Congressional Record, Volume 165 Issue 81 (Wednesday, May 15, 2019)

[Congressional Record Volume 165, Number 81 (Wednesday, May 15, 2019)]
[Senate]
[Pages S2868-S2877]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

STOP STALLING ACT AND CREATES ACT

Madam President, two of the bills the House Judiciary Committee have
already advanced with bipartisan support are companions to bipartisan
legislation that I am leading in the Senate with Senator Grassley: the
Stop STALLING Act, which addresses the abuse of the FDA petition
process by pharma companies, and my bill to crack down on anti-
competitive pay-for-delay agreements.
In addition to these commonsense measures, the House Judiciary
Committee also passed a version of the bipartisan CREATES Act, which
Senator Leahy and Senator Lee and others have led and which I have been
a cosponsor of for years, to deter branded drug companies from
withholding testing samples to develop new generics.
Recently, on ``60 Minutes,'' there was a story of the work that is
being done in Connecticut in response to what is going on between the
generic companies and the pharmaceutical companies. That is what these
bills get at--to get products out on the market, to stop the pay-for-
delay, in which Big Pharma pays off generics to keep their products off
the market.
Yes, we should take up these bills. It is very important, but we must
do more. We must also make sure that Medicare negotiates for prices.
Right now there is literally a ban on negotiation, so 43 million
seniors cannot get the benefit of less expensive drug prices. That
doesn't help just 43 million seniors if we lift that ban; it also helps
everyone in America because they are such big purchasers of
prescription drugs that it will bring down the cost for everyone.
The other bill I noted was the one about the petitioning process that
was designed to allow interested parties to raise legitimate health and
safety issues related to generic drug applications, but for years
branded drugmakers have filed sham petitions to delay the FDA's
approval of the competing generic drugs.
Studies show that the FDA denies more than 90 percent of petitions
relating to generics and that more than 10 percent of generics between
2011 and 2015 were filed by branded pharmaceutical companies. Our
legislation would help to deter those who engage in sham petitioning.
According to the CBO--the Congressional Budget Office--that would save
U.S. taxpayers $117 million over the next 10 years.
These are ideas that have been out there for a long time. These are
things that we believe would make a major difference.

Safe and Affordable Drugs from Canada Act

Madam President, another one I would like to mention is a bill that I
first introduced with the late Senator John McCain to allow Americans
to bring in certain safe, less expensive drugs from Canada. I have
continued this bipartisan effort by introducing the Safe and Affordable
Drugs from Canada Act. Senator Grassley has now taken the place of
Senator McCain, and we have introduced that bill.

LifeBOAT Act

Madam President, finally, we should act to hold drugmakers
accountable for the opioid crisis they helped to create by passing the
LifeBOAT Act, led by our colleague Senator Manchin, who was just in
this Chamber, which would establish a permanent funding stream to
provide and expand access to treatment for addiction. It is only fair
that the companies made wealthy from addiction be held responsible to
fund a pathway for recovery. There are many options, and, alone, none
of these will fix this problem. But, together, along with other
legislation that has been proposed by my colleagues, we can make a
difference. We can no longer pretend this is happening. It is time for
us to make a dent, to bring down the cost of prescription drugs, and to
stop coddling the pharmaceutical companies.
This is about, as I mentioned, Nicole and her son, whom she no longer
can share time with. He has left us, but she will not let it go.
This is about Jessica, a mother whose specialty drug costs to treat
her arthritis are $50,000 a year.
This is about a woman from Crystal, MN, who told me ``I am
practically going without food'' to pay for her prescriptions. This is
happening in America.
Madam President, I note that my colleague Senator Blumenthal is here,
and I know that he has remarks as well.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Connecticut.
Mr. BLUMENTHAL. Thank you, Madam President. I will be speaking in
just a moment, but I understand the minority leader, Senator Schumer,
is on his way to speak before me, so he should be here within moments.
Ms. KLOBUCHAR. While we await for Senator Schumer, I want to mention
just a few examples of what we are talking about here with drug
prices--a woman named Paula. Paula has been prescribed a treatment for
her multiple sclerosis. It costs over $5,000 a month. She has been
getting copay assistance from a grant but does not know how she is
going to afford it and whether she is going to be able to afford her
lifesaving medication.
Julie, another example, is covered under her husband's employer plan.
She currently has to pay a $500 copay for a drug that she needs--the
same drug that was once offered in a generic form for $50, a fraction
of the new cost. The generic drug has been discontinued, creating an
impossible choice between paying $500 or not filling her prescription.
Because of the high cost, she goes without this drug.
Diane--Diane has an EpiPen for bee stings and is unhappy with the
high cost. She says:

[[Page S2869]]

Now that I am retired, it is horrific how I have to buy
them in a pack of two, and they cost more than before. The
prices have just skyrocketed. Every year I throw away
something that is so expensive that I cannot use. It is way
overpriced.

Angie, from Savage, MN, is a mother, a wife, and a teacher. In May of
2018, she was admitted to a hospital, where MRI scans showed brain
lesions. She was eventually discharged from the hospital and was
instructed to follow up with a neurologist. She received a multiple
sclerosis diagnosis. She was prescribed a new medication that is also
one of the most effective drugs available today for treating MS.
Payment for the expensive drug was denied.
These are just examples of the people we see every day.
I yield the floor.
Mr. SCHUMER. Madam President, first, I want to thank the Senator from
Minnesota--the senior Senator--for all of the great work she has done
in working to reduce the high cost of drugs for the American people.

The Middle East

Madam President, on a much different subject but a very important
one--Iran and the Middle East--I have returned to the floor this
afternoon amid several concerned reports about the Trump
administration's position on Iran.
Earlier this week, it was reported that the administration's national
security team discussed a plan that would deploy at least 120,000 U.S.
troops in the Middle East. Today we learned that personnel were removed
from the U.S. Embassy in Iraq. The President himself initially denied
there was a plan and then seemed to confirm the reports by saying that
he would ``absolutely'' send troops, and, if he did, ``it would be a
hell of a lot more than 120,000.''
The news comes as quite a surprise to the American people, who have
grown quite tired of wars in the Middle East, of the loss of life and
fortune when there is so much that has to be done in America.
The American people deserve to know what is going on here. We are
talking about not only putting 120,000 troops in harm's way in this
possible deployment but also about the safety and the actions of the
thousands of troops we have stationed in the Middle East right now.
So I am calling on Acting Defense Secretary Shanahan and the Chairman
of the Joint Chiefs, General Dunford, to come testify before the Senate
Armed Services Committee in an open setting before the end of the week.
The hearings that are done in secret do not inform the American people
of what is going on, and they are entitled to know because the lessons
of history teach us that when things are done in secret, behind closed
doors, mistakes can be made and momentum built for a course of action
that the Nation ultimately regrets.
So I repeat: The American people deserve to know what is going on. If
the President and Republicans in Congress are planning to take the
United States into a conflict, even a war in the Middle East, the
American people deserve to know that, and they deserve to know why.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Connecticut.
Mr. BLUMENTHAL. Madam President, I want to begin by thanking the
minority leader for bringing this issue as straightforwardly and as
clearly as he has. As a member of the Armed Services Committee, I
demand to know from the Acting Secretary of Defense and other relevant
officials why we have deployed these American military assets,
including an aircraft carrier group, a number of bombers and Patriot
missile units to one of the most dangerous parts of the world, where
they may unexpectedly provoke act of war.
We are on a dangerous path without a strategy. We are embarked on a
course of potential war without informing the Congress or the American
people. We have demanded repeatedly that we be briefed, and it must be
in public.
This situation has reached a point of potential conflagration. The
tinderbox of the Middle East is no place to operate on impulse or whim.
That is the appearance this administration has created by lacking a
clearly articulated strategy for the American people to know and
assess. On the Armed Services Committee, we have asked repeatedly for
this kind of information, and so far the administration has refused to
provide it. So this kind of open hearing is necessary to be open
information for the American people, and they deserve and need no less.

