, or are there sometimes special interests beyond just the children's welfare to which we give too much attention? We have seen studies indicating that whatever we do in the schools, spending money or a policy other than spending money, one of the best things we can do to enhance the environment of learning is to get parents involved in the education of their children, checking the homework, talking about it at the dinner table, in every respect encouraging that child in that family to learn, and also being supportive of the educational environment the child comes from, whether it be the public school or the private school, or some other learning environment of which that child might be a part. We have to make sure we have the educational result that no child will fall through the cracks and, for those who do, that there is a process that the results in getting that child the best possible education so they can succeed in life as well. This bill is all about encouraging families to save money for the education of their kids from kindergarten through graduate school, planning for the future, not relying upon somebody else. With present tax dollars, less than 50 percent of the education dollar is spent in the classroom. That means we have to look at the allocation of resources within education and decide is it better to spend that on administration or is it better to spend it on teachers in the classroom, the ones who have the hands-on contact with the minute-by- minute education of everybody in that classroom. We have to have accountability for education dollars. I am not sure we have that accountability today, when we are spending less in the classroom than we ought to be spending and more on other aspects of education than we ought to be spending. This bill is concerned with our children. When you are concerned about our children, you are concerned about the future. When you are concerned about the future of American children, you are concerned about America's future and our place in the world, our ability to lead the world, and our ability, individually and the country as a whole, to be economically competitive in the global environment in which we are now competing. Too many people look to Washington for the answer. They might say: Well, if you're saying people shouldn't look to Washington for an answer, they ought to look to their parents, they ought to look to their local or private school, why this legislation? Well, this legislation is all about empowering families, empowering parents. It is not concerned with process. It is concerned with giving parents choice. Basically, all the money that comes into the Federal Treasury is taxpayers' money. It comes from that individual working man or woman in America who pays taxes. This is about giving them some control over their own resources. It is about giving them choice. It is about not having help come from Washington with a lot of redtape connected with it to create more paperwork for the teachers than maybe the dollars they receive are worth. This definitely is not about making education policy in Washington, DC--pouring one mold in Washington and making all policy out of that mold. If we were to do that, we would be saying the problems of New York City can be solved in exactly the same way as they can be solved in Waterloo, IA. One of two things is going to happen. Either we are going to fail in one place and succeed in another or, simultaneous with that, if we get the taxpayers' money's worth in New York, we won't get their money's worth in Waterloo. So consequently, it is about saying that our country is so geographically vast and our population so heterogeneous that you shouldn't pour one mold in Washington and expect to accomplish the same amount of good wherever you are in the United States with those same taxpayer dollars. This is a way of saying to the American people: We give you an encouragement to save. We give you a tax incentive to save for the education of your children. What meets the educational policy needs of your family, the needs of your child, in the final analysis it is made by the family for which these resources should be used, empowering the family, involving the family to a greater extent in the education of their children, and also giving them the resources to meet those needs. It is not one size fits all. If we have 110 million different taxpayers in America, then this gives the possibility of 110 million different answers to the problems of education in America. With that background, I will speak about the two or three provisions of this legislation that I have been involved in, some of which were in the tax bill that had been vetoed in the past. In particular, I mention the tax deduction for student loan interest beyond its current 60-month payment restriction. Everybody who is paying attention to this legislation knows that the important part of this bill is expanding the education savings account from $500 per year to $2,000 per year. In conjunction with this, we are trying to do some things that have other tax benefits to help education, some for kindergarten through 12 and some for higher education. What I am speaking about regarding my involvement is eliminating the 60-month payment restriction for which I fought 6 years and finally got adopted in 1997, the provisions of our Tax Code that reinstitute the deductibility of interest on student loans. To fit that into the overall revenue-neutrality provisions of the budget law, we had to cap it at 60 months. This legislation would remove that 60-month cap. As the cost of higher education continues to rise, the levels