quorum call:

mr. manchin: madam president. the presiding officer: the senator from west virginia.

mr. manchin: are we in a quorum call? the presiding officer: we are. mr. manchin: i ask to vitiate the quorum call. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. manchin: i'm introducing prioritize our workers act which will make changes to the current bernanke code require -- bankruptcy code. they will have to pay out workers pensions. i firmly believe no one should be denied their pension because their employer goes bankrupt. hardworking men and women go to work every day paying into these pension plans each paycheck with the expectation that one day they can retire and provide for tear families. companies made promises to their workers and need to have live up to those promises no matter what else happens to that company financially. in west virginia we are far too familiar with coal and steel companies leaving their workers out to dry in this way. it is unacceptable. that's why i'm introducing this bill and i look forward to my

fellow senators join me to support and protect pensions across this country. i also, madam president, rise today to call for immediate action on the americans miners act. we have an obligation to the miners across america who served our nation who served us energy throughout the greatest advancements. they deserve to know that their pensions, which they worked for, will be funded fully and deserve to have health care which was guaranteed to them as well. as the senate fails to act, we can put our retired miners health care and ben knits in jeopardy yet again. i have been working with everyone and from every angle in order to prevent our miners from losing their health care and retirement benefits. but once again they are facing a deadline that puts their livelihood at risk. this has been a long fight and it is far from over. everyone who joined me in this journey understands that fighting for working people is what we were sent here to do.

these retired miners are walking the halls and fighting for what is rightfully theirs. i'm doing this for them and their families. i promise them this body will not abandon them and i refuse to let them down. the 1974 pension plan will be solvent by 2022 if we do not act now. miners who receive the health care from companies that went through bankruptcy in 2018 will lose money in the coming months if we fail to act soon. unlike other pension plans, the 1974 pension plan was well managed prior to the crash in 2008. however, the 2008 financial crisis hit at a time when this plan had its highest payments. if the plan becomes insolvent, these beneficiaries face cuts. and the corporation will sue

thousands of dollars in liabilities. we have to shore up the 1974 pension plan headed for insolvency due to the coal company's bankruptcy and the 2008 financial crisis. ensure that the miners at risk due to 2018 coal company bankruptcies will not lose their health care and extend the black lung disability act at $1.10 per ton of coal. west virginia has more retired union miners, more than 27,000 retirees rif in -- live in west virginia alone. i have two letters i would like to read and enter into the record that basically explains what we're dealing with from all parts of our state. this is roy from west virginia, and he says, i'm 63-year-old, i'm a third generation coal miner. i started in the mine three days prior to graduating from high school. unfortunately i had to find other employment in 1999 after

27 years of mining because of the mine shutdown. although the job that i was hired at paid a lot less, 75% less than what he was making before in the mines, i felt that we would survive because of the promise of lifetime health care. when i went into mining, i felt that if i put in my time i would be taken care of in my older year, now that i'm approaching that stage of my life and faced with health care concerns of people of my age group, i'm fearful of losing the security that my pension and health benefits will provide to me and my wife of 43 years. my wife has rheumatoid arthritis. the cost of her medication totals more than my pension, making retirement an impossibility. the idea of her not be being able to receive treatment for her condition is not an option, if necessary, i will continue to provide the medical care she needs and deserves. he's asking to me senator

manchin, for the concerns mentioned in this letter, i deeply appreciate the support that you lent to the passage of the miners protection act and hope that your fellow legislators will consider the same. this is lisa from frazier's bottom in west virginia. my husband was employed by the umwa for the 34 years he worked in the mining industry. he worked a six-day workweek, he turned down some very promising job offers because we were always led to believe that after 20 years of the umwa service, we would have family service for life. a large part of the reason he stayed loyal to the mining industry was because of the retirement pension and family health insurance we would have upon his retirement. he was injured on the job in 2013 and was unable to return to work. we had the comfort of knowing that he would be able to receive his pension and that the two of us would have no worries about health insurance. in april 2015, i was diagnosed with breast cancer that spread

to my lymph nodes, i had chemotheytherapy from may 2015 o november 2015, followed by radiation that lasted until february 2016. i was hospitalized three times during treatment, had to undergo diagnostic testing and blood transfusion. unfortunately i was not able to finish my treatment. i have to follow up with regular treatment by a cardiologist and have frequent testing to make sure the cancer hasn't returned. another side effect i had from chemotherapy is chemo induced into your on think that afecdz my hands and -- affects my hands and feet. i am 53 years old and unable to work due to the side effects of having karns. my medical -- cancer. my medical bills have cost thousands of dplars and i -- dollars and i don't have to worry about anything other than

getting well thanks to the mwa insurance. the security of having this insurance means the world to us. we're neither asking nor expecting nothing other than what we were promised and worked for. please, please pass this senate bill not only for the two of us but for the many other umwa retirees and spouses also in the same situation. we have countless letters that come in on a weekly basis, and it's basically stories. the thing i want to make sure that all my colleagues know and all of america knows, the miners that provided the energy that built the industrial might that we have, they built the factories, mine the coal and bit the guns and ships that defended thissed country. they've given everything they had. in this was a promise made by the united states government in 1946. because of the bankruptcy laws that erupted and basically in

the 1980's, they were left with nothing. they didn't take home in their paycheck extra money, they didn't take home anything else except the promise and guarantee they would have their health care and benefits of a pension. the average pension for a minor retired is less -- miner retired is less than $600 and this is mostly for widows. this is something we have worked for and fighting for and i will not give up until this promise is fulfilled. thank you, madam president. and i yield the floor. ms. klobuchar: madam president. the presiding officer: the senator from minnesota. ms. klobuchar: madam president, i rise today in calling long overdue changes in how our country addresses the cost and affordability of prescription drugs. you're going to hear today from also in addition to myself, senator blumenthal, senator