Prescription Drug Costs

Madam President, I turn now to a topic that is of great consequence
to the American people for their health and their economic well-being.
As we all know and as the senior Senator from Minnesota, my great
friend Amy Klobuchar, has very eloquently and powerfully described, the
high cost of essential medicines in this country is a national
disgrace. It is immoral. For the greatest country in the world to
compel ordinary Americans to choose between covering the cost of their
rent and putting food on the table or paying for their medicine needed
to stay alive is absolutely abhorrent and unacceptable.
The only people who benefit under the current system are the high-
paid executives, whose pay is increased even more by this unjust and
intolerable system. It yields them greater profit without any greater
help to the American people.
It has to stop, and the good news is, we have bipartisan agreement
that it must stop. After years of disagreement, we are starting to see
Republicans and Democrats coming together and confronting the
skyrocketing cost of prescription drugs. Drug companies' price-gouging,
their manipulation of their monopolistic power to raise those prices
and make the industry's practices noncompetitive and to exclude even
new products from coming to market--all of these abuses have become so
extreme and so outrageous that there is now bipartisan consensus that
we need to stop it.
I am proud today to support the Affordable Prescriptions for Patients
Act. It is a bipartisan piece of legislation, and it will finally put a
stop to some of the most egregious monopolistic and predatory tactics
within the drug industry. These tactics would make even the robber
barons of the Gilded Age blush with guilt and embarrassment for the
obvious anti-consumer effects that impact the average American.
These patent abuses go by colorful names like ``patent thicketing''
and ``product hopping,'' but these names obscure their very pernicious
purpose. Patent thicketing and product hopping are only the tip of this
monopolistic iceberg. While these terms may be unfamiliar to many
Americans, almost everyone is familiar with the harmful effects these
predatory practices produce.
The fault here is with the people who take advantage of shortages and
market power. They exploit them in the same way that anti-trust abuses
have been done over the decade, and they are the reason we have anti-
trust laws. Now, to confront this even more egregious example of abuses
of market power, we need these new laws.
According to one study in 2017, across the top 12 grossing drugs in
America, drugs companies filed an average of 127 patent applications
per drug. By creating a thicket, a genuine thicket of patents around
their drugs, drug companies are able to double the number of years of
market exclusivity that they have before a competitor can enter the
market.
During this time, these drug companies are able to charge consumers
extraordinarily high prices for drugs they desperately need. If you use
HUMIRA or have rheumatoid arthritis, you should be deeply concerned
about patent thicketing. According to one study, the manufacturer of
HUMIRA has filed 247 patents so it can exclude competitors from the
market. It keeps those competitive adversaries from producing drugs and
can do so for a total of 39 years. During those 39 years, the cost of
HUMIRA in the future--they will do it for 39 years--is just going to
keep climbing. According to reports, between 2012 and 2015 alone, the
average amount that Medicare and Medicaid spent on each patient using
HUMIRA more than doubled--from $16,000 to $33,000. Things will only get
worse in the years to come.
Rheumatoid arthritis patients are hardly the only ones who should be
concerned about patent thicketing. A large number of patents have been
filed

[[Page S2870]]

to protect the market exclusivity of drugs that treat conditions like
cancer, stroke, blood clots, diabetes, multiple myeloma, and macular
degeneration.
Patent thickets will keep competitors off the market. It will cost
consumers thousands, perhaps hundreds of thousands of dollars, each
year. It isn't only the patients who use the drugs who suffer these
effects; we all pay the cost of higher insurance when those insurers
have to pay higher costs for drugs. It hits all of us, not just the
patients who suffer from these medical conditions.
Unfortunately, this obviously anti-competitive practice is not the
only way drug companies abuse the patent system to keep drug prices
high. Just before the protections for their first drug expire, brand-
name drug companies pull a bait-and-switch, pushing consumers onto a
new, slightly different drug. That means any generic competition coming
to market will struggle to penetrate the market, and consumers will be
stuck with the brand-name drug for even longer, likely at a
significantly higher cost. In this way, the brand-name company succeeds
in gouging customers and keeping their profits growing. That is their
objective--not better product, not better health, not better patient
experiences, only higher profits.
One of the most famous examples of product hopping--the practice I
have just described--concerns Namenda, a drug to treat Alzheimer's.
This drug was produced by a company called Actavis. When Actavis
originally released Namenda, it was usually taken by patients twice a
day, but a number of years before Namenda's market exclusivity was
going to expire, Actavis went to the FDA to approve a new version of
Namenda, this one taken just once a day. A new drug? No. A different
way of taking it? Maybe. To improve patient health? No. To increase
profits? Yes.
Although the FDA had approved this drug in 2010, Actavis
strategically waited 3 years to introduce this, with the apparent goal
of extending its exclusivity in the U.S. market. Once the new drug was
introduced, Actavis pushed all of its customers onto it, while pulling
the old drug from the market. As a result, Actavis was able to continue
charging monopoly prices on essentially the same drug long after
Namenda's first patent was expected to expire.
We have reached the time to stop patent thicketing and product
hopping once and for all. We have reached the time to bring sanity and
fairness to the drug market so consumers can see lower prices.
I am proud to be joining with Senator Cornyn of Texas to introduce
the Affordable Prescriptions for Patients Act. It will fight these
abusive practices and give consumers some much needed relief from
higher drug costs. I thank Senator Cornyn for his leadership. We joined
in this partnership, and it has taken many months to draft and
introduce this measure. I thank his staff, as well as my own, for all
of their hard work on this bill reaching this bipartisan consensus.
This legislation will embolden and encourage our anti-trust forces to
pursue pharma companies that are getting away with anti-competitive
practices. It will also give clear guidance to our courts to allow them
to quickly and easily distinguish between product hopping and patent
thicketing from truly innovative, truly inventive conduct that benefits
patients.
This legislation makes sure that any company caught redhanded
engaging in these harmful practices will have to pay and be held
accountable.
This legislation will also lower healthcare costs for millions of
Americans by increasing competition in the market. If we pass this
legislation, millions of Americans may no longer have to choose between
food on the table, their rent payment, and the medicine they need and
deserve. That is a choice no one should ever have to make in the
greatest country in the history of the world.
We cannot allow drug companies to continue their monopolistic
practices and predatory abuses that only increase the profit of those
companies. We cannot allow those drug companies to reap massive
personal benefits for their executives, while Americans are struggling
to make ends meet. I urge the Senate to immediately take up this
legislation to protect American patients today.
I happily yield the floor to my colleague from Minnesota.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Minnesota.
Ms. SMITH. Madam President, I rise today to join Senator Klobuchar
and my colleagues on behalf of all Minnesotans and Americans who
struggle to afford their prescription drugs.
The increasing price of prescription drugs is a top concern for
Americans and Minnesotans. Every day, companies are launching new
treatments at astronomical prices, and they are spiking the price of
older drugs, like insulin. Americans are taking notice of this greedy
behavior that puts patients last.
The No. 1 issue I hear about from Minnesotans is the cost of
healthcare and specifically the cost of prescription drugs. Every day,
Minnesotans inspire me to fight to lower the price of prescription
drugs, Minnesotans like Rachael Malmberg, a military veteran with
cancer.
Before Rachel battled cancer, she battled teams on the ice, playing
hockey for the University of Minnesota and the U.S. Olympic Team.
Rachael's daily medicine is stabilizing her cancer, but it comes at a
great cost. Even with health insurance, she still pays $9,000 a month.
For Rachael, affording her prescription drugs is a matter of life or
death.
I have also talked with Minnesotans like Nikki Foster, a mom living
with multiple sclerosis in Brooklyn Park, MN. Nikki received her MS
diagnosis only 3 months after running her first half-marathon. The
diagnosis was frightening, and Nikki wondered if she would ever be able
to run again. I am happy to say that 4 years later, Nikki is walking
and running just fine. Her progress is due largely to the treatment
regimen her doctors prescribed. However, with the rising price of her
primary medication, Nikki wonders how long she is going to be able to
afford it. When her medication was first introduced to the market in
2004, the price was around $16,000 a year. Today, it is more than
$80,000.
Without significant changes in the formulation of her medicine, the
price has skyrocketed 440 percent. Those higher prices translated to
higher monthly costs and a constant source of worry for Nikki.
Finally, I am inspired by the memory of Alec Smith. Here is Alec's
story. Alec transitioned off his mom's health insurance at age 26. He
was a type 1 diabetic, so he depended on insulin to survive. Without
insurance, Alec faced a $1,300-a-month cost for managing his diabetes.
Most of that was driven by the high price of the insulin. Alec had a
good job, but his diabetes treatment was eating up nearly 45 percent of
his monthly salary, and that is on top of regular expenses for food and
rent and other basic necessities. So Alec did what he had to do. He
rationed his insulin to make ends meet. Unfortunately, less than a
month after his 26th birthday and less than 1 month after he
transitioned off his mom's insurance, Alec passed away. He was the
victim of insulin rationing.
Colleagues, we are at a crisis point. Thousands of people like Alec
are rationing their prescriptions so they can afford them, and
sometimes they are literally paying with their lives. Patients with
health insurance, like Nikki and Rachael, are facing higher and higher
out-of-pocket costs, and seniors are being forced to choose between
paying for groceries and paying for their medicine.
In the wealthiest country in the world, this is unacceptable. It is
morally wrong that the pharmaceutical companies are raking profits off
of skyrocketing prices while Americans struggle to pay for their
prescription drugs. That is simple to understand, but the industry
would have you believe otherwise.
Their first argument. Well, drug pricing is so complex; it is
impossible to understand; and Congress should study the problem. I
would argue this complexity serves a function. Complexity obscures all
the ways the drug companies are gaming the system to drive up profits.
Colleagues, we can't be paralyzed by complexity. We need to create more
transparency in drug pricing.

