Tim Johnson

Mr. JOHNSON

Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. President, I am pleased to cosponsor the Medicare Beneficiary Access to Quality Health Care Act introduced today that works to correct the inequities of Medicare reforms included in the Balanced Budget Act of 1997. I commend Senator Daschle for his tremendous efforts on this issue and for his leadership with the introduction of this bill. As well, I congratulate a number of my other colleagues who have contributed immensely to the crafting of this critical piece of legislation, including Senators Moynihan, Kennedy, Rockefeller, Baucus, Conrad, and others. As part of the effort to balance the Federal budget, the Balanced Budget Act of 1997 (BBA) provided for major reforms in the way Medicare pays for medical services. The Balanced Budget Act of 1997 (BBA) included numerous cuts in Medicare payments to health care providers. These changes were originally expected to cut Medicare spending by about $115 over five years, but recent CBO projections show spending falling nearly twice that much. In the face of these deep cuts, health care providers are struggling, and beneficiary access to care is threatened. The Medicare Beneficiary Access to Care Act is a targeted solution to certain specific problems that the Balanced Budget Act has created. As implementation of these reforms proceeds, health care providers and patient advocacy groups have asserted that some of the reforms are having--or are likely to have--undesirable or unintended consequences. Areas in patient care such as rehabilitative therapy, skilled nursing facilities, home health services, and hospital outpatient services have already begun to feel the effects of the reforms set forth in 1997. Not surprising, I have heard from many safety net providers in South Dakota about the devastating effects such reductions in reimbursements are having throughout the health care industry. Consumers are also feeling the pain, as many individuals are being turned away from hospitals and nursing homes who cannot afford to accept new patients because of the lower reimbursement rates included in the Balanced Budget Act. These cuts are devastating and feared to have severe implications on the quality and access of health care throughout our nation, including South Dakota, unless Congress acts immediately to correct these problems. In South Dakota, and other rural parts of the country, hospitals and other health care providers have an extremely high percentage of Medicare beneficiaries making these cuts in reimbursement even more devastating. If Congress does not act in a timely fashion many of these providers may be forced to close their doors. I look forward to continue working with my colleagues on passage of the Medicare Beneficiary Access to Quality Health Care Act which develops creative, cost-effective approaches to address the unintended, long-term consequences of the BBA. The proposed budget surplus provides Congress the unique opportunity to address many of the deficiencies in our nation's health care system. We need to address the valid concerns of teaching hospitals, skilled nursing facilities, home health providers, rural and community hospitals, and other health care providers who require relief from the consequences of the BBA.

Mr. JOHNSON

Mr. JOHNSON. Madam President, the second issue I want to talk about this afternoon is the issue of prescription drug costs. I am going to have to edit my remarks due to time constraints more than I really prefer, but I do want to talk about the prescription drug costs we face in this Nation. American seniors 65 or older make up only 12 percent of our population but consume, understandably, 35 percent of all prescription drugs. Studies have shown that the average senior citizen takes more than 4 prescription drugs per day and fills an average of 18 per year. Costs have skyrocketed in recent years, increasing an estimated 17 percent last year alone. What impact has this drug price increase had on senior citizens? It has been catastrophic for all too many. A survey completed in 1993 reported that 13 percent of older Americans say they literally are choosing between buying food or their prescription drugs. Sadly, I hear the same story everywhere I go in my home State. Thirty-five percent of the Medicare population, equivalent to 13 million people, have no prescription drug benefits of any kind under any kind of insurance plan. Seniors sometimes fail to realize that the Medicare program itself contains no prescription drug benefit. I recently requested a South Dakota study of prescription drug prices for seniors in our State, a study that I asked the Government Reform and Oversight Committee of the other body to conduct, comparing the prices our seniors pay compared to favored customers such as HMOs, the Federal Government, and large insurance companies. I ask unanimous consent that the detailed summary of the study be printed in the Record.