smith, and senator kaine, as well as senator durbin who spoke on these issues earlier to highlight this egregious public health issue facing our country. it is unacceptable that lifesaving treatments and cures are increasingly out of reach for the people who need them the most. that's why the senate must act now to pass legislation that would lower the cost of prescription drugs. health care represents 1/6th of our economy, and out of pocket costs account for 10% of our nation's health care spending, from consumers to hospitals and nursing homes. one report found that between 2012 and 2016 the price of branded prescription drugs increased 110%. that's not 11%, that is 110%. even drugs that have been

available for decades like insulin are no longer affordable. it's outrageous. it is dangerous, and it has real consequences for real people. and for most americans this is deeply personal. i know it is for me. i'll never forget the frightening day that we learned my daughter had a nut allergy. she was a toddler and we were actually in a cabin and we were out in the middle of nowhere and she got -- ate a cashew for the first time and they are throat started to close up, although we didn't really know that was what was happening. i remember us driving as fast as we could through the woods for about 45 minutes to the closest emergency room. where finally they were able to help her, and that was when we discovered that she had a nut allergy. she now keeps an epipen with her at all times. so when the price of an epipen

increased by three times the original amount, i knew just how dangerous this cost increase would be to the people who rely on the medication, and i spoke out. it wasn't just me. it was moms and dads across the country that spoke out. they spoke out in writing letters, they spoke out on e-mail, they spoke out on their facebook pages, they spoke out on social media, and it was literally a nationwide effort to take this on. we successfully worked to bring that cost down. but companies shouldn't just respond when there is outrage over social media, and by the way, not every drug has a constituency like that of parents who have kids that have nut allergies. there are a lot of rare drugs that maybe only hundreds of families understand what a price increase means. there are drugs that have

constituencies that are disabled or people that aren't going to be able to basically mob the halls of congress to make a change. and besides that, i don't think that's how we want to make change anyway. wouldn't it be better if we were responded in a policy way, in a bipartisan way, and simply made some changes to our policies of our government, of our country to bring down the price of prescription drugs. not just the drugs that are most famous, but for all drugs. there are many examples of why prescription drug pricing is now out of control and why we have to take action. for instance, a "wall street journal" article reported that the price for multiple sclerosis drug went up 21 times in a decade -- 21 times. no one could explain that except that it allows the company that makes that drug to profit big time. a stat news story reported that

the price for a leukemia drug was raised four times over the course of a single year and it now cost nearly $199,000 a year. and we know the price of certain insulin products rose 700%, accounting for inflation, in two decades. when the states of the union happened this year, i invited a guest, and that guest was a woman named nicole smith holt. and it was her son, a young man named alec, who is a 26-year-old restaurant manager. he worked in my state. he worked hard. he's a good guy. and he was on his parents' health insurance until he was 26. when that health insurance ended, when he couldn't get that health insurance, he then had to pay for the insulin since he was a diabetic himself. it was $1,200 a month. he was unable to afford his insulin so what did he do?

he did what sadly too many people are doing in america right now. he started rationing that insulin. he rationed that insulin and he died waiting for his next paycheck. restaurant manager in the suburbs of the twin cities. his mother sat at the state of the union looking down at the president, looking down at the congress to make the point that she needed action, and that in the memory of her son alec, that she was going to make sure that action happens. congress has a duty to act and the president should support these efforts. committees in the house of representatives for the first time have already, already advanced proposals to reduce the cost of prescription drugs, and we should be moving similar legislation here in the senate. yes, it is true there are two pharma lobbyists for every member of congress. that's a fact.

and for years they have felt that they owned congress. that has to change. they don't own me and they don't own the people that are speaking up today. two of the bills that the house judiciary committee has already advanced with bipartisan support are the companions to bipartisan legislation that i am leading in the senate with senator grassley. the stop stalling act which addresses the abuse of the f.d.a. petition process by pharma companies and my bill to crack down on anticompetitive 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's being done in connecticut in response to what is going on between the generic companies and the pharmaceutical companies. that's what these bills get at, to get products out to market, to stop the pay for delay where big pharma pays off generics to keep their products off the market. yes, we should take up these bills. it's 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 can't get the benefit of respect expensive -- of less expensive drug prices. that doesn't just help 43 million seniors if we lift that ban. it also helps everyone in america because they are such a big purchaser of prescription drugs that it will bring down the cost for everyone. the other bills 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 drug makers have filed sham petitions to delay the f.d.a.'s approval of the competing generic drugs. studies show that the f.d.a. denies more than 90% of petitions related to generics and more than 90% of petitions between 2011 and 2015 were filed by branded pharmaceutical companies. our legislation would help to deter those who engage in sham petitioning. and according to the c.b.o., the congressional budget office, that would save u.s. taxpayers $117 million over the next ten years. these are ideas that have been out there for a long time. these are things that we believe would make a major difference.

one other one i'd 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. and i continue this bipartisan effort by introducing the safe and affordable drugs from canada act. senator grassley is now taking the place of senator mccain and we have introduced that bill. finally, we should act to hold drug makers accountable for the opioid crisis that 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's 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, that she no longer can share time with. he's left us. but she won't let it go. this is about jessica, a mother whose specialty drug costs are $50,000 a year to treat her arthritis. this is about a woman from crystal, minnesota, 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. mr. blumenthal: madam president? 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 majority leader, senator schumer, is on his way to speak before me. so he should be here within moments.