[[Page S2871]]

So then the pharmaceutical companies come back with their second
argument. They say high prices are the result of altruistic purposes,
like investing in research, development, and innovation, but,
colleagues, remember, it is taxpayers, not drug companies, who are
subsidizing the basic research that leads to innovation and new cures
through the National Institutes of Health. Innovation can't help people
if it is too expensive to afford.
So then comes their closing argument. We aren't the problem, say the
drug companies. It is the PBMs. It is the insurers. It is everybody
else but us. I would argue that everyone has a role to play. Lots of
companies profit from high drug prices all along the supply chain. That
needs to be fixed, and all of these players need to be held
accountable. Pointing fingers and shifting blame will not bring down
high drug prices. Comprehensive solutions will.
In the coming weeks, I will be reintroducing the Affordable
Medications Act, which is a comprehensive solution that targets the
multiple causes of the skyrocketing price of prescription drugs, and a
number of my Democratic colleagues are working with me on this bill. It
would increase transparency and hold pharmaceutical companies
accountable for their role in setting high prices. My bill would make
prescription drugs more affordable by allowing Medicare to use its
buying power to negotiate lower prices, just like we already do with
the Department of Veterans Affairs.
My bill goes further by penalizing drug companies that spike prices
and allowing for the safe importation of lower cost drugs from other
countries like Canada. My bill would spur innovation by creating a fund
for new antibiotics and funding for clinical drug trials, and it would
protect competition by blocking unfair, anticompetitive drug monopoly
practices. This bill would eliminate the blame game and put patients at
the center of the solution.
Now, I recently introduced bipartisan legislation with Senator
Cassidy to help bring low-cost biosimilars, like insulin, to the
market. I am working to reintroduce legislation that would limit the
ability of the big brand name drug companies to keep lower cost generic
drugs off the market.
Many of these proposals have bipartisan support. Many more should,
but we haven't brought any of these bills up for a vote in the Senate.
I urge my colleagues to take up these proposals and the drug pricing
bills making their way through the House right now as we speak. Alec,
Nikki, Rachael, and all of our constituents don't have the luxury of
waiting for Congress to break through legislative gridlock until they
can afford what they need to live.
Thank you, Senator Klobuchar, for drawing attention to this issue and
for inviting me to join with you today.
I yield to my colleague from Virginia, Senator Kaine.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Virginia is recognized.
Mr. KAINE. Madam President, I rise with my colleagues to just tell
stories I am hearing from Virginians. Having completed a campaign last
November, I was out doing a lot of listening and have continued to do a
lot of listening since then. In your own mind, you kind of categorize
the stories, and, first, above all else, are stories about healthcare.
I hear stories about a lot of things, but I hear stories about
healthcare probably as much as all other areas combined. In the area of
healthcare, the issue of the price of prescription drugs is No. 1.
Hundreds of Virginians have reached out to me to let me know about
the high cost of prescription drugs and how that affects not only their
health but even their ability to put food on their table or a roof over
their heads. Today I want to share some stories from Virginians and
then talk about some commonsense legislation and a present opportunity
to bring drug prices down.
Andrew from Great Falls shared this story with me. His father was
being treated for CML, which is a leukemia that is effectively curable,
and he was prescribed the drug Gleevec. Now, this story goes back a
little bit, and here is what Andrew said:

In the United States, Gleevec costs approximately $159 to
manufacture for a year's dose.

That is the manufactured cost.

In India, a generic version of this drug costs about $400 a
year to purchase for use. In Canada, the price is around
$8,800 a year for a generic of the drug, and $38,000 a year
for the branded drug. In the United States, there is no
available generic, and the brand name drug's marketing cost
is $146,000 a year. This is not a drug that consumers can
simply choose to take or not take--to be blunt, they will . .
. literally die of cancer if they don't take it.

Now, since Andrew wrote me the letter, a generic has been approved in
the United States that has provided him and other families relief, but
for a long period of time, $146,000 in the United States for a drug
that costs $159 to manufacture, and the price to patients in other
countries is dramatically less.
Daniel from Martinsville in Southern Virginia wrote to me about the
high price of insulin, which is a common theme, I know, for all of us
here with constituents.
He writes:

I paid $505.00 for 3 bottles of Humalog Insulin . . . at
Walgreens. This is a three month supply, but another Eli
Lilly insulin is required by my wife in order for her to
avoid death [and that is hundreds of dollars more].

Laurie from Norfolk wrote to me to share her story. Laurie has
rheumatoid arthritis, and she lives on Social Security. She writes:

The drug company wants $65,000 for the drug. With my
Medicare part D, they only want $8,000--[that is good, but
that is] over 1/3 of my annual income [as a senior on Social
Security for one drug]. I have applied for the drug companies
patient assistance program [because] the pain is too great. I
can't use my hand without the drug. The drug companies are
getting away with robbery. We need Medicare to have the
authority to negotiate drug prices.

Ron from Arlington, just across the Potomac, wrote me after he went
to renew a prescription he had been taking for more than a year.

That is an outrageous increase of 100 percent or $100 more
out of my pocket for exactly the same thing [every time I buy
it]. I am a retired federal employee on a limited income and
I am locked into this insurance plan for the rest of the
year. So I have to take $100 more out of my pocket to obtain
the exact same thing.

Every time he buys it, 100 percent increase in the price.
Marie from Virginia Beach wrote me about a drug that costs $375,000 a
year. She writes:

Without the drug I most likely will be bedridden. I cannot
afford the exorbitant price. . . . I recognize the recovery
cost of research is the main expense, since manufacturing
cost is extremely cheap, but when the sufferers cannot afford
your drug, then what have you gained?

