[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.

                          ____________________