ms. klobuchar: madam president, while we await senator schumer, i wanted to mention just a few examples of what we're 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's going to afford it. and whether she's going to be able to afford her life-saving medication. julie, another example, is covered under her husband's employer plan. she currently has to pay $500 a copay for a drug that she need, the same drug 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. and we have now been joined by our leader. diane, diane has an epipen for bee stings and is unhappy with the high costs. she says, and now that i am retired, it's 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's so expensive that i can't use. it's way overpriced. an gie from savage, minnesota, she's a mother, wife rvetion and teacher. in may 2018 she was admitted to a hospital where m.r.i. scans showed brain lesions. she was eventually discharged from the hospital and instructed to follow-up with a neurologist.

she received a multiple sclerosis diagnose. -- diagnosis. she was prescribed a new medication that is also one of the most effective drugs today for treating m.s. payment for the expensive drug was denied. this is just examples of the people we see every day. i yield the floor. mr. schumer: i want to thank the senator from minnesota, the senior senator, for all the great work she has done on working to reduce the high cost of drugs for the american people. now on a much -- on a different subject but a very important one, iran and the middle east. so i return to the floor this afternoon amid several concerning 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. then seemed to confirm the reports by saying he would absolutely send troops and if he did, it would be, quote, a hell of a lot more than 120,000, unquote. 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's so much that has to be done in america. the american people deserve to know what's 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

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's 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's going on. if the president and republicans in congress are planning to take the united states to 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.

mr. blumenthal: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from connecticut. mr. blumenthal: madam president, i want to begin by thanking the majority leader for raising this issue as straightforwardly and 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 conflagrati conflagration. the tender box of the middle east is no place to act on impulse or whim. that's 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've 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 for the open information of the american

people and they deserve and need no less. 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, and i ask unanimous consent that my legislative fellow adam bradlaw be granted floor privileges until the end of july 2019 because he has worked on the prescription drug issue that i'm about to discuss. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. blumenthal: thank you, madam president. we all know, and 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. it 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 medicines 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 unjustin intolerable -- unjust and intolerable system that yields them greater profits without any greater health 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're starting to see republicans and democrats coming together on 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, to seclude even new products -- exclude even new products from coming to market. all of these abuses have been so extreme and outrageous there is bipartisan consensus that we need to stop it. i'm proud today to support the affordable prescriptions for patient act. it's 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 blurb with embarrassment -- blush with embarrassment for the obvious anticonsumer effects that impact the average american. these patent abuses go by colorful names, patent thickening and patient hopping, product hopping. but these names obscure their very pernicious purposes. patent thickening 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 that the 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 antitrust abuses have been done over the decades and they are the reason why we have antitrust laws, but 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, drug companies fileddage average of 127 patent applications per drug by creating a genuine thicket of packets around their drug, drug companies are able to double the number of years of market schiews exclusivity that they have before the drug can enter the market. these drug companies can charge

consumers extraordinary high prices for drugs that are desperately needed. if you use humira or you have rheumatoid arthritis, you should be deeply concerned about patent thickening. 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 has done so for a total of 39 years. during those 39 years, the cost of humira in the future, it will do it for 39 years, is going to keep climbing. according to reports, between 2012 and 2016 alone, the average amount that medicare and medicaid spent on each patent

using humira more than doubled from 16,000 to 33,000. things will only get worse in the years to come. but rheumatoid arthritis patients are hardly the only ones who should be concerned about patent thickening. a large number of patents have been filed to protect the market exclusivity of drugs that treat conditions like cancer, stroke, blood clots, diabetes, multiple myeloma, and macula degeneration. pact thickets will keep competitors off the market. they will cost consumers thousands, perhaps hundreds of thousands of dollars each year, and 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 the higher cost of drugs. it hits all of us, not just the patients who suffer from these medical conditions. unfortunately, the obvious anticompetitive practice is not the only way that drug companies abuse the patent system to keep drug prices high. just before the protections for their first drugs expire, then brand name drug companies pull a bait and switch, pushing their consumers on to 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 a 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's 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 just described, concerns nomenda, a drug to treat alzheimer's. this drug was produced by a company called activist. when activist originally released nomemba, it was usually taken by patients twice a day, but a number of days before nom emba's exclusivity was going to expire, activist went -- went to

start a drug that would only need to be taken once a day. to increase health? no. to increase profits, yes. although the drug was approved in 2010, activist waited strategically three years to introduce it with the goal of extending its exclusivity in the united states market. once the drug was introduced, activist pushed all of its customers on to it while pulling the old drug from the market. as a result activist was able to continue charging monopoly prices on essentially the same drug long after nomembas's first patent was expected to expire.

we reached the time to stop pact thickening and protect hopping once and for all. we've reached the time to bring sanity and fairness to the drug market so consumers can see lower prices. i'm proud to be joining with senator cornyn of texas to introduce the affordable prescription for patients act. it will fight these abusive practices and give consumers some much-needed relief from higher drug costs. and i want to thank senator cornyn for his leadership. we've joined in this partnership that has taken many months to draft and introduce this measure. and i want to 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 antitrust enforcers to pursue pharma companies who are getting away with anticompetitive practices. it will also give clear guidance to our courts to allow them to distinguish product hopping and patent thickening to a conduct that benefits patients. this legislation makes sure that any company caught red handed engaging in these harmful practices will have to pay and be held accountable. this legislation is also important because it will lower health care 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, rent payments, and the medicine they need and deserve. that's 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 profits of those companies. we cannot allow those drug companies to reap massive personal benefits to 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 and i happily yield the floor to my colleague from minnesota. ms. smith: madam president. the presiding officer: the senator from minnesota. ms. smith: i rise today to join senator klobuchar and my colleagues on behalf of all

minnesotans and all americans who struggle to afford 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 spiking the price of older drugs like insulin and americans are taking notice of this greedy behavior that puts patients last. the number one issue i hear about from minnesotans is the cost of health care, and specifically the cost of prescription drugs. and every day minnesotans inspire me to fight to lower the price of prescription drugs. like rachel, a minnesotan 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. rachel's daily medicine is stabilizing her cancer but comes at a great cost. even with health insurance, she still pays $9,000 a month.