of student debt are spiraling upward. Students and their families are finding that financing a higher education is burdensome. Some students, due to financial concerns, are unable to receive the education they need. We have a duty to assist them in their need and, in so doing, send a clear message that the Congress understands their hardships and values their efforts in improving themselves through college. Also, it gives me an opportunity to establish a principle involved in this legislation beyond just the economic points of view we are trying to make about getting an education and the economic value of that--that is, to send a clear signal to the young people of America that borrowing money to enhance their intellect is just as important, as far as the Tax Code of this country is concerned, as borrowing money for capital investment in some business. And it seems to me that parity is legitimate. Eliminating the 60-month payment restriction will eliminate costly reporting requirements that are currently required for both lenders and borrowers. That is an additional benefit to taking that 60-month limit off. Under the Taxpayer Relief Act of 1997, we succeeded in reinstating the tax deduction of interest on student loans, which had been eliminated 11 years previously. This brought much needed relief to students and their families. I spoke about the budget constraints we had in 1997, which today we would not have and we don't have. So we put that 60-month payment restriction in place for revenue neutrality. Our current budget situation makes it possible to reevaluate this limitation. As the price of going to college has continued to spiral upward, student debt has risen to very high levels. The current restriction hurts some of the most needy borrowers. It hurts those who, due to limited means, have borrowed most heavily. It also weighs heavily on those who have dedicated themselves to a career in public service, despite oftentimes lower pay that is connected with that--as an example, teachers. By eliminating the 60-month payment restriction, we will be assisting these most deserving borrowers, while rewarding civic involvement as well. Also in this bill are provisions for assistance in school construction. Last week, a Member on the other side of the aisle asked why we are not talking about school construction and repairs. My simple answer is: Read the bill. If they did, they would find that it contains some very helpful school construction and rehabilitation incentives. School districts across the country today are struggling to fix some of the wornout rungs in a fundamentally American institution, the public schools--the ladder by which people go up the economic scale. In fact, school districts nationwide spent $18.7 billion on school construction in the last year for which we have figures, 1996. Building and repairing U.S. elementary and secondary schools requires massive capital to keep up with growing enrollments, aging buildings, and modernization needs. My State's reputation for educational excellence has gained national prominence, as I have already referred to, throughout the 20th century. Even in my State, we have local school districts that have tremendous needs, and this bill will help them to accomplish a good building environment for the next century. As America prepares to enter this new century--and we have--we must work to strengthen our schools and ensure our classrooms are wired to deliver a 21st century quality education. That includes fixing basic structural damage and, even more so, installing modern communications and computer equipment. But whether it is repairing leaky roofs or removing hazardous asbestos or fixing the structure, everything needs a high-tech facelift at this particular time. Expanding greater access to affordable capital, which this bill does, will relieve pressure on the local tax base and help more school districts build and repair their schools. Initiatives in this bill do that, and I have sponsored some of those initiatives. They build on something that already works. They build upon the principle to establish tax-exempt bonds. In fact, the single most important source of funding for investment in public school construction and rehabilitation is the tax-exempt bond market. Iowa school districts were issued over $625 million in tax-exempt bonds in the last year we have figures for, which is 1998. Whether rural or suburban or urban schools, these school districts from coast to coast are facing substantial school construction costs. The greater the flexibility the better. One size fits all won't work, whether it is in capital investment in schools or investment in personal education. That is why my plan is designed to give local school districts greater leeway to secure critical funding. This legislation would allow school districts to partner with private investors, allowing school districts to tap deep pockets in the private sector and leverage private dollars to improve public schools. Second, it would expand the volume of school construction costs that a small school district could issue annually. This will allow smaller rural and suburban schools a better opportunity to manage the high cost of replacing or repairing aging facilities. In conclusion, I think all of these steps, along with a lot more in this bill, are important first steps. If and when we are able to pass a more comprehensive tax relief measure, I hope to build upon these initiatives and provide even more school construction assistance to our local communities. Unlike a lot of proposals from this administration for school construction that