Mr. JOHNSON. Madam President, the results of the South Dakota study are consistent with studies in other States finding that seniors in South Dakota pay inflated prices for commonly used drugs. In fact, seniors are paying twice the amount per prescription compared to the price the pharmaceutical companies sell their drugs to their favored customers. In fact, we found some individual prescriptions where the price differential was as high as 1,469 percent for the same drug. These price differentials are far higher for prescription drugs than for any other consumer good. The average price differential for the five top selling prescription drugs for seniors is 121 percent, while the price differential for other items considered daily essentials for the consumer is only 22 percent. The study also indicates that pharmaceutical manufacturers--not the drugstores, not the pharmacies--appear to be responsible for this huge differential. South Dakota pharmacies have relatively small mark-ups, between the prices at which they buy the drugs and the prices at which they sell them. The question is, Where do we go from here? There is talk about a Medicare add-on for prescription drugs. I hope we can go down that road. Quite frankly, a bipartisan agreement about how to pay for it and administer it simply has not been reached. In the interim, there are alternatives. The Prescription Drug Fairness for Seniors Act of 1999, which I have sponsored with Senator Kennedy, will provide a mandate--without the use of tax dollars, or any new Federal bureaucracy--that the pharmaceutical industry sell prescription drugs at the same price to Medicare beneficiaries as they sell to their favored customers. No more discrimination. If the Prescription Drug Fairness for Seniors Act was enacted, we could reduce the cost of prescription drugs available to seniors by approximately 40 percent. There would be no bureaucracy, no tax dollars, and a huge benefit for seniors all over America. Our pharmacists would use the existing pharmaceutical distribution system and not create any new bureaucracy. It is estimated that we will reduce drug prices for seniors by approximately 40 percent. There will be no more devastating choices among groceries, rent, and prescription drug costs. I am pleased our bill is gaining endorsement and currently has the support of 10 of our colleagues, including Senators Daschle, Dodd, Dorgan, Feingold, Hollings, Inouye, Leahy, Kerry, Wellstone, and Bingaman. Earlier this year, Representatives Tom Allen, Jim Turner, Marion Berry, and Henry Waxman were joined by 61 of their colleagues when they introduced the House version of this bill, H.R. 664. They have now over 120 cosponsors. Several organizations endorsed our legislation, some of which include the National Committee to Preserve Social Security and Medicare, TREA Senior Citizens League, Consumer Federation of America, and Families USA Foundation. Many South Dakota groups have also endorsed our bill, including the South Dakota Coalition of Citizens with Disabilities and the North Central Chapter of the Paralyzed Veterans of America. We now have well over 30 organizations actively supporting this legislation. Currently, there are several prescription drug proposals in Congress. We ought to have hearings on this issue, and we ought to go forward as aggressively as we can. Madam President, there is no need to wait. We can act on this now. We can give seniors now the benefit of this 40 percent reduction in prescription drug costs that they deserve and need. What an irony it is that so many of our seniors wind up not taking their prescription drugs in order to save money and then fall ill with an acute illness and wind up in the emergency room, and then Medicare picks up the tab. Wouldn't it be better if we can find a way to make sure seniors can afford the prescription in the first place to avoid that kind of acute illness, that emergency room visit? The taxpayers will gain, the dignity of the seniors will gain, their physical health will gain. All Americans would be better off with the immediate passage in this Congress of the Prescription Drug Fairness for Seniors Act of 1999. I yield back such time as may remain. Mr. BYRD addressed the Chair.

Mr. JOHNSON

Mr. JOHNSON. Madam President, first I will speak in response to what I regard as the commonsense statesmanship demonstrated on the part of the President with his veto of the Republican tax bill. There is an acknowledgment that there is around $1 trillion that could come into the Treasury over the next 10 years, over and above that required for Social Security. It was wise on the President's part to say, first of all, we ought to be very prudent about whether that trillion dollars will actually materialize or not. It is based on assumptions that may or may not come true. If they do come true, we should prolong the life of Medicare and pay down existing debt. Everywhere I go in South Dakota people of both political stripes tell me: Pay down the debt, keep interest rates down, make our economy grow, and if you still have dollars left, make key investments in education, in economic development, child care and health care, and then if there are some resources remaining, do give some tax relief. The President has submitted a request for $250 million targeted to middle-class and working families, the families that need it most. I believe that veto is a wise move. We ought to go on to a negotiated end to this budget dilemma that will be bipartisan in nature and will be much more deliberative, much more thoughtful, and much wiser about how to use $1 trillion that may or may not materialize.

Mr. JOHNSON

Mr. JOHNSON. It is my understanding that 3:30 is the scheduled time to commence debate on the education resolutions; is that correct?

Mr. JOHNSON. So I have until 3:30?

Mr. JOHNSON. I ask unanimous consent, then, to consume the remainder of the time available until 3:30.

Mr. JOHNSON. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to address the body in two parts: one for an initial 1 minute and the second for the remaining 15 minutes.

Mr. JOHNSON

Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. President, the state of the Union is strong. Our country's overall economy is at an all time high, unemployment is at the lowest it has been in years, education is rising, and American homeownership is increasing. Despite all of these factors, our nation-- and rural America in particular--is in the midst of an affordable housing shortage crisis. According to reports, 5.3 million Americans pay more than 50 percent in their annual income to rent or living in substandard conditions. This is unacceptable for a society as wealthy as ours, and we must make real progress now to improve housing conditions for all Americans. I would like to take this opportunity to discuss two critically important housing assistance programs that are cut by the short-sighted funding levels in the fiscal year 2000 (FY2000) VA-HUD Appropriations bill. The Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) provides Section 8 rental assistance to nearly three million families through Housing Certificate Funds, including vouchers, certificates, and project-based assistance. The VA-HUD Appropriations bill that we are discussing today provides $11 billion for the Housing Certificate Fund--which is $724 million more than the FY1999 level. While I am pleased that the VA-HUD bill ensures funding for all expiring Section 8 contracts for FY2000, I am deeply disappointed that the bill does not attempt to meet the future need for housing assistance by including funding for an additional 100,000 vouchers. In my state of South Dakota, families in need of housing assistance spend an average of 9 months on a waiting list for current Section 8 vouchers. Sadly, this is actually a better situation than most Americans face. More than 1 million Americans wait an average of 28 months, or over two full years, for Section 8 assistance. The strong economy in South Dakota has contributed to a shortage of affordable housing in our larger cities. In many of our smaller towns, adequate housing is also at a premium. An additional 100,000 Section 8 vouchers would mean that an additional 321 South Dakota families would receive Section 8 assistance. I urge my colleagues to adequately fund the proposal for 100,000 new Section 8 vouchers because the Section 8 program, simply put, helps families find housing they can afford. Another housing program that has been extremely valuable for South Dakota and the nation is the Community Builder program. Community Builders have enabled HUD to take a much-needed customer-friendly approach to serving low-income Americans. In South Dakota, Community Builders are working with local governments and housing authorities to provide needed rental assistance statewide. Community Builders have also worked with the Northeastern Council of Governments in South Dakota to spread information to several northeastern counties on the services that HUD provides, and how to access these services. Community Builders have facilitated FHA loans for the construction of affordable homes in Rapid City, while also helping the Sioux Empire Housing Partnership become a HUD- approved housing counseling agency. The Community Builder program has begun to address the housing needs in historically underserved communities, many of which have never utilized HUD services in the past. One of my former staffers, Stephanie Helfrich, was a Community Builder Specialist for the Pine Ridge Indian Reservation, and her work has enabled tribal leaders to better utilize HUD's programs to the benefit of one of the most poor populations in the nation. In conclusion, I understand the strict budget constraints the committee faces in drafting this bill. While I support every effort to keep government spending low, I believe it is a wise investment in our country's future when we ensure that our working families have adequate housing. I will continue to work with my colleagues to find ways to help South Dakota families and families across the nation address their housing needs.

Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. President, I am pleased to have joined my colleague Mr. Wellstone from Minnesota in offering an amendment to the Fiscal Year 2000 VA-HUD Appropriations bill to increase funding for veterans health care by an additional $1.3 billion. This would create a $3 billion increase in VA health care funding --the level called for by the Independent Budget produced by a coalition of veterans organizations. Before I begin, I would like to take a minute and make a few comments on the amendment that the Senate already has accepted. First, I want to thank Senators Bond and Mikulski for offering the amendment to add an additional $600 million for veterans' health care. By accepting this amendment, the total increase for veterans' health care in this piece of legislation is now $1.7 billion. I am pleased that my colleagues recognize the dire situation facing the Veterans Administration and our nation's veterans because of past negligence in meeting the needs of veterans health care. I supported the amendment, and I have asked to be added as a cosponsor. However, as I understand it, this $1.7 billion will provide only momentary relief to a VA system which has been drastically underfunded for the past three years. That is why Senator Wellstone and I offered an amendment to give even more to veterans, who in service of their country gave everything they had to protect this democracy. Mr. President, let me begin by saying that this is the fourth consecutive year, that the Clinton Administration has proposed a flat- line appropriation for veterans' health care in its FY 2000 budget request. The VA's budget included a $17.3 billion appropriation request for the Veterans Health Administration (VHA). Although, the Clinton Administration's request included allowing the VA to collect approximately $749 million from third-party insurers--$124 million more than in FY 1999, this cap on medical spending places a greater strain on the quality of patient care currently provided in our nation's VA facility, especially when meeting the needs and high health costs of our rapidly aging World War II population. Our nation's veterans groups have worked extensively on crafting a sensible budget that will allow the VA to provide the necessary care to all veterans. They have offered an Independent Budget that calls for an immediate $3 billion increase for VA health care to rectify two current deficiencies in the VA budget. First, the VA has had to reduce expenditures by $1.3 billion due to their flatlined budget at $17.3 billion. These were mandatory reductions in outpatient and inpatient care and VA staff levels that the VA had to make due to their flatlined budget. The remaining $1.7 billion is needed to keep up with medical inflation, COLAs for VA employees, new medical initiatives that the VA wants to begin (Hepatitis C screenings, emergency care services), long term health care costs, funding for homeless veterans, and treating 54,000 new patients in 89 outpatient clinics. Although we have increased veterans' health care by a total of $1.7 billion, and which certainly will help relieve some of the VA's budgetary constraints, I believe that more needs to be done. The veterans community has requested that VA health care needs to be augmented by $3 billion to ensure the provision of accessible and high quality services to veterans. That is why Senator Wellstone and I offered an amendment, and which I remind my colleagues the Senate unanimously accepted 99-0, during consideration of the budget resolution that raised VA health care to a total of $3 billion. The nation's top veterans groups (AMVETS, Blinded Veterans Association, Disabled American Veterans, Paralyzed Veterans of America, Veterans of Foreign Wars and Vietnam Veterans of America) voiced their strong support for our amendment, however, the final budget resolution contained an increase of only $1.7 billion. I agree with the coalition of veterans organizations that have put together a sensible and responsible alternative VA budget'' that an infusion of approximately $3 billion into the VA health budget is needed this year in order to avoid an unconscionable destruction of our nation's commitment to its veterans. Without such a funding boost, framed within a balanced federal budget, we will soon be witnessing enormous VA staffing reductions, degradation of VA health care quality, the termination of needed programs, and the closure of VA hospitals. Our hopes of establishing VA outreach clinics in such communities as Aberdeen, South Dakota will be impossible without an increase in funding. That is why Senator Wellstone and I are offering this amendment. The veterans community has done all the research and is acutely aware of the glaring health care needs that the VA must contend with in order to care for our nation's veterans. Our amendment would take $1.3 billion from the non-Social Security surplus and designate it as emergency spending for veterans' health care. The funding required for this amendment represents a minute fraction of the total federal budget that we are debating here today. However, the funding we set aside to improve accessibility and quality of care within our veterans health care system will provide a tremendous boost for an already stretched and fractured VA medical system. Mr. President, since I began my service in Congress over twelve years ago, I have held countless meetings, marched in small town Memorial Day parades, and participated in Veterans Day tributes with South Dakota's veterans. As the years go on their concerns remain the same. To ensure that Congress provides the VA with adequate funding to meet the health care needs for all veterans. Without additional funding South Dakota VA facilities will continue to face staff reductions, cutbacks in programs, and possible closing of facilities. Too often, I have received letters from veterans who must wait up to three months to see a doctor. For many veterans who do not have any other form of health insurance, the VA is the only place they can go to receive medical attention. They were promised medical care when they completed their service and now many veterans are having to jump through hoops just to see a doctor. It is time for Congress to end this neglect and fiscal irresponsibility when it comes to providing decent health care for veterans. I think Senator Wellstone would agree with me that no one in this body would accept three years of flat-lined budgets if we were talking about the Department of Defense or national security funding. But that is exactly what we've done to our veterans. Every year we labor through the appropriations process and every year veterans funding is treated as an afterthought and not one of our first priorities. As Congress makes spending decisions for fiscal year 2000, we also will have to decide what to do with the non-Social Security surplus for next year. Shouldn't we be able to use some of that surplus to address the immediate problems of veterans health care? I think our veterans deserve nothing less, and we should make a committed effort to give the VA all the resources it needs to operate effectively. I want to thank my friend, Mr. Wellstone, for working with me on this endeavor to do what we feel is our obligation to our veterans. The veterans community is fortunate to have such a vigilant advocate in Senator Wellstone who has displayed tremendous passion and leadership when it comes to ensuring that our nation's commitment to our veterans is not forgotten. As we enter the twilight of the Twentieth Century, we can look back at the immense multitude of achievements that led to the ascension of the United States of America as the preeminent nation in modern history. We owe this title as world's greatest superpower in large part to the twenty-five million men and women who served in our armed services and who defended the principles and ideals of our nation. From the battlefields of Lexington and Concord, to the beaches of Normandy, and to the deserts of the Persian Gulf, our nation's history is replete with men and women who, during the savagery of battle, were willing to forego their own survival not only to protect the lives of their comrades, but because they believed that peace and freedom was too invaluable a right to be vanquished. Americans should never forget our veterans who served our nation with such dedication and patriotism. Again, Mr. President, I applaud Chairman Bond and Senator Mikulski for recognizing the shortcomings in this VA-HUD Appropriations bill by increasing veterans' health care by an additional $1.7 billion. Senator Wellstone and I believe that we can go even further, and we ask for the Senate's support. We have an obligation to provide decent, affordable, health care for America's veterans. We should live up to our obligation to our nation's veterans and ensure that they are treated with the respect and honor that they so richly deserve.