so with rachel affording her prescription drugs is a matter of life and death. i talked with minnesotans like nikki foster with a mom living with multiple sclerosis. nikki received her diagnosis three months after running her first half marathon. it was frightening and she wondered if she would be able to run again. but four years later, nikki is walking and running just fine, and it is due largely to the treatment regimen her doctors prescribed. however the rising price of her medication, nikki wonders how long she'll 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's more than $80,000. without significant changes in the formulation of her medicine,

the price has skyrocketed 440%. those higher prices translate into higher monthly costs and a constant source of worry for nikki. and, finally i'm inspired by the memory of alec smith. here's alec's story. alec transitioned off his mom's health insurance at age 26. he was a type one 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. now, alec had a good job but his diabetes treatment was eating up nearly 45% of his monthly salary. and that's 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 one 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 that they can afford them. and sometimes they are literally paying with their lives. patients with health insurance like niki and rachel 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's morally wrong that pharmaceutical companies are raking profits off of skyrocketing prices while americans struggle to pay for their prescription drugs. that's simple to understand but the industry would have you believe otherwise. their first argument, well, drug pricing is so complex.

it's important to understand -- it's impossible to understand and congress should study the problem. but i would argue that 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. 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 and development and innovation. but colleagues, remember, it's taxpayers, not drug companies that are subsidizing the basic research that leads to innovation and new crews through the national institutes of health. innovation can't help people if it's too expensive to afford. so then comes their closing argument. we aren't the problem, say the drug companies. it's the p.b.m.'s. it's the insurers. it's everybody else but us.

but i would argue that everyone has a role to play. lots of companies profit from high drug prices. all along the supply chain. and that needs to be fixed. and all of these players need to be held accountable. pointing fingers and shifting blame won't bring down high drug prices. comprehensive solutions will. so in the coming week, i'll 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 holding 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 at the veterans -- department of veterans affairs. and my bill goes further by penalizing drug companies that spike prices and allowing for the safe importation of lower

drugs, 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 and 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. and i'm working to reintroduce legislation that would limit the ability of the big name -- 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 here in the senate. so 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. because alec and niki and rachel 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. so thank you, senator klobuchar, for drawing attention to this issue and for inviting me to join with you today. madam president, i yield the floor. a senator: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from virginia. mr. kaine: thank you, madam president. i rise with my colleagues to just tell stories, stories that i'm 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. first above all else are stories about health care. i hear stories about a lot of

things, but i hear stories about health care possibly as much as all other areas combined and in the area of health care, the issue of the price of prescription drugs is number one. 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 c.m.l. which is a leukemia that is effectively curable. and he was prescribed the drug glevak. this story goes back a little bit. here's what andrew said. in the united states it costs approximately $159 to manufacture for a year's dose. that's 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's 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. since andrew wrote me the letter, a generic has been approved in the united states that is 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 dramatically less. daniel from martinsville in southern virginia wrote to me about the high price of insulin which is a common theme. i know all of us hear from constituents. he writes, i paid $050 for three

-- $505 for three bottles of insulin but another eli lilly insulin is required by my wife in order for her to avoid death and that's hundreds of dollars more. lori from norfolk wrote to me to share her story. lori 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's good. but that's over one-third of my annual income. one-third of my annual income as a senior on social security for one drug. i've applied for the drug company's patient assistance program because the pain is so great i can't use my hands 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'd been taking for more than a

year, there's an outrageous increase of a hundred percent, a hundred more out of my pocket for exactly the same thing every time i buy it. i'm a retired federal employee on a limited income so i'm locked into this insurance plan for the rest of the year so i have to take $100 mo out of my pocket to obtain the exact same thing every time i buy it, a hundred 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 will most likely 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 the drug, then what have you gained? medicare's prohibited from negotiating the price of priggs. med -- 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

income. the average senior that gets social security, their med qan income is $28,000 a year so an $8,000 drug cost is a third to a quarter of their income. and 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 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 that you're taking to control your health care condition. so this is why i've joined with senator klobuchar and i appreciate she 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 for negotiating for drug prices? according to a recent analysis, medicare would have saved $14.4 billion, that's billion with a b, medicare would have saved $1.4 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's 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 that they couldn'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 sieved $-- saved $14.4 billion just on those 50 drugs this one year, that's 14.4 billion that could be used for better health care, deficit reduction, tax relief, pell grant, education expenses

but there's also a savings not just to medicare but also to patients that would also be in the billions. every corner of pharmacy negotiated -- negotiates the price of prescription drugs. every walmart does. when they're buying prescription drugs to sell in their pharmacy, they negotiate. it makes no sense that the federal government is not allowed to do the same thing. another area, biologic medicines. they represent a new and promising area of treatment. i want to stop here and say i am not one of these people that 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's 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'm not on a campaign to say pharmaceutical companies are bad. they're producing life-saving prescriptions that are easing suffering and prolonging life. it's just that the price that americans pay for those drugs is so far out of whack with what