Medicare is prohibited from negotiating the price of prescription
drugs. Medicare Part D enrolls over 43 million seniors nationwide,
giving the program incredible bargaining power if it could only be used
for their benefit.
Many seniors are on fixed incomes. The average senior gets Social
Security. Their median income is $28,000, so an $8,000 drug cost is
one-third to a quarter of their income. In the wealthiest Nation in the
world, seniors should not have to choose between paying for their
medication and putting food on the table or heating their home. So many
of these seniors tell me about getting medication and then thinking: If
I cut the pill in half and just take half a dose, maybe I can save some
money--but that then comes at an incredible reduction in the efficacy
of the prescription you are taking to control your healthcare
condition.
This is why I joined with Senator Klobuchar, and I appreciate her
organizing this group of us on the floor today, to introduce the
Empowering Medicare Seniors to Negotiate Drug Prices Act, which allows
Medicare to negotiate drug prices. This is simple, basic, best business
practice. Everybody will negotiate prices. Why should we bar the
Medicare Part D Program that provides a prescription drug benefit to 43
million people--why should we bar them from negotiating for drug
prices?

According to a recent analysis, Medicare would have saved $14.4
billion. That is billion with a ``b.'' Medicare would have saved $14.4
billion on just 50 drugs in 2016 if the program had paid the same
prices as the Department of Veterans Affairs, which is allowed to
negotiate. That is a whole separate level of absurdity. Why would we,
as Congress, allow the Department of Veterans Affairs, as they buy
these same drugs from the same manufacturers, to negotiate and get a
volume discount but tell the Medicare Program they

[[Page S2872]]

can't? We actually know how much money we would save because of
allowing the Veterans Affairs Department to negotiate, which they
should be able to, but why would we then handcuff Medicare Part D and
not allow them?
If Medicare would have saved $14.4 billion just in those 50 drugs in
1 year, that is $14.4 billion that could be used for better healthcare,
the deficit reduction, tax relief, Pell grants, education expenses.
There is also a savings not just to Medicare but to patients that would
also be in the billions.
Every corner pharmacy negotiates the price of prescription drugs.
Every Walmart does. When they are buying prescription drugs to sell in
their pharmacy, they negotiate based on volume. It makes no sense that
the Federal Government is not allowed to do the same thing.
Another area is biologic medicines. They represent a new and very
promising area of treatment. I do want to stop here and say I am not
one of these people who use a big broad brush and say pharmaceutical
companies are bad. Why are we living longer? Why is the average age
going up and up and up? It is going up and up and up because of better
medical care, and much of that medical care and improvement is
innovation in the pharmaceutical industry, so I am not on a campaign to
say pharmaceutical companies are bad. They are producing lifesaving
prescriptions that are easing suffering and prolonging life. It is just
that the price Americans pay for those drugs is so far out of whack
with what other nations do, and one of the things that is innovative,
that is great is biologic medicines.
When competing products--they are called biosimilars--attempt to
enter the market, they often find it impossible to navigate the thicket
of patent laws that protect the branded product because they lack
access to readily accessible information. So when biosimilar
manufacturers are able to uncover the web of patents, expensive
litigation too often results in patents being found to be invalid or
unenforceable.
That is why I joined with Senator Collins from Maine on a second bill
to introduce the Biologic Patent Transparency Act. Our bill promotes
patent transparency by requiring manufacturers of approved products to
disclose and list patents covering their products with the FDA in what
we call the FDA Purple Book. The legislation encourages manufacturers
to apply for patents sooner, allow prospective biosimilar manufacturers
to challenge weaker or invalid patents earlier in the product
development process to eliminate waste, and the legislation will help
us bring needed biosimilar treatments to patients faster and ultimately
help lower drug prices.
Finally, a word about insulin. Over 30 million people--that is like
the combined population of about 19 or 20 States--live with diabetics
in the United States, and insulin is a critical and life-sustaining
daily treatment for 7\1/2\ million of those people. Yet, between 2012
and 2016, spending on insulin nearly doubled, even while there was
little change in the actual use of insulin. So what explains that?
The price hikes we have experienced have caused Virginians who need
these drugs, whose stories I have indicated, to endure severe financial
hardship, ration their supplies, or even skip the needed medication.
In February, I joined all my Democratic colleagues on the Health,
Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee, where I sit with Senator
Smith, who preceded me, and we sent a letter to three insulin
manufacturers requesting information about recent price increases, how
the revenue contributes to research and development, and what companies
are doing to help patients access affordable insulin.
In closing, I said there are not only good ideas in Senator
Klobuchar's bill and in others, but there is also a good time. In the
Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee, our Chair, Senator
Alexander, and our ranking member, Senator Murray, have indicated that
one of the bills we want to work on this year is a bill of single-shot
strategies to reduce medical costs. It is not going to be the rewrite
of the healthcare system. Senator Alexander and Senator Murray were
heard to describe that if we can do a bill with a series of singles,
that would be a very good thing. So we will work together as colleagues
to come up with a series of strategies that could bring healthcare
costs down, and we have an opportunity in this bill to have some of
those provisions deal with provisions just like those I have described
that can reduce the cost of prescription drugs.
I am proud to join my colleagues to share stories of Virginians. It
is probably the single-most frequent complaint I hear, and it is a
complaint we can do something about.
With that, I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Cramer). The Senator from Minnesota.
Ms. KLOBUCHAR. I thank the Senator from Virginia for his thoughtful
remarks and the Senator from Connecticut, Mr. Blumenthal, as well as
Senator Smith, my colleague.
The time for action is now. We have all cited numerous examples of
people who, literally, are taking drugs that, in the case of insulin,
was $17 a vial and is now $1,213 a month. That is simply outrageous. We
have people who can't afford drugs that they used to just take as
commonplace, and there were no changes made.
So for me, a lot of this is what happens when you have monopolies,
what happens when you don't have competition. So the answer is to look
at all of the measures we could take to ensure that there is better
price negotiation and more competition. One of them, as Senator Kaine
mentioned, is Medicare negotiation, unleashing the power of 43 million
Americans. That is a lot of people. Seniors are good at getting deals.
That is 43 million people. Yet they are banned from negotiating with
Medicare to get better deals for themselves. That should change.
We need less expensive drugs from other countries--safe drugs. That
would certainly create more competition. We had bipartisan support for
a proposal like that. Senator Grassley and I have the bill that would
take one country, Canada. In Minnesota and in the Presiding Officer's
State of North Dakota we can see Canada from our porch. The point is
that we see those less expensive drugs right across the border. We
should be able to have that competition.
Then, look at the CREATES Act and some of the other ways of stopping
pay-for-delay and stopping, as Senator Blumenthal was describing, these
patent abuses to try to make sure we have more competition. I think
there is starting to be general agreement on this issue that we have to
take on these pharmaceutical prices. The time for describing the
problem is still here because it seems like some of our colleagues
don't get it, but the time for action is certainly now.
Thank you, Mr. President.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kansas.

National Police Week

Mr. MORAN. Mr. President, this week, as we know, our Nation observes
National Police Week, a time when we pay tribute to our law enforcement
officers, especially those who died in the line of duty. Today I rise
to honor their dedication and their significant and tremendous
sacrifice.
On Monday evening, thousands of people gathered on the National Mall
to pay tribute to the 371 officers who gave their lives in the line of
duty. Four officers from Kansas were among those memorialized on
Monday.
Last June, Wyandotte County sheriff's deputies Theresa King and
Patrick Rohrer were shot and killed while preparing to transport a
prisoner. Theresa King joined the Wyandotte County Sheriff's Office in
2005. A working mother of three children, Theresa, or ``TK,'' was known
for coming to work every day with a smile and a willingness to help out
in any way that she could. She is a founding member of the Kansas City-
based Lancaster-Melton Peacekeepers Civitan Club, a group of law
enforcement officers and their families dedicated to honoring slain
officers.