Mr. JOHNSON

Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. President, if I might ask my colleague a question. Mr. BOND addressed the Chair.

Mr. JOHNSON. Would the Senator agree, with this fiscal year ending with the estimated $14 billion surplus over and above that required for Social Security, that we ought to be able to, with the $14 billion surplus, find some additional room to address the problems of veterans' health care?

Mr. JOHNSON. Yes. Let me say first, while I am very grateful for the effort that our colleague from West Virginia and our colleague from Missouri have undertaken to try to better fund the VA budget, I commend my colleague from Minnesota, Senator Wellstone, for clarifying and making it very clear that in fact while the budget picture is difficult--we know that--at the same time, if we were to fully fund everything that really ought to be done, it would require a $3 billion infusion, given the 3 years of flatline budget that the VA health care budget is already suffering through. Certainly, I applaud the effort to bring the VA health care budget up $1.7 billion instead of $1.1 billion. I think that is a very positive thing. But it does concern me that when we talked about the full $3 billion increase, we were talking then about the opportunity, as I understand it--if the Senator agrees with me--that that would have been sufficient then to fund the hepatitis C screenings, emergency care services, and 54,000 new patients in 89 outpatient clinics around America. This is the kind of agenda we would have been able to proceed with if we had been able to secure the full $3 billion instead of $1.1 billion--or certainly $1.7 billion. So I applaud again my friend, Senator Wellstone, recognizing we worked together on the budget resolution earlier this year to secure House agreement with a $3 billion increase. And we have been fighting ever since to try to hold the number as high as we can get it, recognizing that when it comes to veterans' health care, would the Senator agree with me, this ought to be the kind of budget priority that comes at the head of the line rather than one that we fund with whatever is left over after everything else has been concluded. In fact, these are the individuals who put their lives on the line, who disrupted their families, who did their duty, who gave their service to our Nation and made it possible for our liberty to be protected, for our democracy to be preserved. Yet, too often, when it comes to living up to the obligations that our Government has made to the health care of our veterans and their families, we cry poverty when in fact virtually everything else in the budget has already been taken care of. It would seem to me that we do have a need to continue to put veterans' health care concerns among our very first priorities--in fact, right up there with our national security funding itself. I think that veterans' health care funding--if the Senator would agree with me--is part and parcel of our national defense strategy--at least it ought to be regarded in that respect--because it is part of what keeps so many of our best and brightest young people interested in a military service career at a time when we have too many people leaving the military, where we have retention problems. It would seem to me that one of the reasons we have that problem is, we have too often reneged on and neglected our obligations on such fundamental things as veterans' health care and veterans' benefits in the past. So again, I appreciate the effort to try to raise the visibility of our obligations to our veterans and to secure the best possible funding we can possibly get out of this conference report.

Mr. JOHNSON

Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation, the 401(k) Right To Know Act, to require that 401(k) plan providers implement procedures to disclose the administrative fees that they charge their customers. However, I hope the need for the legislation can be effectively eliminated by voluntary action on the part of the plan providers to disclose fees. I am concerned that millions of American families work and save for their retirement through 401(k) plans without having an opportunity to fully evaluate and compare the costs of such plans. National news publications have suggested that some plans may be charging plan participants up to 2.5% of assets annually to manage their accounts. While I believe families should be free to choose among competing plans and to participate in retirement savings vehicles of their choice, I am troubled that information about fees is not fully disclosed. I believe that we have an obligation to make sure that families have access to basic information about fees. Congress encourages people to participate in 401(k) retirement plans by providing considerable tax advantages. We should give equal care to making sure that businesses and families have the information necessary to protect their nest eggs from excessive, undisclosed fees that threaten to siphon off the rewards of their work and prudence. Recently the Department of Labor, the American Bankers Association, the American Council of Life Insurance, and the Investment Company Institute announced a plan to address these concerns and provide information about 401(k) fees. I applaud this responsible and important effort. The agreements reached should be given fair consideration and an opportunity to be implemented. It is my sincere hope, that these efforts will be supported by all 401(k) plan providers and that consumers will utilize and benefit from fee disclosure. Nonetheless, I want to go on record to articulate my lingering concern for the lack of disclosure currently provided and make known my conviction to pursue legislative action should the industry fail to fully implement the goals of disclosure recently agreed upon. Again, I want to reiterate that I believe the recent announcement is an important step to resolve this issue. My goal is to make sure consumers have accurate and timely information about fees readily available to them. I will be monitoring the progress closely and remain hopeful that legislative action will not be necessary to achieve disclosure of 401(k) fees.