other nations do. and one of the things that's innovative that is great is biologic medicines. when competing product, they're 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 don't have -- 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 unhe enforceable. that's why i've joined with senator collins on a second bill to introduce the biologic patent transparency act. it promotes patent transparency by requiring manufacturers of approved product to disclose products -- in what we call the f.d.a. purple book. the legislation encourages manufacturers to apply for patents sooner, allow prospective biosimilar manufacturers to challenge weaker and valid 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. 30 million people, that's like the combined population of about 19 or 20 states live with diabetes in the united states. and insulin is a critical and life sustaining daily treatment for seven and a half 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 that we've experienced have caused virginia to need these drugs whose stories i've indicated to endure severe financial hardship, rational their supplies or even skip needed medication. so in february i joined with all the democratic colleagues on the health, education, pension 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's not only good ideas senator klobuchar's bill and others, there's also a good time. in the committee our chair, senator alexander, our ranking member senator murray, has kitted one of the bills we want to work on this year is a bill of single-shot strategies to reduce medical costs. i.t. not going to be the rewrite of the health care system. senator alexander and senator murray, i heard them describe if we could do a bill with a series of singles, we will. so we'll come up with a series of strategies that could bring health care down and we have an opportunity to have some of those provisions, deal with provisions just likes those i have described that can reduce the cost of prescription drugs. i am proud to joining my colleagues to share stories of virginians on probably the single-most frequent complaint that i hear and it is a may not that we can do something about. and i hope we will. with that, i yield the floor. thank you, mr. president.

ms. klobuchar: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from minnesota. ms. klobuchar: i thank the senator from minnesota for his thought -- from virginia for his thoughtful remarks. and the senator from connecticut, senator blume that will -- blumenthal, as well as senator smith. we have all cited stories about people who are taking drugs. we have people who can't afford drugs that they used to just take as commonplace. yet there were no changes made. a lot of this is what happens when you have mops, when you don't have competition. the answer is to look at all 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's a lot of people.

seniors are good at getting deals. 43 million people, yet they are banned from negotiating -- medicare is to get better deals from them. that should change. safe drugs from other countries. that would create more competition. we've had bipartisan support for the a proposal like that. and senator grassley and i have the bill that would take one country, canada, since 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 and then you look at the creates act and some of the other ways, stopping pay for delay, stopping the way senator blumenthal was describing these patent abuses to try to make sure we have more competition. i think there are starting to be -- 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. a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from kansas. mr. moran: thank you, mr. president. this week 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. and 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 deputy and another officer were shot and killed while preparing to transport a prisoner. teresa king joined the wyandotte police officer office in 2005, she was known for coming to work every day with a smile, a willingness to help out in any that i she could. she is a founding member of the kansas city base lancaster club, a group of law enforcement officers and their families dedicated to honor slain officers. mr. gore, a husband and father of two children, joined the wyandotte sheriff's office in 2011. he was known as a dedicated officer who never lost his sense of humor and often peppered his colleagues with his favorite star wars quotes. he was known for his competitive pimple he had been a varsity letterman on the swim team and his family's motto was, keep on swimming.

i will echo wyandotte county sheriff dawn ashford's words in memorializing them, they were heroes in every sense of the poured'd wouldward they put their lives between a coldblooded killer and the citizens they swore an oath to protect. in september, deputy sheriff edwin was killed. he was a husband and father who had served with the sedgwick county sheriff's office for 12 years and previously had served with another office for six. his impact can on the department was made apparent when sedgwick county sheriff jeff easter referred to his death as the loss of a family member. he was an exceptional law enforcement officer and had a contagious laugh that always made others feel welcome. this year we also memorialize jefferson county undersheriff

george bernhow who died on april 29, 1920. he set an example for those that followed him. i'd like to honor one additional law enforcement officer serve on my staff as a justice of department fellow. matt bessio has given me sound advice on issues repeated 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 has been a tremendous asset to our office. and 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 their dedication and 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 job. as the chairman of the appropriations subcommittee that funds the department, 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, to provide our best efforts to address the underlying challenges, the challenges of our society, 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 that have deport -- departed but as a reminder to all of us that remain. may god bless our law enforcement officers, protect them from harm as they faithfully perform their duties each and every day. mr. president, i ask that the next set of remarks that i give appear in the journal at a different place. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. moran: mr. president, thank you. on the 56th anniversary of the

supreme court decision brown csrs board of education, i rise to pay tribute to kansas families led by the browns and all kansans who took part in the challenging -- 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 separate but equal. but when applied to our school buildings and the education of our children, nothing about it was equal. in 1951, linda carol brown was in the third grade and should would walk six blocks a bus stop take -- that would take her to monroe elementary, more than a mile away from her home. this despite that sumner elementary was just blocks from her home. the browns and other families 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 indications throughout the country, thurgood marshall argued on their behalf before the united states 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 plessy's separate but equal doctrine violated the 14th amendment. while full integration would take years to accomplish shall 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 has its pre-civil war bloodshed to determine whether the territory would enter the union as a free 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 naacp to right wrongs and to make a more perfect union that 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 which requires all americans, each of us, to uphold the self-evident truths that all men and women are created equal. let us remember the legacy of

brown v. topeka board of education. i ask every american to commit to racial justice and equal opportunity. i ask that my final remarks appear in a separate part of the journal. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. moran: mr. president, i rise too speak about the devastation i've seen as i've toured parts of kansas and missouri and nebraska and iowa and the need for congress to pass a disaster bill that provides assistance to impacted agricultural producers. kansas farmers and ranchers have endured several challenging years and since 2013 net farm income has been cut in half due to low commodity prices. and the flooding across kansas and the midwest had been one more setback in a long list of challenges facing our farmers and ranchers. in the days following the worst flooding, i visited areas of kansas that were under water. i saw farm ground that cannot be planted or put in productive use until significant time, effort, and resources are invested in restoring that land. continued rainfall across the region has threatened to cause