Patrick Rohrer, a husband and father of two children, joined the
Wyandotte County Sheriff's Office in 2011. Patrick was known as a
dedicated deputy that never lost his sense of humor and often peppered
his colleagues with his favorite ``Star Wars'' quotes. He was also
known for his competitive spirit.
Patrick had been a varsity letterman on the swim team at Shawnee
Mission

[[Page S2873]]

Northwest High School. His family's motto became ``Keep on Swimming.''
I will echo Wyandotte County's Sheriff Don Ash's words in
memorializing the deputies: ``Theresa and Patrick were heroes in every
sense of the word'' when they put ``their lives between a cold-blooded
killer and the citizens they swore an oath to protect.''
In September, Deputy Sheriff Robert Kunze of the Sedgwick County
Sheriff's Office was fatally shot during an encounter with a suspect in
a stolen vehicle. He, too, was a husband and father who had served with
the Sedgwick County Sheriff's Office for 12 years and had previously
served with the Shawnee County Sheriff's Office for 6 years.
Robert Kunze's impact on the department was made apparent when
Sedgwick County's Sheriff Jeff Easter referred to his death as the loss
of a ``family member.'' Robert was known as an exceptional law
enforcement officer and has been remembered by his colleagues as having
a contagious laugh that always made others feel welcome.
This year we also memorialized Jefferson County undersheriff George
Burnau, who died in the line of duty on April 29, 1920. His dedication
set an example for generations of law enforcement officers in Kansas
and around the country, those that followed him.
I would like to honor one additional law enforcement officer who is
serving on my staff as a Department of Justice fellow. ATF Special
Agent Matt Beccio has become an integral part of our team over the past
year, giving sound advice on issues relating to Justice and traveling
to Kansas to meet with local law enforcement officials. His firsthand
enforcement experience and passion for bettering the lives of law
enforcement officers across the country have been tremendous assets to
our office. This week Matt led members of my staff in participating in
Police Week's 5K memorial run alongside Kansas law enforcement and
their colleagues from across the country.
Thank you, Matt, for your dedication and for using your role in our
office to better support your colleagues in law enforcement.
During National Police Week and throughout the year, we are reminded
that law enforcement needs our support. We must provide them with the
resources they need to do their jobs. As chairman of the Appropriations
Subcommittee that funds the Department of Justice and, particularly,
those law enforcement grants, I am committed to doing so.
We know we must provide the tools that law enforcement needs to build
and strengthen the bonds of trust with those they serve and provide our
best efforts to address the underlying challenges and the challenges of
our society and of our country that face each and every community.
We honor the service and sacrifice of our Nation's fallen law
enforcement officers, not only for the sake of those who have departed
but as a reminder to all of us that remain.
May God bless our law enforcement officers and protect them from harm
as they faithfully perform their duties each and every day.

65th Anniversary of Brown v. Board of Education

Mr. President, on the of 65th anniversary of the Supreme Court
decision on Brown v. Board of Education, I rise to pay tribute to the
Topeka, KS, families, led by the Browns and all Kansans who took part
in challenging the injustice of racial segregation.
For 60 years, leading up to Brown, much of America adhered to the
Supreme Court ruling in Plessy v. Ferguson that established the
doctrine of ``separate but equal.'' However, when applied to school
buildings and the education of our children, nothing about it was
equal.
In 1951, Linda Carol Brown was in the third grade and would walk six
blocks to a bus stop that would take her to Monroe Elementary, more
than a mile away from her home, despite the fact that Sumner Elementary
was seven blocks from her home. Even after repeated applications for
attendance at the neighborhood school, the Browns and other families
were rejected. They were rejected because of the color of their skin.
In that year, 13 parents, led by Linda's father Oliver, filed suit
against the Topeka Board of Education on behalf of their 20 children.
Combining other cases throughout the country, Thurgood Marshall argued
on their behalf before the U.S. Supreme Court--the Court that he would
later join as a Justice.
On May 17, 1954, the Supreme Court unanimously issued its landmark
decision announcing that Plessy's ``separate but equal'' doctrine
violated the Fourteenth Amendment. While full integration would take
years to accomplish, the events set in motion by these determined
parents were irreversible, and they are worthy of our respect and honor
today.
Nowhere was this truer than in the city where it all started. Before
the case had even reached the Supreme Court, the Topeka Board of
Education began integrating its primary schools.
Kansas had its pre-Civil War bloodshed to determine whether the
Territory would enter the Union as a free State or slave State, and
Wichita was home to one of the first sit-ins to integrate drugstore
lunch counters. But it is Brown v. Board of Education that is our
State's greatest connection to the Nation's pursuit of racial justice.
That these events happened in Kansas reflect the imperfect history of
our State and of our Nation, but also the resolve of individual Kansans
and national organizations like the NAACP to right wrongs and to make
``a more perfect union,'' as our Constitution contemplates.
On this anniversary of Brown v. Board of Education, we remember the
legacy left behind by Linda Brown and her parents. Linda Brown just
passed away last year, and we honor her, her family, and all those
involved in the civil rights movement.
This legacy is one that requires all Americans--each of us--to uphold
the self-evident truth that all men and women are created equal. Let us
remember the legacy of Brown v. Topeka Board of Education, and in doing
so, I ask every American to commit to racial justice and equal
opportunity.

Disaster Relief

Mr. President, I rise to speak about the devastation I have seen as I
toured flooded areas of Kansas, as well as parts of Missouri, Nebraska,
and Iowa, and the need for Congress to pass a disaster bill to provide
assistance to impacted agricultural producers.
Kansas farmers and ranchers have endured several challenging years.
Since 2013, net farm income has been cut in half due to low commodity
prices. The flooding across Kansas and the Midwest has been one more
setback in the long list of challenges facing our farmers and ranchers.
In the days following the worst flooding, I visited areas of Kansas
that were underwater. I saw farm ground that cannot be planted or put
into use until significant time, effort, and resources are invested in
restoring that land. Continued rainfall across the State and region has
threatened to cause additional flooding in many areas as well as
delayed planning for many farmers.
It is important and it is necessary that Congress meet the challenge
of providing assistance to those producers, many of whom lost
everything. As negotiations continue on a disaster bill, I would like
to highlight the importance of providing funds for the Emergency
Conservation Program and amending the current disaster program to help
cover the cost of lost stored grain.
The Emergency Conservation Program was authorized to help producers
restore land damaged from natural disasters, including floods. Kansans
are, unfortunately, familiar with ECP as a result of assistance our
State received to help rebuild fences following the devastating
wildfires of 2017 and 2018. However, this program does not currently
have sufficient funds to cover producers impacted by this year's
floods.
I asked Secretary Perdue about the ECP budget shortfall at a recent
Ag Appropriations Subcommittee hearing, and as expected, he gave his
full endorsement and support for Congress to provide funds for ECP in
this disaster bill. Secretary Perdue recognizes that funds must be
provided to ECP and other ag disaster programs to help producers
restore damaged land and remove flood debris. Congress must also
provide assistance to producers who lost stored grain due to floods.
Oftentimes, the farmer's income or revenue is not money in the bank
but instead grain stored in a bin waiting to

[[Page S2874]]

be sold. With market uncertainty due to trade disputes, farmers have
more grain in storage than usual, waiting for prices to increase. When
that grain is wiped out by floods, it is similar to the family's
savings account being drained of its cash.
Currently, disaster programs are not equipped to help these producers
who lost a year's worth of work and income when their stored grain was
damaged or destroyed. Congress has the opportunity in the disaster bill
to give USDA the authority to cover the loss of stored grain and to
help these producers get back on their feet.
While faced with these great challenges, farmers and ranchers
continue to provide the food, fuel, and fiber to our Nation and the
world. Agriculture is one of the most demanding ways of life. It is
full of uncertainty, but it is also a very noble calling.
It is imperative that Congress pass a disaster bill to help producers
who lost goods to floods and other disasters and to make certain
farmers and ranchers across the Nation know that we appreciate what
they do to provide for our Nation.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maryland.
Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, I would ask unanimous consent that Senator
Portman and I be recognized for up to 25 minutes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

Retirement Security

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, shortly, I am going to be joined by
Senator Portman. The two of us have been working for well over a decade
on retirement savings issues. When both of us were Members of the House
of Representatives, we worked on pension legislation together. It was
unusual at that time to have a Democrat and a Republican working
together.
There was a great deal of discussion about tax reform at that time,
and it seemed like neither the Democratic nor Republican leadership was
interested in dealing with retirement savings at that point. Yet
Congressman Portman and I joined forces, recognizing the need to
strengthen retirement savings in this country. We authored a bill known
as the Portman-Cardin bill. It was more of a process than it was
legislation. We brought all stakeholders together, and we sat around,
listened to each other, and came to a consensus bill that was enacted
into law and made permanent. It provides greater portability among the
different pension plans in this country, recognizing that employees
were shifting jobs, and therefore it was necessary for them to be able
to protect their retirement savings.
We looked at increasing the amount of money that individuals could
put away for retirement. One of the provisions provided for catchup for
people over 50 years of age because we recognized that people--
particularly women--who entered the workforce at a later time didn't
have as many years to put money away for retirement savings.
We simplified the retirement plans so that small companies could
establish a pension plan and have safe harbor, so it was not as
complicated to set up pension plans.
We established a saver's credit. We did that because we recognized
that the Tax Code itself wasn't necessarily a great enough incentive to
get younger and lower wage workers interested in participating in a
retirement plan. We found that if an employer put money on the table,
most employees would opt to join that pension plan. Witness the Thrift
Savings we have here as Federal employees.
We recognized that a lot of the smaller companies didn't offer those
types of plans. So we developed the saver's credit, which allowed lower
wage workers to be able to get government help with putting money away
for their retirement.
Quite frankly, the law that was passed back then did dramatically
help the number of people who participated in retirement savings. We
also included an automatic enrollment feature, and that also helped
dramatically increase the number of people participating in retirement
savings.
I give that as background because Senator Portman and I have joined
up again in the Senate in an effort to build on the success we had over
a decade ago.
We had a hearing this past week, and in that hearing, we brought up
the fact that several provisions that Senator Portman and I had been
working on are included in the recent legislation, which is legislation
that had passed the House of Representatives and passed the Senate
Finance Committee in the last Congress and the chairman and ranking
member of the Senate Finance Committee have filed in this Congress.
That includes many important provisions to improve retirement savings.
We hope that bill will be considered on the floor very shortly. We
want to get that done. Yet we recognize that we need to go further than
that. For that reason, Senator Portman and I have introduced the
Retirement Security and Savings Act this year, and it includes many
important provisions. It deals with the fact that we have yet to fully
accomplish what we need to for retirement savings.
According to a 2019 GAO estimate, 48 percent of those who are near
retirement age--those over 55 years of age--have no retirement nest
egg, and 29 percent have no savings or pensions.
Since the great recession, personal savings rates in this country
have been flat.

Access to employer-sponsored plans and participation are still at way
too low of a rate. For private sector workers, 68 percent have access
to plans, but barely over 50 percent actually participate in plans. For
part-time workers, the numbers are much lower--only 39 percent have an
opportunity and only 22 percent actually participate in plans. For
small businesses, only about 50 percent provide retirement access to
their employees, and 34 percent participate. In the lowest quintile--
those at the lowest incomes--44 percent have access to retirement
savings through their employment; yet only half that number actually
participate.
The urgency of this is really underscored by the fact that we have
now gone from a landscape that included mostly defined-benefit plans
where the employer had a plan for you, that employer took the risks,
and you had a guaranteed benefit when you retired--you didn't have to
think about how much money you put away because your company was
protecting you on retirement with a defined benefit. We have gone from
a defined-benefit world to a defined-contribution world.
I am going to yield at this point to Senator Portman to go over the
provisions we are including in the Portman-Cardin bill. I believe we
will have time, and I will come back and comment on some of the
particular provisions.
I want to compliment Senator Portman for his longstanding commitment
to dealing with this national need. America's economy is strong, but it
is not strong on personal savings and retirement savings, and we need
to do better. It has been a pleasure to work with Senator Portman in
regard to these issues.
Mr. PORTMAN. Thanks to my colleague from Maryland for yielding to me.
It is great to be back on the floor with him talking about retirement
savings.
Back in 1996 and again in 2001 and 2006, we passed legislation while
we were in the House of Representatives together to encourage people to
save more for their retirement by providing more incentives, such as
increasing, as an example, the amount you could put aside in a 401(k)
or an IRA and catchup contributions and simplifying the rules for small
businesses, and we made some progress.
Those legislative initiatives resulted in about a doubling of 401(k)
assets and about a tripling of IRA assets but still way too little in
savings. Senator Cardin talked a little about that. Our national
savings rate is a problem. Our personal savings rate is a problem. Our
economy would be stronger if we had more savings.
The real problem is that people just aren't saving enough for their
retirement. Social Security is an absolutely essential safety net.
Everybody wants to be sure it will be there into the future. But it is
tough to live on your Social Security benefit alone. People need that
private retirement savings.
We want to encourage people to save more for their own retirement.
What is more important than peace of mind in retirement, knowing that
you have the ability to take care of your needs--maybe long-term care
needs, maybe

[[Page S2875]]

healthcare needs, or maybe just being able to have a comfortable
retirement. This is something we are focusing on again.
The Senate did recently pass legislation that helps. It is called the
RESA legislation. We both support that strongly, but our legislation
builds on that and expands it pretty substantially. Senator Cardin just
talked a little about it. It is legislation that we spent 18 months
developing.
We heard from stakeholders all over the country. There is a reason
that a lot of people are supporting this legislation, including the
AARP, the chamber of commerce, and a lot of people who are in the
retirement business--the American Benefits Council and others--because
we took our time and went to them and said: Hey, what do people really
need right now to expand their choices in retirement to be able to save
more?
We came up with four or five different challenges in our current
retirement system and then specific proposals to address those.
One is, we have an aging baby boomer population--I am among them, and
I think all three of us are, Mr. President--that is not saving enough.
That is a concern.
Second is a lack of access to employer-sponsored plans. We want
everybody who is in the workplace to have access to a 401(k). Yet, when
we look at this, particularly with smaller businesses, a lot of people
don't have access or a chance to save.
A 401(k) is great because the employer typically puts in a match for
you. So it is not just your money that is at a tax advantage, but,
unlike an IRA, the employer puts in a match, and usually they help you
with your decisions in terms of what kinds of investments to make with
that 401(k).
Third, we found that typically with lower income Americans, there was
a real issue with the amount of savings. Who needs money more in
retirement than lower income Americans, because that is when they don't
have other savings to help them through retirement.
Again, all of this is predicated upon the reality that we are living
longer as Americans, longer and healthier lives, so we need more of
those assets in retirement.
The final one is inadequate lifetime savings. A lot of people have a
401(k) or an IRA, and when they stop working, they think, this is
great. They take the lump sum and maybe spend some of that--maybe buy
the boat, maybe go on a nice vacation--and suddenly find, oh my gosh, I
am living longer and longer. I hadn't expected to be in my nineties and
still here. Yet the trend right now is that people are living longer.
We have to ensure that there is longer lifetime savings as people are
living longer and healthier lives.
After 18 months working with all these troops on the outside, we came
up with 57 different provisions to address these four areas. How do we
do it?
First, it allows those who saved too little to set more aside for
their retirement.
For seniors--people who are over 60 years old--we have a special
catchup contribution. If you are over 60 years old, under our
legislation, you have the opportunity to put more aside in your
retirement plan. That is important. Contribution limits go from $6,000
to $10,000 for workers over age 60 with a 401(k).
Senator Cardin talked a little about this, but among these baby
boomers, based on a 2019 GAO report this year, nearly half--48 percent
of all retirees over the age of 55 have no retirement nest egg saved.
Some may have a public pension, for instance, but still, when you add
that in, 30 percent have neither private retirement savings nor any
kind of pension benefits that they are going to get in the future. You
have a lot of people out there with nothing. This will help with regard
to those individuals.
We also say that with regard to this first issue, it is not just
being able to make a catchup contribution, but we tell employers: If
you set up a plan that allows you to match 6 percent of pay rather than
3 percent of pay, we will give you a break from some of the onerous
retirement rules in a safe harbor.
That will encourage more of those employers to do that. That provides
a tax credit to those employers who offer these safe harbor plans. So
it gives more generous benefits to employees. We think that is
appropriate to help save for retirement. It also helps employees who
are struggling to save for retirement and pay off student loan debt,
people who are saying: I would love to save for retirement, but how can
I do that when I have this student loan debt to pay off?
In Ohio, by the way, the average debt for someone coming out of a
college or university is $27,000. A lot of people don't have enough
disposable income to say: I am going to save for retirement and pay off
college debt.
What we do here is we say that employers will now be able to make a
matching contribution to the employee's retirement account in the
amount of his or her student loan payment. So employers can do this. It
is a good way to help people pay off their debt, to help the individual
pay off their debt. The employer putting a match in for the same amount
is also a good way to attract employees. If you are a business owner
out there, you will like this because it will give you an advantage in
the marketplace by saying: Hey, come work for me. We will help you on
your student debt.

The second issue we talked about today is with regard to small
businesses. This is important because we know that this is where most
people work who don't have access to retirement plans. They work for
smaller businesses. Bigger businesses tend to offer retirement plans,
very generous ones. The smaller businesses tend not to.
The Bureau of Labor Statistics survey that Senator Cardin talked
about earlier shows that 68 percent of private sector workers have
access to employer-sponsored plans, but it drops to only 49 percent for
small businesses. So, if you work for a small business, it is less than
half. By the way, it is only 39 percent if you are a part-time worker,
which we also address.
The bill takes a number of important steps to help small businesses
offer 401(k)s and other retirement plans for the workers. It increases
the current law tax credit that is already out there, but it improves
it and increases it from $500 to as much as $5,000 for small businesses
that are starting new retirement plans. It simplifies top-heavy rules
for small business plans to reduce the cost of enrolling new employees.
It also establishes a new 3-year, $500-per-year tax credit for small
businesses that automatically reenroll all of the participants in the
plans at least once every 3 years. This is one of the issues out there.
If you don't do auto enrollment--in other words, opt in--and you opt
out, you are not going to get the participation rate you want.
By the way, this is legislation that Senator Cardin and I promoted
back in the 2006 legislation that said to employers: Hey, you can do an
auto enrollment. The participation then went from 75 percent to about
95 percent because there was auto enrollment. It is good for younger
people. If you are just told ``Hey, unless you do something, you are
going to automatically be enrolled in this 401(k),'' that really
encourages them to get into retirement savings. All of that is to help
these small businesses, and we think it is going to make a big
difference.
Third, one of the big problems we face is that plan participation
rates for low-income workers are well below what they are for others.
So this bill expands access to retirement savings plans for hard-
working, lower income Americans. The way we do that--and Senator Cardin
is the expert on this--is to ensure that those people who are of low
income have the ability to get into retirement plans with matches. That
will incentivize them to get in. Only 22 percent of low-income workers
participate in retirement plans today. Again, these are people who need
savings the most.
The bill expands what is called the saver's credit. It expands the
income thresholds to give more Americans access to increased credit
amounts. It increases the government match for low-income savers with a
saver's credit. By the way, the saver's credit goes directly into the
retirement accounts. I think it is important because you don't want
this money wasted, and you don't want it used for other purposes--so-
called leakage in retirement accounts. This goes right into retirement
accounts. We mentioned that only 39 percent have plans but, again, that
only 22

[[Page S2876]]

percent participate. So this is important.
It also expands the eligibility of 401(k)s to include part-time
workers. This is very important to the AARP and others out there who
are looking at these part-time numbers and saying: Oh my gosh. There
are only 22 percent who participate. That is it. So we have to do more
there. It allows part-time workers who complete between 500 and 1,000
hours of service for 2 consecutive years to be able to join in with a
401(k).
These provisions are all designed to help particularly low-income
Americans start to build nest eggs for retirement.
A significant challenge we face--again, as I said earlier--is this
lack of lifetime savings. Our bill provides more certainty and
flexibility during Americans' retirement years.
Last year, a study by Northwestern Mutual found that 66 percent of
Americans believe they will outlive their retirement savings. So two-
thirds of Americans are saying: I am going to live longer than my
retirement savings. By the way, they are probably right. People are
living longer and healthier lives and are running out of their
retirement savings. It is a major concern.
We have a number of initiatives to try to provide more certainty and
flexibility to seniors in their retirement years. Specifically, the
bill increases the age for the required minimum distribution from age
70\1/2\, which it is now, to 72 and to 75. So it takes it up to 75
years old. Why is that important? For those of you who are not in
retirement, you may not know there is a rule that says you have to
start taking your money out of retirement at 70\1/2\. Now, if you are
like my father, who was working full time at 70\1/2\, it was a head
scratcher. Why should I take my money out of my 401(k) when I am still
working? I ran into a guy like that last weekend in Ohio who said the
same thing--that this makes no sense.

What we have said is, OK, we are going to kick it up to 75 years old
but that if you have less than $100,000 in your retirement account, you
will not be subject to the minimum required distribution rules at all.
This is a great relief to a lot of seniors who are trying to save that
money for retirement and don't want to pull it out because, although
they may work until 75, they still know they are going to have another,
maybe, 20 years to live, and they want to be sure they have that
retirement savings in there.
I am really excited about all of these provisions.
I am hearing a lot about this last one. Here is Tom Kermode, from
Geauga County, OH, who wrote:

Relief from required minimum distributions would be very
helpful in that it affords me and other senior taxpayers the
freedom to save to help fund my retirement years. Why should
I be forced to deplete my retirement account at age 70\1/2\
instead of remaining financially independent?

You are darned right, Tom. Thanks for your letter.
The bill also provides help in other ways. It reduces the current
penalty for one's failing to take the required distribution from 50
percent of the shortfall amount to 25 percent in most cases and to as
low as 10 percent in some cases if one self-corrects the error.
Finally, in order to help those who are in retirement, the
legislation encourages the use of qualifying longevity annuity
contracts, QLACs. What are they? They are retirement plans that provide
annual payments to individuals who outlive their life expectancies.
Basically, think of an annuity or a periodic payment. When you retire,
instead of taking a lump sum, you have one of these contracts in which
you are able to ensure that you are not going to outlive your
retirement savings.
There are affordable options for a lot of Americans who are trying to
hedge the risk of outlasting their savings. We should encourage those
more, and that is what we do in our legislation.
These are all commonsense reforms. They deal with all four of these
challenges that we have seen, as we have looked at the retirement
system, that have been based on a lot of input from a lot of people. My
hope is that we will be able to get this done.
Our coalition includes the American Benefits Council, the AARP, the
U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the Insured Retirement Institute, Fidelity,
Nationwide, T. Rowe Price, Vanguard, the Women's Institute for a Secure
Retirement, the International Association of Fire Fighters, the
American Council of Life Insurers, and The ERISA Industry Committee, to
name a few. There are a lot more too.
We have had the opportunity to work together for a couple of decades
now on these issues. I am glad that we are taking this next step to
provide additional options for people to build and save for their
retirements and to have more peace of mind in retirement.
I yield to Senator Cardin.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maryland.
Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, let me again thank my colleague Senator
Portman.
He has explained what is included in the Retirement Security and
Savings Act that we filed this week. It builds on what has worked, and
it takes on new opportunities to increase savings and retirement
security.
He mentioned the automatic enrollment, which is the safe harbor here,
because Americans make decisions by inaction. Now, with automatic
enrollment, they will be in retirement plans and will have the
opportunity to opt out.
It increases the saver's credit's eligibility, but, importantly, it
makes it refundable, and it deposits it directly into a savings account
so that low-wage workers will, indeed, have savings opportunities.
It increases the tax credits for small business so that the burden of
setting up a plan for your employees will be matched with this credit
so that more workers will have opportunities for savings retirement.
It expands part-time workers--a group that, today, is
underrepresented in retirement savings.
It deals with the student debt issue. I really thank Senator Portman
and also Senator Wyden for their help in recognizing that a lot of
young workers would love to put money into retirement, but they have to
pay off their student loan debt. So that, at least, can be used as a
match by an employer for a savings account.
It also deals with lifetime income. How many people have we run into,
as Senator Portman has pointed out, who have outlived their
retirements? They didn't expect to live to be 95 and still have active
lifestyles. So we significantly increase the opportunities for lifetime
income options, as well as what Senator Portman said in dealing with
required minimum distributions.
There are a lot of other issues. I think there are 50 issues in the
bill. There are a lot of other issues that are important. There are
issues that we want to work on, including relating to the recoupment of
benefit payments.
The bottom line is that we want to improve the retirement security
for Americans. As Senator Portman pointed out, Social Security is very
important. It is a three-legged stool. Let's work together to increase
private savings in retirement, which is exactly what this bill does.
I think we have 1 minute left, so I yield to Senator Portman.
Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. President, I thank my colleague from Maryland for
his partnership on this over the years.
Let me just make the obvious point for those who are watching today.
I am a Republican, and he is a Democrat. We are actually talking about
doing legislation together. It is bipartisan. I would say, in the
retirement space, we have tried to keep it nonpartisan because this is
so important to the people we represent.
The committee also happens to be represented by a Republican and a
Democrat who believe in this. Senator Grassley was the chairman of the
committee back in 2001 when we first passed this major legislation to
increase what people could save for their retirement. He is the
chairman again, and he believes in this. Senator Wyden is the ranking
Democrat, the top Democrat. He also was a former Gray Panthers
executive director and also has a provision in our bill that is very
important, as Senator Cardin talked about, with regard to student loan
debt.
The constellations are kind of properly aligned. I think the ability
for us to get this done might be counter to a lot of the partisanship
and the gridlock we see here in this town. This is bipartisan stuff. It
always has been. We have spent our time, have done it right, and have
used input from all sorts of outside stakeholders. We have the
opportunity here to improve our national

[[Page S2877]]

savings, which everyone says is important, including the Congressional
Budget Office, and to help people have peace of mind in retirement.
What could be more important?
Again, I thank my colleague from Maryland for allowing me to join him
on the floor to talk about the importance of this legislation.
I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to take a look at
this. I hope they will sign it and be cosponsors on this legislation.
Let's get this passed. Let's do it this year.
I yield the floor.

Nomination of Kenneth Kiyul Lee

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise today in opposition to the
nomination of Kenneth Lee to the United States Court of Appeals for the
Ninth Circuit.
Mr. Lee has been nominated to a California seat on the Ninth Circuit
over the objections of Senator Harris and myself. Neither Senator
Harris nor I returned blue slips for Mr. Lee; yet the majority moved
forward with his nomination, disregarding our concerns.
In doing so, the majority is violating Senate norms and traditions
by--for the first time ever--ignoring the lack of a blue slip from the
Judiciary Committee's ranking member. Let me repeat: This has never
been done before.
There was no need to proceed with Mr. Lee's nomination over our
objections.
As has been true of many of my Democratic colleagues, Senator Harris
and I made it clear to the Trump administration that we were ready to
work with the White House to find a consensus pick for this and two
other Ninth Circuit California seats.
Sadly, our willingness to work with the administration has not been
reciprocated. Once again, the majority is insisting on moving ahead
with a nomination, despite the strong objections of both home-State
Senators.
Senator Harris and I refused to return blue slips for Mr. Lee for two
key reasons.
First, Mr. Lee has a long record of controversial writings and
statements on race and diversity, immigration, affirmative action,
women's rights, and other issues.
Second, Mr. Lee failed to disclose dozens of problematic writings to
our in-state judicial commissions and to the Judiciary Committee
itself.
That failure raises significant doubts about Mr. Lee's candor and
judgment, and it should be concerning to all Members of this body. In
fact, when another nominee for the Ninth Circuit, Ryan Bounds, also
failed to turn over his writings, his nomination was rejected by the
Senate.
Mr. Bounds had failed to identify to Oregon's in-state judicial
screening commission at least five articles that took controversial
positions on issues including campus sexual assault and diversity at
institutions of higher education, whereas Mr. Lee failed to disclose
either to my and Senator Harris's screening commissions or to the
Judiciary Committee itself more than 75 articles.
Importantly, several of Mr. Lee's articles demonstrate a continuity
between what he wrote and the positions he has continued to advocate
well into his legal career.
For example, Mr. Lee was a vocal critic of affirmative action,
writing: ``Our stance on affirmative action has always been that it
ultimately hurts the recipients instead of helping them. . . . Black
students will unfortunately be treated as inferiors because people will
always assume that they were accepted solely because of their race.''
In a 2003 piece, written while he was a practicing attorney, Mr. Lee
criticized the Supreme Court's opinion in the Bakke case, which upheld
the use of race as one of several criteria to be considered in college
admissions.
Mr. Lee wrote that ``[t]he Supreme Court can no longer hide behind
the wishful thinking of Bakke,'' which he said ``was based on the naive
assumption that universities would consider race merely as a tie-
breaker.''
Mr. Lee has not backed away from his opposition to affirmative action
and so the Congressional Black Caucus wrote a letter stating: ``While
many of [Mr. Lee's] most disturbing writings have come from when he was
in college and law school, there is every indication that these views
were well-settled and carried through his career.''
In a 2005 article, written years after he graduated from law school,
Mr. Lee criticized President George W. Bush's plan to allow
undocumented immigrants to work legally within the United States.
Mr. Lee wrote: ``By describing illegal immigrants as `hard-working
men and women' who are pursuing `better lives,' [President Bush] blurs
the distinction between illegals and those who came to America
following the rules.''
Mr. Lee's portrayal of undocumented immigrants is both inaccurate and
troubling.
Mr. Lee has also taken extreme positions on women's rights. He argued
that feminism ``is not about extending equal rights and opportunities
to women . . . [but] is about adhering to a stifling orthodoxy.'' He
attacked feminists for ``support[ing] unfettered abortion-on-demand.''
As NARAL put it in a letter submitted to the committee, Lee's
writings ``suggest a disdain for women that is concerning in any
context, but especially so for someone up for a lifetime seat on the
federal bench.''
In conclusion, I believe Mr. Lee's record shows that he is far
outside the legal mainstream.
Given the positions he has taken in dozens of articles and given his
failure to disclose writings to my commission and to the Judiciary
Committee I cannot support Mr. Lee's nomination to the Ninth Circuit.
I will vote against Mr. Lee and I urge my colleagues to do the same.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Ohio.

____________________