Mr. JOHNSON

Mr. JOHNSON. I thank my friend from New Jersey. Our Nation deserves a thoughtful tax and budget plan from Congress that places an emphasis on paying down our existing accumulated national debt, while protecting Social Security and Medicare, and investing in key domestic priorities and providing targeted tax relief for middle-class and working families. On the marriage penalty, for instance, most families in America get a marriage tax bonus, not a penalty. But for those who are penalized, we can address that in the Democratic plan while approaching this in a balanced fashion. But, sadly, the radical tax cut bill being considered by congressional Republicans could be described as simply ``foolish,'' were it not so seriously dangerous to the future prosperity and security of every American family. There are obvious reasons why even leading Republican economists so vigorously are condemning this irresponsible bill, and why it has become the butt of so much ridicule. First, the bill assumes that a $964 billion surplus over that needed for Social Security will absolutely materialize over the coming decades while our budget estimators in the past haven't even been able to estimate the economic growth over a year much less over 10 years. Common sense tells us that we should be careful about committing to use money that we do not yet have and may never have. Second, this plan fails to use even a cent of the supposed $1 trillion surplus above Social Security to help pay down the $3.7 trillion public debt that our Nation currently owes. Paying down our debts would do more to keep the American economy growing than any other single thing the Government could do. Third, in order to find room for a $792 billion tax cut, we would have to not only pay down the accumulated debt but we would have to cut defense buying power by 17 percent and domestic programs, meaning law enforcement, VA, health, education, school construction, medical research, national parks, and so on by 23 percent over the coming 10 years. If we decline to cut defense, under this plan we then would have to cut these domestic initiatives by an outrageous 38 percent. What is even worse is that this tax bill is cynically constructed so that the drain on the Treasury will explode and triple in cost during the second decade after passage. Fourth, economic experts all over the country tell us that this tax package would cause interest rates to go up. At the current time, the Federal Reserve is raising interest rates and warning us that putting one foot on the gas and one foot on the brake is not a sensible economic policy for our country. The small tax cut that most Americans would receive would be negated through higher costs for financing everything from a house, to a car, to college education, to business expansion, and farming and ranching operations. If this bill becomes law, our middle-class families will wind up with fewer and not more dollars in their pockets. Fifth, this bill does absolutely nothing to prolong the life of Medicare much less provide for drug coverage payment reform that hospitals and clinics and medical institutions all over our country are in dire need of securing. Specifically, this legislation outrageously provides an average $22,500 tax cut for the wealthiest 1 percent of Americans. But a typical American family--a family in my State of South Dakota with an income of $38,000--would get a couple of bucks a week while paying higher interest costs for everything they buy. Wouldn't it make more sense to use a large portion of any surplus that actually materializes to pay down the accumulated national debt and then provide for targeted tax relief for middle-class and working families, protect Social Security and Medicare, and make some key investments in education, in the environment, infrastructure, and the things that we need to continue the economic growth in America? I yield the remainder of time that I may have to my colleague from New Jersey, Senator Lautenberg.

Mr. JOHNSON. I say to the Senator that I am certainly prepared to go at this time. But I would accommodate my friend.

Mr. JOHNSON

Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation, the 401(k) Right To Know Act, to require that 401(k) plan providers implement procedures to disclose the administrative fees that they charge their customers. However, I hope the need for the legislation can be effectively eliminated by voluntary action on the part of the plan providers to disclose fees. I am concerned that millions of American families work and save for their retirement through 401(k) plans without having an opportunity to fully evaluate and compare the costs of such plans. National news publications have suggested that some plans may be charging plan participants up to 2.5% of assets annually to manage their accounts. While I believe families should be free to choose among competing plans and to participate in retirement savings vehicles of their choice, I am troubled that information about fees is not fully disclosed. I believe that we have an obligation to make sure that families have access to basic information about fees. Congress encourages people to participate in 401(k) retirement plans by providing considerable tax advantages. We should give equal care to making sure that businesses and families have the information necessary to protect their nest eggs from excessive, undisclosed fees that threaten to siphon off the rewards of their work and prudence. Recently the Department of Labor, the American Bankers Association, the American Council of Life Insurance, and the Investment Company Institute announced a plan to address these concerns and provide information about 401(k) fees. I applaud this responsible and important effort. The agreements reached should be given fair consideration and an opportunity to be implemented. It is my sincere hope, that these efforts will be supported by all 401(k) plan providers and that consumers will utilize and benefit from fee disclosure. Nonetheless, I want to go on record to articulate my lingering concern for the lack of disclosure currently provided and make known my conviction to pursue legislative action should the industry fail to fully implement the goals of disclosure recently agreed upon. Again, I want to reiterate that I believe the recent announcement is an important step to resolve this issue. My goal is to make sure consumers have accurate and timely information about fees readily available to them. I will be monitoring the progress closely and remain hopeful that legislative action will not be necessary to achieve disclosure of 401(k) fees.

Mr. JOHNSON

Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. President, the underlying tax bill calls for domestic spending reductions of anywhere from 24 to 38 percent, closing down VA hospitals from one end of this country to the other. This is the one vote on which my colleagues will have an opportunity to make sure there is enough money in the VA system to keep those hospitals open.

Mr. JOHNSON

Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. President, I thank my colleague from Nevada. I associate myself with the remarks of my friend and colleague from Iowa, Senator Harkin, on this issue. Today the Senate is considering the reinstatement of rule XVI, the Senate rule preventing authorizing legislation from being included on appropriations bills. The reason the Senate is forced today to consider the reinstatement of rule XVI is because the Republican majority overturned the ruling of the Chair in 1995. Prior to 1995, it always was the rule that no authorizing language could be added to an appropriations bill. Having had several years of experience under this new regime, the majority comes back with a proposal now to go back to that old rule, whereby authorizing language way not be added to an appropriations bill. If debate were being brought forward on the floor of the Senate in the way that it had over most of the history of this institution, I do not think there would be very much resistance to going back to rule XVI. But what needs to be pointed out is the context we find ourselves in post-1995, the way in which, frankly, the current majority party seems to be bringing legislation to the floor, and the fact that this process has changed radically, and for the worse, not only for the minority party but for the American people. If debate on amendments were brought forward in a fair fashion, with the majority party and the minority party being allowed to bring amendments and legislation to the floor, to have a reasonable discussion of those issues--whether it be about HMO managed care reform, whether it be about campaign finance reform, whether it be about minimum wage, whether it be about farm disaster legislation-- regardless of what it might be, I do not think there would be any opposition to bringing those amendments up outside the context of an appropriations bill. In recent years, it has become common practice, in fact the usual practice, for authorizing legislation, when it is brought to the floor of the Senate, to be brought with what amounts to a gag order on the minority party. By a gag order, I mean legislation is frequently now brought to the floor by our majority leader with the amendment tree filled, meaning that no minority amendments are permitted whatsoever to authorizing legislation, allowing for no additional amendments to be offered. Then cloture is filed before there is any debate on anything relative to the amendments the minority party ordinarily is allowed to bring. What does the majority fear? Why is there this concern? Is it really a matter of saving time? As my colleague from Iowa has noted, we go days at a time around this place with no constructive legislative progress being made on the floor of the Senate, with a quorum call in progress, with no one here. Is it really to save time or is it, in fact, a concern on the part of the majority that the American people should not be allowed to share the discussion and debate on the floor about key issues that ought to be before the American public, about where this country ought to be going relative to its domestic and international agendas. Is there a gag rule for some reason other than saving time? One would have to conclude that, yes, that is the case; that apparently the majority finds it embarrassing to have Members of this body discussing an agenda that is not being addressed by the Senate. All of this really amounts to the minority party being shut out of the process, being denied the right to amend legislation when that legislation comes to the floor. An example, Mr. President, is when legislation to create a so-called lockbox for the Social Security trust fund was brought to the floor on several occasions earlier this year. Grossly inadequate lockbox legislation was being brought to the floor. It belied what most people would think of when they think of a lockbox. But there was no opportunity for amendments to be offered or even considered. The minority party understands it is the minority party. It may lose a vote on a proposed amendment. But that party ought to be allowed the opportunity to point out the deficiencies of legislation and to have a fair up-or-down vote. There are times when Democrats will vote with Republicans, and Republicans will vote with Democrats. That is the way the process ought to work. Yet that opportunity is being denied this body. The question for all of us to consider, again, is, What is the majority afraid of? Do they not believe Senators in the minority have the right to offer amendments, or that any Senator in the majority might from time to time vote with the minority? It is a sad commentary about the bipartisan politics of this body if that, indeed, is the case. I had the honor of serving in the other Chamber for a number of years. Over there, where they have 435 Representatives, there is a Rules Committee that decides which amendments will be considered and when, and how that legislation is brought to the floor. In the other body, that process is sometimes abused but probably is necessary, given the sheer size of the body. The possibility of 435 Members offering multiple amendments obviously boggles the mind and could, indeed, slow down the process. But one of the great strengths of the Senate has been, because of our smaller size and the historic collegiality that has existed most of the time in this body, we don't have that kind of Rules Committee, that kind of power. Here we bring these issues to the floor for an open and fair and balanced debate; obviously, with the majority and the minority dividing the time and proceeding with debate in an orderly, constructive fashion but with an opportunity to address the key issues facing the Nation, whether brought by the majority or brought by the minority, to have that discussion. Unfortunately, the current majority--and this is out of precedent going back throughout the history of our country--wants to deny Senators in the minority a chance to offer the amendments they believe need to be offered. I think there would be few Senators on the part of the minority who would object to reaching bipartisan agreements on the amount of time to be spent on particular legislation or the number of amendments to be offered. It is very common that these agreements about numbers of amendments and time agreements are reached in a bipartisan fashion so that we can continue to proceed in an orderly fashion so that there is no real risk of debate on these issues somehow clogging up the process and denying the ability of the Senate to move forward with its agenda. This is not a tradeoff between orderly development of legislative issues and the opportunity for the minority to bring up amendments and discuss them in a reasonable manner. I think it is important for everyone who is following this debate, then, to keep these circumstances in mind, to fully understand what the restoration of rule XVI really is all about. It is not about orderly progress of legislation. It is not about saving time. It is about trying to gag the minority party with no opportunity to bring up legislation which the majority party is ignoring. It is a means of preventing the minority party from pointing out the deficiencies and inadequacies, as they see it, of legislation being offered by the majority. It is the majority party's effort to see to it that their own Members don't cross the aisle to vote with the minority party on selected pieces of legislation and to save themselves from that apparent embarrassment. I point out another important issue that must be discussed again in this context. That is Senator Daschle's amendment to reinstate the scope of conference point of order.

Mr. JOHNSON. Prior to 1996, a point of order could be brought in conference committee against an amendment that had not been offered and debated in either the House or the Senate but was included in one of their versions of the bill. The majority is also overturning that rule, meaning they have the opportunity, then, to deny minority amendments on the floor of the Senate, but then, when they are in conference committee behind closed doors, with no media, no press, the majority party can amend legislation any way they wish, without regard to action of the House or the Senate on the floor. I hope in the context of all of this the Senate will remain consistent with precedent in supporting Senator Daschle's effort to make sure there is some continuity of action in those conference committees. This is particularly important in light of the changes being proposed on rule XVI. I yield back such time as I have to the Senator from Nevada.

Mr. JOHNSON. May I have 1 additional minute?

Mr. JOHNSON

Mr. JOHNSON. I ask the Senator from Illinois for 10 minutes.

Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. President, does the Senator from North Dakota control the time?

Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. President, on the floor of the other body today and coming to the floor of the Senate this coming week is going to be legislation having to do with taxation, having to do with tax cuts. Just when we think we have seen just about everything in terms of irresponsibility and foolishness, we see something literally taking the cake. We are seeing some pandering irresponsibility of record proportions that would be so serious and so injurious to this Nation's economic future and to the priorities of this country that we simply have to begin to speak about this issue today. What does this issue revolve around? It revolves around the Congressional Budget Office's projections that we will have about a $964 billion budget surplus over the coming 10 years, over and above what is needed for Social Security. Those are projections 10 years out, incredibly tenuous given the fact that in the past we haven't been able to make projections for a year out that have been accurate, much less for 10 years. But nonetheless, that is the baseline for this debate. Given the economic prosperity this administration has brought us, particularly the 1993 Budget Act, passed without a single Republican vote in either body, we do have a unique opportunity now to do some extraordinary things for ourselves and for the coming generation of Americans in terms of eliminating the accumulated Federal debt, make some key investments and, yes, assisting with some targeted tax relief to those families who need it most. But what do we see coming to us from the other body? What do we see coming on this floor this coming week? We see a tax plan from our Republican majority friends suggesting that with this $964 billion, if you even believe it is going to happen, first of all, nothing be set aside for the preservation and the strengthening of Medicare, nothing. Second, in order to give essentially this entire amount of money back as tax relief--primarily to the most wealthy people who are making the political contributions in this body; the typical American family gets about a buck a week tax relief--we will have to then reduce over the coming 10 years defense spending buying power by about 17 percent, at a time when we are having a hard time trying to figure out how to maintain our security responsibilities around the world as it is. This tax package would assume, then, that we will have a 23-percent reduction in domestic spending buying power over the coming 10 years. If you buy into this tax package, that means you close veterans hospitals. That means you have significant reductions in Head Start programs, education programs. That means you give up on the idea we will have some sort of partnership for rebuilding our schools and bringing new technology into our schools. It means gutting education and agricultural programs. It means severe cuts in parks, law enforcement, in medical research, all the things most Americans think are crucial to our Federal, State and local, public and private partnerships that make this the great country it is. On top of that, if you think that is not bad enough, there is zero set aside for the reduction of the accumulated Federal national debt we have accumulated over the 200-year history of this country but which primarily came about during the 1980s, during the Reagan and Bush years and now stands at $5.6 trillion. It does nothing to buy down that existing debt. And if the decision is made down the road we are not going to knock defense spending down by 17 percent, then the consequence of that, under this plan, would be that we would have to reduce domestic spending--Head Start, education, parks, law enforcement, medical research, VA hospitals, agriculture, all that range of initiatives, by 38 percent. This is a radical, extremist agenda for the Nation. The American people deserve better than this. Just when you think that is as bad as things can get, you look at the way this tax package is constructed, with the tax reductions, especially back loaded for the very wealthy, and then what do you find on the next page? Not only have you given up your entire domestic agenda, not only have you done nothing to reduce the accumulated Federal deficit, not only have you done nothing for Medicare, but the cost of this recipe explodes to double the cost in the next 10 years. What a radical agenda. It would be foolish, were it not so serious and so injurious to our Nation. Then one last thought: The Federal Reserve has recently raised interest rates by about a quarter percent. Some are attempting in this tax package to put one foot on the gas while the other foot is on the brake. If we were to do this, the obvious next consequence would be a significant increase in interest rates by the Federal Reserve. There is already a rise in interest rates now, without any tax cut whatever. That is a silent tax on every American. On every parent who wants to send a child to college or a vocational school, and on everyone who wants to buy a house, or buy a car, or a farmer who wants to finance his operation, or a businessperson who wants to expand his business and create new jobs, that is a killing tax. It is a higher interest rate as a consequence of this incredible irresponsibility that we see going on in the House today and coming to the Senate this coming week. Thank goodness for the future of America President Clinton has indicated he will veto this nonsense. But wouldn't it be better if we could work together in a bipartisan fashion on a constructive, positive agenda that, yes, would provide some tax relief to working class people, working families, the families who struggle to make a car payment, a house payment, and to keep jeans and tennis shoes on the kids, the people who make the economy go. Let's provide tax relief there, but let's pay down some of the national debt, which is probably the single-best thing we can do in any kind of budget plan. We should make sure we make key investments in education, in Head Start, in medical research, and keep the VA hospitals open. We can do all of these things with thoughtful balance and moderation. But moderation seems to be the last thing in the world our Republican friends want to bring to either the other body or this floor in terms of tax and budget agendas. I think where you put your money says a great deal about the character of any government because rhetoric is cheap. Everybody is for everything around here, until it is time to put some money where your mouth is and do the balancing that needs to be done. That is what we see not happening on the other side. What we are seeing is pandering and irresponsibility and radical agendas that may make a statement for the coming elections. Who knows? It seems to me it makes a very negative statement. But we deserve better than that. This Nation deserves better, and this Nation needs better than that. We need to come up with a budget and tax reduction package that is moderate, thoughtful, and deals with some of the tax relief that is needed but makes investments that are needed and pays down the accumulated Federal debt. That will keep the cost of money down and make it easier to send a kid to college or vocational school, buy a house, buy a car, or keep a farming or ranching operation going, all of those things, if we make the right decisions. But this is a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity. Many of us thought, in the years we have had the opportunity to serve in Congress, several things would never happen in our lifetime: The fall of the Berlin Wall, the collapse of the Soviet Union, and the possibility that we would ever be on the floor arguing about what to do about budget surpluses. We have that opportunity. Let's not waste that opportunity. Let's take a thoughtful, constructive, positive approach to how to use those dollars as we embark on this next millennium and revisit this tax package so we emerge from this debate with a package that, in fact, does address the priorities that I think the American people want us to address, and that does it, hopefully, in a bipartisan fashion and in a way that will leave our economy stronger and leave our families stronger going into the coming century than we are now and, certainly, far stronger than what would happen if we tragically actually passed and enacted the tax agenda that we see occurring on the House floor today and is coming to this body next week. I yield back my time.

Mr. JOHNSON

Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. President, I thank Senator Landrieu for her leadership on this issue, as well as Chairman Murkowski. I think we have an enormous opportunity this year to at last reach a bipartisan agreement to increase significantly the funding for several critically important planned water and wildlife conservation programs. Several legislative efforts to establish mandatory funding for conservation programs utilizing Outer Continental Shelf, OCS, revenue are under bipartisan discussion. I have been pleased to participate in hearings on these initiatives in the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee. All of the conservation legislation introduced this year proposed significant steps to support the restoration, preservation and conservation of our natural resources. The hearings in our committee have been extremely useful since, if we are to be successful this year, we have the daunting task ahead of us of drafting a compromise conservation bill which meets the diverse needs of all fifty states. Consequently, we need to hear as many perspectives and learn as much about the needs in the states as possible before we begin drafting a compromise bill. Preserving our natural resources is an issue to which many of us in this body are committed. Earlier this year I joined 35 of my colleagues from both sides of the aisle in sending a letter to Budget Committee Chairman Dominici and Senator Lautenberg requesting full funding for the Land and Water Conservation Fund. Further, during consideration of the fiscal year 2000 budget resolution, Senator Boxer and I offered an amendment to establish a conservation reserve fund. This amendment was unanimously approved by the Budget Committee, passed by the Senate but unfortunately dropped in the conference committee. Nonetheless, the strong support from the Senate for this concept signals a commitment to finding a way to fund additional conservation initiatives. Additionally, one third of the Members of this body have cosponsored one of the conservation proposals which have been introduced. This level of interest indicates that while we have not come to an agreement on the details which should be included in a comprehensive conservation proposal, significant interest in this issue exists. This widespread interest offers an opportunity to find a bipartisan compromise to address this critically important issue. I applaud Senator Boxer in particular for her efforts in this area, and I applaud Senators Landrieu and Murkowski for their work on S. 25. One of the primary reasons I supported the bill earlier this year is the sponsors' inclusion of the non-game wildlife initiative, often called Teaming With Wildlife (TWW). I am convinced that funding for specified nongame conservation programs must be secured if we want to successfully work to keep species off of threatened and endangered species lists while also meeting the skyrocketing demand for outdoor recreation and education opportunities. Currently, I am circulating a letter which I will be sending to Chairman Murkowski and Senator Landrieu which advocates a higher percentage of funding for wildlife conservation than currently included in S. 25. Specifically, I am advocating increasing the funding allocation from 7 to 10. At this time other Senators joining me in sending the letter include: Senators Cleland, Frist, Lincoln, Daschle, Kerrey, Gregg, and Bayh--and more Senators may join in our effort. I commend Chairman Murkowski and Senator Landrieu for their support of the TWW concept and look forward to working with them to find an adequate level of funding for this important program. There are other issues, of course, for which I have a great deal of interest, including the funding for the PILT program and funding for historic preservation efforts. However, probably the largest outstanding issue--and the potential show stopper--for all of us who want to find a compromise conservation proposal is identifying whether we have room in the budget to increase funding for conservation. The recent mid-session review paints a rosy picture of our current economic situation and I believe that targeted tax relief and paying down the publicly held debt must be our top priorities. However, I also believe that within the context of a balanced budget, the new economic projections give us room to consider modestly increasing funding for domestic priorities, such as conversation. Again, we have an opportunity this year to find a bipartisan compromise which will ensure adequate funding for conservation, restoration, and preservation efforts across this country. I again commend Chairman Murkowski and Senator Landrieu for their bipartisan effort and look forward to working with them in the coming weeks and month to craft a bill which can pass this body and which will, in fact, be signed by the President of the United States. I yield such time as I have remaining.