additional flooding in many areas as well as delayed planting for many farmers. it is important, 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 costs 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 e.c.p. as a result of assistance our state received in building -- rebuilding 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've asked secretary perdue about e.c.p. budget shortfall at a recent ag committee subcommittee hearing and he gave his full support for congress

providing fund for e.c.p. in this bill. secretary perdue recognizes that funds must be provided 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 a farmer's income or revenue is not money in the bank but instead grain stored away in a bin waiting to be sold. with the market uncertainty due to trade disputes, farmers have more grain in storage than usual, waiting pour prices to -- for prices to increase. when that grain is wiped out by floods, it is similar to a family's savings account wiped out. congress has the opportunity in the disaster bill to give usda to cover stored lost grain. while faced with these great challenges, farmers and ranchers

continue to provide the food, fuel, fiber to the 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 disaster bill to help producers who've lost goods to floods and other disasters and to make certain farmers and ranchers across the nation know we appreciate what they do to provide for our nation. mr. president, i yield the floor.

a senator: the senator from maryland. mr. cardin: i would ask that senator portman and i be recognized for up to 25 minutes. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. cardin: thank you, mr. president. shortly i'm 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, a democrat and republican working together. there was a great deal of discussion about tax reform at that time and it seemed like neither the democratic or republican leadership was interested in dealing with retirement savings at that point, but 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 a process more than it

was about legislation. we brought the stakeholders together, sat around, listened to each other and came to a consensus bill that was enacted into law and made permanent that 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 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 recognize, particularly women who enter the workforce at a later time, didn't have as many years to put money away for retirement savings. we simplified the retirement plan so small companies could establish a pension plan and have safe harbor so it wasn't as complicated to set up a pension plan and we established a saver's credit and we did that

because we recognized the tax code itself wasn't necessarily a great enough incentive to get younger and low-wage workers interested in a retirement plan. we found if an employer put money on the table, most employees would opt to join that pension plan, witness the thrift savings we swr here as -- we have here as federal employees. but we noticed the smaller companies didn't offer those type of plans so we developed the savers credit would allow companies to have government help to put away money for their retirement. the law that was passed back then did help dramatically the number of people who entered 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 had joined up again in the united states senate in an effort to build on the success we had over a decade ago. so we had a hearing this past week and in that hearing we brought up the fact that several provisions that senator portman and i have been working on are included in the recent legislation which is legislation that has passed the house of representatives, has 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 included many important provisions to improve retirement savings and we hope that bill will be considered on the floor very, very shortly. we want to get that done. but we recognize that we need to go further than that. and for that reason senator portman and i have introduced

the retirement security and savings act this year that includes many important provisions. it deals with the fact that we have yet to really fully accomplish what we need to for retirement savings. according to a 2019 g.a.o. estimate, 48% of those that are near retirement age, those over 55 years of age, have no retirement nest egg. 29% 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% have access to plans, but barely over 50% participate in plans. for part-time workers, the numbers are much, much lower. only 39% have an opportunity and only 22% actually participate in plans. for small businesses, only about

50% provide retirement access to their employees and 34% participate. in the lowest quintile, those at the lowest incomes, 44% have access to retirement savings through their employment and yet only half that number actually participate. this is really underscored -- has really underscored the urgency of this by the fact that we have now gone from a -- a landscape that include mostly to identify benefit plan where the employer had a plan for you, the employer took the risk, you had a guaranteed benefit when you retired. you didn't have to worry about how much money you put away because the company protected you. we have gone from a defined benefit world to a defined contribution world. mr. president, i'm going to yield at this point to senator portman to go over the provisions that we are including in the portman-cardin bill, and

then i believe we'll have time -- i want to come back and comment on some of these particular provisions. but i really want to compliment senator portman for his longstanding commitment to dealing with this national need. america's economy is strong but it's not strong on personal savings and retirement savings and we need to do better and it's been a pleasure to work with senator portman in regards these issues. mr. portman: well, thanks to my colleague from maryland for yielding to me and it's 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 when we were in the house of representatives to encourage people to save more for their retirement by providing more incentives, increasing, as an example, the amount you could put aside in a 401(k) or i.r.a., simplifying the rules for small businesses, and we made some progress and those legislative

initiatives resulted in about a doubling of 401(k) assets and tripling of i.r.a. savings, but still too little in savings. our national savings rate is a problem, our personal savings rate is a problem. but the real problem is people aren't saving enough for their retirement. social security is an essential safety net. everyone wants to be sure it will be there into the future but it's testify to live on your social security benefit alone so people need that private retirement savings, and we want to encourage people to save more for their own retirement. what is more important than peace of mind in retirement, to know that you've got the ability to take care of your needs, maybe it's long-term care needs, maybe it's health care needs, maybe it's being able to have a comfortable retirement, and so this is something that we're focusing on again. now, the senate did pass recently legislation that helps. it's called the reesea

legislation -- the risa legislation. but our legislation builds on that and expand on it substantially. senator cardin talked a little bit about it, but it's legislation that we spent 18 months developing. we heard from stakeholders all over the country. there's a reason a lot of people are supporting this legislation, including the aarp, including the chamber of commerce, including a lot of people in the retirement business, the american benefits council and others. because we took the time to go to them and say what do people need to expand their choices in retirement and 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've got an aging baby booming population. i'm among them. i think all three of us are, mr. president, who are not saving enough. and that's a concern. second is a lack of access to