require local school districts to get permission from Federal Government bureaucracies, the incentives in our bill empower local people, people on the local school board, and they preserve local control. Without a doubt, that is what the people of this country want. They do not want the dictation of educational policy from Washington, DC. They do not want, as a local school board, to come hat-in-hand to some Washington bureaucrat to get permission to get a little bit of help for fixing a crack in the wall or wiring for some high-tech improvement. They want to be able to decide the needs for their community. Why should they be the ones to do that? Because they are the only ones who know about it. There is no way, no matter how intelligent a Washington bureaucrat might be, that they would know the needs of all the local school districts of our country. This is a very good bill that will enhance education in America. This bill will provide, through tax incentives, about $8 billion in education assistance to the American people, with local control of that money. It deserves our strong support. I yield the floor.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, the Senate will soon make a very important and historic decision about whether to grant permanent normal trade relations status to China. This decision would pave the way for China's accession to the WTO. China's likely accession to the WTO is one of the most pivotal trade developments of the last 150 years. It is also perhaps the single most significant application of the most- favored-nation principle, or non-discrimination principle, in modern trade history. I believe we should approve permanent normal trade relations for China. I also strongly believe China should be admitted to the World Trade Organization. Because this is such an important matter, I would like to address this issue today in a careful and thorough way. I have two main points. First, The Core principle of the WTO, the principle of nondiscrimination, or most-favored-nation treatment, is the only way we have to keep markets open to everybody. We should seek the broadest possible acceptance of this basic principle of non-discrimination in trade. History shows that when countries trade with each other on a nondiscriminatory basis, everyone wins. History also shows that free and open trade is one of the most effective ways to keep the peace. Second and lastly I also support China's entry into the WTO because it is in our national self-interest to have a rules-based world trading system that includes China. Mr. President, I would like to say a few words about my first point, that everyone wins when we have nondiscriminatory trade, which gives us a better chance to keep the peace. Most-favored-nation treatment, or what we now call normal trade relations, started with Britain and France in the 1860s. These two nations negotiated free trade agreements based on the most-favored- nation principle of nondiscrimination, which later became the cornerstone of the GATT, and, in 1993, the WTO. The results of these early international trade treaties was spectacular. It began a new era of free trade that led to a great increase in wealth around the world. Unfortunately, this hey-day of free trade didn't last long. It ended in about 1885, when Europe turned inward, and retreated from the free-trade principle. Just 30 years after Europe abandoned the nondiscrimination principle in trade, the war ``to end all wars'' ravaged most of the continent. Events following the First World War also massively disrupted international trading relationships. Many countries pursued beggar-thy- neighbor trade policies, including harsh trade restrictions. When the Great Depression set in, many countries adopted extreme forms of protectionism in a misguided attempt to save jobs at home. The worst of these misguided laws was the Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act in 1930, which was enacted into law by the 71st Congress. The act started out with good intentions. Its aim was to help the American farmer with a limited, upward revision of tariffs on foreign produce. But it had the exact opposite result. It strangled foreign trade. It deepened and widened the severity of the Depression. Other countries faced with a deficit of exports to pay for their imports responded by applying quotas and embargoes on American goods. Mr. President, I went back to the historical record to see what happened to United States agricultural exports when other countries stopped buying our agricultural products after we enacted that tariff. I was shocked by the depth and severity of the retaliation. In 1930, the United States exported just over $1 billion worth of agricultural goods. By 1932, that amount had been cut almost in half, to $589 million. Barley exports dropped by half. So did exports of soybean oil. Pork exports fell 15 percent. Almost every American export sector was hit by foreign retaliation, but particularly agriculture. As U.S. agricultural exports fell in the face of foreign retaliation, farm prices fell sharply, weakening the solvency of many rural banks. Their weakened condition undermined depositor confidence, leading to depositor runs, bank failures, and ultimately, a contraction of the money supply. Mr. President, I'm not saying that if we hadn't abandoned the nondiscrimination principle we wouldn't have had a depression. But it wouldn't have lasted as long. It wouldn't have hit as hard. It wouldn't have destroyed as many lives. President Roosevelt attempted to correct this mistake with a major shift in policy in 1934 with the Reciprocal Trade Agreements Act. This legislation authorized the President to negotiate trade liberalizing agreements on a bilateral basis with our trading partners. But the damage was done. The Reciprocal Trade Agreements Act was too little, too late. Although 31 bilateral agreements were signed, the outbreak of the Second World War completely shattered any hope of a more cooperative international trading environment. I don't think it is a coincidence that another World War closely followed the Depression. If political tensions were not inflamed by severe economic pressures, and made worse by unnecessary and destructive trade disputes, perhaps the history of the first half of the 20th century would have been different. Free trade alone may not keep the peace. But it makes it a lot harder to go to war. At the end of World War II, the United States led the effort to once again construct a world trading system based on the Most-Favored-Nation principle of nondiscrimination. We succeeded with the launch of the GATT, in 1947. Now, once again, we have a world trade system that increases our collective wealth through nondiscriminatory free trade. We also have a world trade system that helps keep the peace. The fact that the cold war never ignited to a hot conflict is due in large part to the success of the GATT in forging closer economic ties at a time when world political tensions were escalating over other issues. Mr. President, we finally got it just about right. But we still don't have a world trade system that includes the world's most populous nation, and one of its most dynamic economies. China's absence from the global trade forum matters because we still have not managed to rid the world of political tensions and destabilizing trade disputes. We could still easily lose it all, just as Europe did in 1885, and as we did in 1930. Increasingly, many of these disputes and tensions will involve, or at least affect, both China and the United States. There are a few Members here who may remember the pressures on the world trading system we had in the early 1970s. Back then, we had a major world recession and two major oil price shocks. These pressures led to the so-called ``New Protectionism,'' when countries increasingly resorted to non-tariff barriers to trade, such as quotas, voluntary export restraint agreements, industrial and agricultural subsidies, and orderly restraint agreements. The heightened tensions brought about by the ``New Protectionism'' were potentially very destabilizing. It was only with the conclusion of the Uruguay round of global trade negotiations in 1993 that we finally reversed the dangerous course of this ``New Protectionism,'' and got free trade back on track. Our experience in the 1970s, when we could have easily lost most of our progress in opening new global markets, demonstrates why it's so important to expand and strengthen the world trade system as much as we can. China was not a GATT member in the 1970s. The disciplines were much weaker. Important sectors like agriculture weren't covered. Dispute resolution was largely unenforceable. Today, that is all changed. Disciplines are stronger. Disputes can be settled and effectively enforced. For the first time, we now have rules that cover agriculture. And now China is ready to end a fifty-year period of going its own way on trade policy. Mr. President, rules and disciplines are meaningless unless they are widely accepted and broadly applied. We cannot have an effective, open world trade system that excludes China. It's as simple as that. There is one more reason why China's entry into the WTO is in our vital national interest. For the first time in history, China would be bound by enforceable international trade rules. I would like to briefly explain why this development is so important. Because of the economic reforms of the 1990s, China's leaders have sparked an economic renewal that has lead to growth rates of 7-10 percent every year of the last decade, easily dwarfing the growth rates of our own super-heated economy. As a consequence of its new prosperity, China is buying a great deal of everything, especially agricultural products. But because about one-third of China's economic activity is generated and controlled by state-owned enterprises, if often manipulates its markets in a way that harms its trading partners. Take just one example well known to the soybean farmers in my own state of Iowa. In 1992, China's soybean oil consumption shot up from about 750,000 metric tons to about 1.7 million metric tons. Keeping pace with this increased new demand, soybean oil imports also more than doubled. In order to keep up with surging domestic demand, China imported more soybeans and soybean meal, much of it from the United States, and much of that amount from Iowa. When China's soybean imports hit their peak in 1997, soybean meal in the United States was trading at an average base of about $240.00 per ton. This means our farmers were getting between $7.00 and $8.50 per bushel for their soybeans. Everyone was better off. China's consumers got what they wanted. America's soybean growers prospered. This is the way trade is supposed to work. But suddenly, China's state-run trading companies arbitrarily shut off imports of soybeans. Soybean meal that was selling in 1997 for $240.00 per ton in the United States plummeted to $125.00 per ton by January 1999. Soybeans selling for $8.00 per bushel in 1997 fell to $4.00 per bushel by July 1999. You can imagine what happened on the farm. With the loss of that income, combined with other factors, farmers were unable to pay their bills. Many lost their farms. Many are still struggling to recover. Mr. President, what happened in China shows what occurs when protectionism, trade barriers, tariffs, and government-run controls take the place of free markets. Trade is distorted. Consumers abroad have less choice. American farm families suffer. It also demonstrated how important China's entry into the WTO is for America's farmers. With a new bilateral market access agreement in place, and with meaningful protocol agreements that should soon be in place, China won't be able to use state trading enterprises to arbitrarily restrict and manipulate agricultural trade--and trade in other products--once it enters the WTO. Let me say one final word. When we trade with other countries, we export more that farm equipment, soybeans, or computer chips. We export part of our society. Part of our American values and ideals. This is good for the WTO. It is good for China. It is good for the United States. And I believe it will help keep the peace. Mr. President, we seldom get a real change in Congress to make this a better and safer world. but this is one of those rare moments. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting China's admission to the WTO.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I rise to speak about the gouging of the American consumer, particularly high energy users and, probably most importantly, working Americans who are paying such high gasoline prices because of OPEC. I do this in the context of supporting a resolution Senator Ashcroft is offering the Senate. I do this not only because he is my good friend but because he knows the impact on working Americans and on agriculture. This is a sense-of-the-Senate resolution to communicate to the leaders of the OPEC nations and even non-OPEC cartel producers, prior to the next meeting of the OPEC nations in March, the importance of stabilizing crude oil prices. I appreciate the importance of the message by my good friend from Missouri. He realizes the significance of this issue because he is from a State with vital interests in the health and well-being of the agricultural economy and the transportation industry. The soaring prices of diesel fuel and of gasoline have had an especially detrimental effect upon farmers and truckers whose livelihood is tied closely to the input costs. We in the Senate should not stand idly by while a foreign monopoly dictates our States' economic stability. Remember, if oil company CEOs were doing this sort of OPEC price fixing, they would be in prison for violating the antitrust laws. We obviously can't apply our law to foreign countries in the sense that their leaders are violating them. But it is antithetical to the principles of free trade and markets, even to the WTO. Saudi Arabia wants to get into the WTO. We should not be supporting their entry into the WTO if they are using their economic power in a way that is antithetical to the very organization they want to join. Just in the past month, gasoline prices in my State have taken their biggest jump in 10 years. We now pay an average of $1.38 a gallon for gas, an average of 17 cents higher than last month and 48 cents higher than in February a year ago. Diesel prices in my State are averaging $1.45, which is 12 cents more than last month and 43 cents higher than a year ago. When considering the family farmers' plight, OPEC's action creates a harsh duty that is applied to every bushel of corn, soybeans, and any other agricultural product produced in the United States. Anyone who is farming can tell you that fuel expenditures are always one of the most costly inputs on the farm. The agricultural industry has not fared as well in recent years. Just last year, prices for all kinds of livestock and grain commodities were at their lowest since the 1970s. The outlook for the next year is, at best, mixed. At a time when margins on farm products are already tight, OPEC has consciously increased the price of petroleum products and expenditures within our agricultural community. It is not the free forces of the marketplace that are doing this. These are political decisions that we ought to stand firmly against. But this isn't just about family farmers and truckers. Sometimes we forget that trucking impacts almost every industry. While farmers and truckers might feel the most immediate impact from this action in my home State of Iowa, it is really true that all consumers will eventually feel the far-reaching effects of OPEC's marketplace shenanigans. In Iowa alone, trucks transport freight for 4,438 manufacturing companies, supply goods to 19,500 retail stores, and stock almost 9,000 wholesale trade companies. Trucks supply goods to 2,359 agricultural businesses and deliver the produce and products to market. Annually, trucks transport approximately 160 million tons in and out of Iowa. Eighty-three percent of all manufactured freight transported in Iowa is carried by trucks, and over 75 percent of all communities in Iowa depend entirely on trucks for the delivery of the products my constituents use every day. OPEC's action has and will continue to drive up costs for transportation, and the bottom line is that the consumer will eventually be forced to bear the burden of the cost. As anyone can see, this situation has the ability to have a substantial detrimental impact on the economies of Iowa and the entire Nation. For this reason, I have tried to address this problem from every angle available to me. I recently wrote to Energy Secretary Bill Richardson and asked him to encourage the President to use the Strategic Petroleum Reserve to stabilize the price of petroleum products. As