employer-sponsored plans. so you want everybody who is in the workplace to have access to a 401(k), and yet when you look at this, particularly with smaller businesses, a lot of people don't have access, don't have the chance to save. 401(k)'s are great because the employer puts a match in for you so it's not just your money that's a tax advantage, but unlike an i.r.a., you get the employer to put a match in and usually to help you with your decisions in terms of what kind of investments you make with the 401(k). third, we found, particularly with lower-income americans, there was a real issue with the amount of savings. and who needs money more in retirement than lower-income americans because they don't have other savings to help them through retirement. all of this is predicated upon the reality we are living longer as americans, longer and healthier lives so we need more assets in retirement. the final one is adequate lifetime savings. a lot of people have a 401(k) or

i.r.a. and take the lump sum maybe spend some of that, buy a boat and then find i'm living longer and longer, i hadn't expected to be in my 90's and still be here, and yet that's the trend right now people are living longer so we have to ensure that there is longer lifetime savings as people are living longer and healthier lives. 18 months working with all of these groups on the outside, we came up with 57 different provisions to address these four areas, and how do we do it? first, for those who have saved too little to set more aside for their retirement. so for seniors, people who are over 60 years old, we have a special catchup contribution. so if you're over 60 years old, under our legislation, you have the opportunity to be able to put more aside in your retirement plan. that's important. contribution limits go from

$6,000 to $10,000 for those over 60 with a 401(k). senator cardin talked a little about this. but among these baby boomers, based on a 2019 g.a.o. report this year, nearly over half, 48% of retirees over the age of 55 have zero retirement necessary egg saved. some may have a pension, for instance, but still when you add that in, 30% have no retirement savings or any kind of pension benefits they will get in the future. you have a lot of people who will get nothing and this will help with regard to those individuals. we also say with regard to this first issue, it's not just being able to get a catchup contribution, what we tell employers, hey, if you set up a plan that allows you to match 6% of pay rather than 3% of pay, we will give you a break from some of the onerous retirement rules

in a safe harbor, and that will encourage more of those employers do it and it offers a tax credit for employers to offer safe harbor plans. that will give a benefit to employees to help people save more for retirement. it helps employees to help employees saving for retirement and pay off student loan debt. these are people who say, i would love to save for retirement, but how can i do that when i have a student loan debt? the average for someone coming out a of a university in ohio is around $27,000. well, what we do here is 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, as a -- it's a good way to help people pay off their debt, individual paying off their debt, employer putting a match in for the same amount.

it's you're a business owner out there you will like this because it will give you an advantage in the marketplace saying, come work with me we'll help you on the student debt. the second issue is small businesses. this is important because that is where most people who don't have access to retirement plans work. bigger businesses tend to offer retirement plans. the bureau of labor statistics survey that senator cardin talked about earlier shows that 68% of private-sector workers have access to an employer-sponsored plan but it drops to only 49% for small businesses. so if you work for small businesses, it's less than half. and, by the, only 39% if you're a part-time worker. the bill takes important steps to help small small businesses r 401(k)s and other retirement plans. it increases the current law tax credit that's already out there but it improves it, increases it for small businesses for

starting a new retirement plan from $500 to as much as $5,000. it simplifies the top-heavy rules for small business plans to reduce the cost of enrolling new employees. and it establishes a new three-year $500 per year tax credit for small businesses that automatically reenroll all the participants in the plan at least once every three years. this is one of the issues out there. if you don't do auto enrollment, in other words, and opt in, unless you opt out you're not going to get the participation rate we want. this is legislation, by the way, senator cardin and i promoted in the 2006 legislation which said you can do an auto enrollment and the participation rate went from 75% to about 95% with this auto enrollment, particularly for younger people if you're told unless you do something you're going to automatically be enrolled in this 401(k), it encourages them to get into retirement savings. all of that is to help these small businesses. we think it's going to make a

big difference. third, one of the big problems we face is the planned participation rates for low-income rates, again, are well below what they are for others. this says expand access to retirement savings plans for hardworking lower-income americans, the way we do that, and senator cardin is the expert on that, but it is to ensure that those people who are low-income, have the ability to get into a retirement plan with a match. and that would incentivize them to get in. 22% of low-income workers participate in a retirement plan today. again, these are people who need that savings the most. it is the saver's credit. it expands the income thresholds to give more americans access to increase credit amounts. it increases the government match with a saver's credit. by the way, the saver's credit goes directly into the retirement account. i think that's important because you don't want this money wasted. you don't want it used for other purposes, so-called leakage in retirement accounts. this goes right into the retirement account. we talked about that only 39%

have a plans but again only 22% participate. so this is important. it also expands the eligibility of 401(k)s to include part-time workers. this is important to the aarp and others out there who are looking at these plans and saying 22% participate, that's it. we've got to do more there. so it allows part-time workers who complete between 500 and 1,000 hours of service for two consecutive years to join in. this is designed to help low-income americans to build that nest egg for retirement. finally a significant challenge is this lack of lifetime savings. our bill provides more flexibility during americans retirement years. a study by northwest mutual last year found 66% of americans believe they'll outlive their retirement savings. two-thirds of americans are saying i'm going to live longer than my retirement savings. and by the way they're probably right.