he is well aware, the President has the power to use the reserve when a very sharp increase in petroleum prices threatens the Nation's economic stability. In my opinion, the current situation meets this test. At the very least, the option should be heavily weighed. I also sent a letter to Mr. Stanley Fisher, First Deputy Managing Director of the International Monetary Fund, to ask that the market- distorting behavior of the 11 members of OPEC be weighed when these nations apply for loans. Twenty percent of the IMF money comes from the American taxpayers. We should not be using U.S. taxpayers' money to further the causes of an economy that is anticompetitive and is strangling the economy of the very taxpayers who support the IMF. IMF is an international organization of 182 member nations. Each member of the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries also belongs to the International Monetary Fund. Due to the fact that the IMF's purpose is to promote monetary cooperation and economic growth, I find it disheartening that the member nations of OPEC have chosen a course of action which adversely affects economic growth and stability in the United States. It is for this reason I ask the IMF to consider developing criteria to judge market-distorting behavior which would be weighed when nations exhibiting monopolistic behavior apply for loans through the IMF. I also spoke out against Saudi Arabia previously in my remarks and about their joining the World Trade Organization. I have made this a formal request of U.S. Trade Representative Charlene Barshefsky. As we all know, we have become far too dependent upon foreign oil. For a very long time, I have been a leading advocate for the development and expanded use of renewable sources of energy, especially corn-based ethanol as well as wind energy and biomass. I have been successful in getting tax credits applied to these alternative forms of energy. I thank my colleagues for their support of that. You have all heard me say that not only is clean-burning ethanol good for the rural economy and the environment, it helps to reduce America's dangerous and expensive dependence on foreign sources of energy. I am disappointed it took a crisis to make some people aware of this unhealthy addiction, but now we should all see how our dependence on foreign crude can impact our economy and why we should seek to develop domestically-based renewable fuel sources. This is a very important issue, and I applaud the resolution offered by the Senator from Missouri. I thank him for bringing the resolution to the floor and for helping to bring this issue to the attention of the Clinton-Gore administration, which needs to finally get on top of this growing problem. Mr. President, how much time do I have remaining?

Mr. GRASSLEY. I will reserve that for use at a later time.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, as chairman of the International Trade Subcommittee, I rise to express extreme disappointment about a very adverse decision to the United States handed down in Geneva today by the World Trade Organization appellate body in the Foreign Sales Corporation case, sometimes called the FSC case. I suppose I should not be standing here on the floor crying about the United States losing a case before the World Trade Organization because we win most of these cases. The reason I am so disappointed in this one is that I think there is a fundamental misunderstanding of the purpose of our Foreign Sales Corporation tax law. From that standpoint, when we rely so much on income taxes and the European Community relies so much on value-added taxes, this sales corporation tax law is to equalize the playing field between Europe and the United States on a lot of key manufactured products. The appellate body decision essentially means the Foreign Sales Corporation rules in our Tax Code violate the WTO rules. As I indicated, the appellate body fundamentally misunderstood the nature and the intent of the Foreign Sales Corporation plan. The FSC plan was designed to address the competitive disadvantage faced by United States businesses that compete with foreign firms in European countries that have value-added tax regimes. When products from countries with a value-added tax regime are exported, they typically get rebates. However, in the United States, because we rely upon the corporate income tax and not on a value-added tax, our exporting firms don't enjoy this type of tax benefit. This obviously makes our exports less competitive in world markets. The FSC rules were designed, then, to create a level playing field with these European tax systems. The appellate body decision is a very serious development because it comes at a time when the World Trade Organization itself is under attack. In my view, these attacks are unwarranted and unjustified, but politically we have to deal with them. It will probably be the case, in one or the other body of this Congress, that we will even be voting this year on the issue of whether or not the United States ought to stay as a member of the World Trade Organization. I think they should, but this case could impact that decision. Of course, we must not allow this setback to undermine either the World Trade Organization or our support for this vital institution. I will do everything I can to make sure this does not happen. In the meantime, I strongly urge President Clinton to attempt to negotiate a settlement with the European Union that modifies or overturns this appellate body's decision. This should be President Clinton's No. 1 priority at the G-8 summit in Okinawa later this year. I also call upon the European Union not to take any retaliatory action against the United States until we, through our President, have the opportunity to personally discuss this case in Okinawa at the summit there. We must make sure we observe the rule of law in this case and in every case involving international trade disputes. We expect no less from our trading partners, and we must do the same. And since we win the vast majority of these cases, we find ourselves not in a bad position by taking this moral stand. But I hope when we address this case, we bear in mind that while the outcome of the case itself is very important, there is something else at stake; that is, the integrity of our international trading system. We must remember that the WTO benefits every farmer and every business that sells its goods and services in foreign markets. If we did not have a WTO and, more importantly, the discipline in the rule of law in international trade that goes with it, we would have only the rule of the jungle. Those who would suffer the most would be the small exporters. In the United States, two-thirds of all businesses that export have 20 or fewer employees. It is, then, the WTO that prevents these small firms from being dominated by their larger competitors in the international marketplace. Let's make sure we get an appropriate and fair resolution of this case, and let's make sure we maintain our strong support for the World Trade Organization.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, while we were away for the winter break, the annual high school survey on drug use trends among 8th, 10th, and 12th graders came out. This annual Monitoring the Future study, released on December 17, revealed little change in trends of illicit drug use among our young people. The administration has tried to put a happy face on the results. But there is little to be happy about. Although the Monitoring the Future study found that the increase in drug use among teens has slowed down, what the data show is that use and experimentation remain at high levels. You can see from this chart that we still face the discouraging fact that nearly 50 percent of our high school seniors reported use of marijuana, not only in 1999, but in the 2 previous years as well. In fact, 12th grader use of marijuana is at its highest since 1992. In addition, 23 percent of the high school seniors questioned in the past 3 years, reported that they had used marijuana in the past 30 days. 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. Hardly news to find comfort in. Marijuana remains a gateway drug for even worse substances and this next chart shows overall illicit drug use among high school seniors. You can see in this second chart that, in 1999, nearly 55 percent of 12th graders reported using an illicit drug in their lifetime. What that ``lifetime'' means is that 55 percent of 17-year-olds have at least tried marijuana or other dangerous, illicit drugs. That's an appalling figure. You can also see that this number is the highest it's been since 1992. With the Office of National Drug Control Policy's recent blitz of ads through the National Youth Anti-Drug Media Campaign, these high numbers are truly disappointing. It seems though, as the news gets worse, the press releases get happier. But it's still double-speak. Another upsetting finding was the increase in the use of the ``club drug,'' Ecstacy. Use of Ecstacy among 10th graders increased from 3.3 percent in 1998 to 4.4 percent in 1999. In addition, use among 12th graders increased from 1.5 percent in 1998 to 2.5 percent in 1999. The increase in the use of these so called club drugs, such as Ecstacy, is particularly disturbing. This is so, because club drugs are frequently referred to as recreational drugs and are perceived by many young people as harmless. On December 23 of this past year, we were given a glimpse of the sheer magnitude and severity of the market for Ecstacy, when Customs officials seized 700 pounds of Ecstacy. These 700 pounds would have been enough to provide 1 million kids each with a single dose. Unfortunately, Ecstacy is quickly becoming the drug of choice among our young people. And it too is a gateway to wider drug use. Parents need to take a harder look at what their children are being exposed to. Last session I gave a floor statement on one particular club drug, that is frequently used in sexual assault cases, called GHB. I am pleased to learn from this year Monitoring the Future study that in next year's survey, young people will be questioned about use of GHB. But the issue is not this drug or that drug but the climate that encourages use and recruits kids into the drug scene. We must work to reverse the trend to normalize and glamorize drug use that has taken root in recent years. There is an encouraging decline in the use of inhalants among 8th and 10th graders. And, use of crack cocaine among 8th and 10th graders is down slightly. In addition, 12th graders reported a significant decrease in the use of crystal meth from 3 percent in 1998 to about 2 percent in 1999. As we begin not only a new year but a new millennium, we are faced with the difficult challenge of making the 21st century safe for our young people. Although we have made some progress, these study results leave our young people facing an uncertain future. We cannot be satisfied with unchanging trends in teenage drug use. We have not seen a significant decline in drug use among our country's young people since 1992. In fact, what we have seen are dramatic increases. This fact makes me pause and wonder what we have been doing for the past 8 years. Whatever it is, it has failed to make the difference we need to be seeing. We need to move toward significant decreases in use. We need coherent, sound, accountable efforts. We must not neglect our duties in keeping our young people drug free. We are not in any position to let our guard down. We need policies and strategies that make a difference.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I rise today in support of the legislation of my colleague Senator John Ashcroft to repeal the Social Security earnings limit. Under current law, workers aged 65-69, can earn only up to $17,000 without losing out on their Social Security benefits. This ``earnings limit'' penalizes hard-working seniors by docking them $1 for every $3 of earnings over the limit. In fact, an older worker's entire Social Security benefit could be eliminated by the earnings limit if he or she earns more than $45,944. A few years ago, I worked successfully to increase the limit to $30,000 by 2002. But we can do better. Penalizing older workers sends the wrong message to those who choose to stay in the workforce beyond normal retirement age. And in today's tight labor market, we need to do a better job about recruiting and retaining good employees. In fact, in my state of Iowa, the jobless rate for December was 2.2 percent. That rate is even below the national jobless rate of 4.1 percent. We cannot afford to discourage older Americans who want to work from remaining in the labor market. I am a strong supporter of efforts under way this year to repeal the earnings limit. Eliminating the penalty would help 800,000 older workers who now lose part or all of their benefits simply because they have the will and ability to stay on the job after 65. From my home State alone, many Iowans have contacted me in frustration over the earnings limit. For the first time in years, I am confident we can get the job done once and for all. The proposal has overwhelming bipartisan support from Congress and the White House. We could see swift action on this commonsense proposal. While fixing this inequity in the retirement system will give fair treatment to those ages 65-69 who have paid into the program during their entire working years, it will not address Social Security's long- term demographic challenges. When the baby boom generation comes on board, the revenue and benefit structure will not be able to sustain the obligations under current law. That is why I have worked with six of my Senate colleagues, Senators Judd Gregg, Bob Kerrey, John Breaux, Fred Thompson, Craig Thomas, and Chuck Robb, to craft bipartisan Senate reform legislation. Our bill, the ``Bipartisan Social Security Reform Act'' S. 1383 is the only reform legislation which has been put forth in the Senate which would make the Social Security trust fund permanently solvent. I will continue to press ahead and work to build a consensus among our colleagues to save Social Security and achieve long-term solvency for generations to come.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I rise today in support of the legislation of my colleague Senator John Ashcroft to repeal the Social Security earnings limit. Under current law, workers aged 65-69, can earn only up to $17,000 without losing out on their Social Security benefits. This ``earnings limit'' penalizes hard-working seniors by docking them $1 for every $3 of earnings over the limit. In fact, an older worker's entire Social Security benefit could be eliminated by the earnings limit if he or she earns more than $45,944. A few years ago, I worked successfully to increase the limit to $30,000 by 2002. But we can do better. Penalizing older workers sends the wrong message to those who choose to stay in the workforce beyond normal retirement age. And in today's tight labor market, we need to do a better job about recruiting and retaining good employees. In fact, in my state of Iowa, the jobless rate for December was 2.2 percent. That rate is even below the national jobless rate of 4.1 percent. We cannot afford to discourage older Americans who want to work from remaining in the labor market. I am a strong supporter of efforts under way this year to repeal the earnings limit. Eliminating the penalty would help 800,000 older workers who now lose part or all of their benefits simply because they have the will and ability to stay on the job after 65. From my home State alone, many Iowans have contacted me in frustration over the earnings limit. For the first time in years, I am confident we can get the job done once and for all. The proposal has overwhelming bipartisan support from Congress and the White House. We could see swift action on this commonsense proposal. While fixing this inequity in the retirement system will give fair treatment to those ages 65-69 who have paid into the program during their entire working years, it will not address Social Security's long- term demographic challenges. When the baby boom generation comes on board, the revenue and benefit structure will not be able to sustain the obligations under current law. That is why I have worked with six of my Senate colleagues, Senators Judd Gregg, Bob Kerrey, John Breaux, Fred Thompson, Craig Thomas, and Chuck Robb, to craft bipartisan Senate reform legislation. Our bill, the ``Bipartisan Social Security Reform Act'' S. 1383 is the only reform legislation which has been put forth in the Senate which would make the Social Security trust fund permanently solvent. I will continue to press ahead and work to build a consensus among our colleagues to save Social Security and achieve long-term solvency for generations to come.