people are living longer and healthier lives and running out of retirement savings. we have a number of initiatives to provide more flexibility to people in their retirement years. the bill increases the age for the required minimum distribution from age 70 1/2 which which it is now, to 72 and to 75. 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 that there is a rule that says you've got to start taking your money out of retirement at 70 1/2. if you're like my father 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'm still working? i ran into a guy last week in ohio who said the same thing. this makes no sense. we said we're going to kick it up to 75 years old. but if you have less than $100,000 in your retirement account you're not subject to

the requirement rules at all. this is great for seniors who are trying to save that money for retirement, don't want to pull it out, because although they may work until 75, they know they're going to have maybe another 20 years to live and they want to make sure they have that retirement savings in there. i'm excited about all these provisions. this last one that i'm hearing a lot from, tom from ohio said relief from distributions would be helpful. it affords me and other senior taxpayers the freedom to fund my retirement years. why should i be forced to deplete my account at 70 1/2? you're darned, right, thoom. -- tom. the bill reduces the penalty from failing to take the required distributions from 50% to as low as 10% in some cases. finally, the legislation in order to help those who are in retirement encourages the use of

qualifying longevity annuity contracts. that is a retirement plan that provides annual payments to individuals that outlive their life expectancy. you think of an annuity or periodic payment, when you retire instead of taking a lump sum, you have one of these contracts where you're able to ensure that you're not going to outlive your retirement savings. they are an affordable option for a lot of americans who are trying to hedge the risk of outlasting their savings. that's what we do in our legislation. again, these are all commonsense reforms. they deal with all four of these challenges that we've seen as we've looked at the retirement system based on input from a lot of people. my hope is we'll be able to get this done. our coalition includes the americans benefits council, the aarp, chamber of commerce, ensured retirement institute, vanguard, women's institute for secure retirement, international association of firefighters, american council of live insurers, erisa

industry community to name a few. we've had the opportunity to work together for a couple of decades now on these issues. i'm glad we are taking this next step, again, to provide additional options for people to be able to save for their retirement and have more peace of mind in retirement. i'd like to yield back to senator cardin. mr. cardin: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from maryland. mr. cardin: let me thank my colleague, senator portman. he's explained what's 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 retirement security. he mentioned the automatic enrollment, the safe harbor here, because americans make decisions by inaction. and now with automatic enrollment, they'll be in retirement plans with the opportunity to opt out. it increases the saver's credit eligibility, but importantly makes it refundable and deposits it directly into a savings

account so 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 is matched with this credit so that more workers will have opportunities for savings in retirement. it expands part-time workers, a group that today are underrepresented in retirement savings. it deals with the student debt issue. i want to thank senator portman for help in recognizing that a lot of young workers would love to put money in retirement but they have to pay off the student debt, so that can be used as a match by an employer for a savings account. and it deals with lifetime income. how many people have we run into, as senator portman has pointed out, that have outlived their retirement? they didn't expect to live to be 95 and still have an active lifestyle. so we increase significantly the

opportunities for lifetime income options as well as what senator portman said, in dealing with required minimum distributions. there are a lot of issues, 50 issues i think are in the bill. there are a lot of other issues that are important. they are issues we want to work on including relating to the recoupment of benefit over payments. the bottom line is we want to improve the retirement security for americans. social security, very important, as senator portman pointed out. it's a three-legged stool. let's work together to increase private savings in retirement. that's exactly what this bill does. with that, mr. president, i will yield the floor. i think we have one minute left. to senator portman. mr. portman: to my colleague from maryland, again, thank you for your partnership on this over the years. let me make the obvious point for those watching today. i'm a republican, he's a democrat. we're actually talking about doglegs together. -- talking about doing legislation together. i would say in the retirement

space we've tried to keep it nonpartisan because this is so important to the people we represent. i will also say that the committee happens to be represented by a republican and democrat who believe in this. senator grassley was chairman of the committee in 2001 when we first passed this major legislation to increase what people can save for their retirement. he's chairman again. he believes in this. senator wyden is the ranking democrat, the top democrat. he also is a former gray panthers executive director and also has a provision in our bill that's very important with regard to student loan debt a as senator cardin talked about. so we have the constellations are kind of properly aligned, you know. the ability for us to get this done, i think, is one that might be counter to a lot of partisanship and the gridlock we see here in this town because this is bipartisan stuff. always has been. we spent our time, we did it right. we used input from all sorts of outside stakeholders. we have the opportunity here to

improve our national 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 today to talk about the importance of this legislation. i urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle take a look at it, i hope you'll sign up and cosponsor this legislation. let's get this passed. let's do it this year. i yield back. mr. portman: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent that the senate proceed to legislative session and be in a period of morning business with senators permitted to speak therein for up to ten minutes each.

the presiding officer: is there objection? without objection. mr. portman: mr. president, i understand there are two bills at the desk due for a second reading en bloc. the presiding officer: the senator is correct. the clerk will read the titles of the bill for the second time. the clerk: h.r. 986, an act to provide that certain guidance related to waivers for state innovation under the patient protection and affordable care act shall have no force or effect. h.r. 2157, an act making supplemental appropriations for the fiscal year ending september 30, 2019, and for other purposes. mr. portman: in order to place the bills on the calendar under the provisions of rule 14 i would object to further proceeding en bloc. the presiding officer: objection having been heard, the bills will be placed on the calendar. mr. portman: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent that the judiciary committee be discharged from further consideration of s. res. 178 and the senate proceed to its immediate consideration.

the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: senate resolution 178, recognizing and supporting the goals and ideals of national sexual assault awareness and prevention month. the presiding officer: is there objection to proceeding to the measure? without objection. the committee is discharged and the senate will proceed. mr. portman: i further ask that the resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, and the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. portman: i ask unanimous consent that the senate resume executive session. the presiding officer: without objection. under the previous order, all postcloture time is expired. the question is on the nomination. is there a sufficient second? there appears to be. the clerk will call the roll.

vote: vote: