quorum call:

rising use of 10 registers. think of that. 500 witnesses and i have nancy pelosi go out and say that the president of the united states engaged in a cover-up. we had a house investigation,

we have senate investigations, we have investigations like nobody has ever had before and we did nothing wrong. they would have loved to have said we colluded. they would have loved it. these people were out to get us. the republican party, donald trump, they were out to get us. this was a 1-sided horrible thing. the bottom line is they said there is no collusion, no collusion with russia. you heard so much talk about phone calls but my son made to me from this meeting that was set up by gps fusion it looks like which is the other side for those that don't know and for a year i heard about phone calls went to a special number, unauthorized and it would have been my son don who is a good young man who has gone through hell. and calls that must have been made by him before and after.

after massive study and work, they found who made the calls. one was a friend of ours in real estate developer, great guy most of you know, nice guy, loves our country and the other one was the head of nascar. two of them. of the three calls that were so horrible that he had a meeting, and had the meeting after and made two more calls and they were written about like this little line, couple of lines, nobody wanted to admit it. even last night we had a great election. i went there on monday. we had an election for fred keller, the 50/50 shot and he won in a landslide. we went and we did a rally.

hardly mentioned today, yet if he lost it would have been the biggest story in the country even bigger than this witchhunt stuff that you guys keep writing about. here is the bottom line. there was no collusion, there was no obstruction we have been doing this since i have been president and the crime was committed on the other side. we will see how that all turns out. i hope it turns out well, but to my way of thinking and i know a lot of you agree with me, the crime was committed on the other side. this whole thing was a takedown attempt at the president of the united states. and honestly, you ought to be ashamed of yourselves for the way you reported so dishonestly. not all of you but many of you. the way you report it. so i have said from the beginning, right from the beginning, that you probably

can't go down two tracks. you can go down the investigation track and you can go down the investment track or the track of let's get things done for the american people. i love the american people. drug prices are coming down, first time in 51 years because of my administration but we can get them down way lower working with the democrats. we can solve the problem at the border in 15 minutes if the democrats would give us a few votes. i just wanted to let you know that i walked into the room and i told senator schumer, speaker pelosi, i want to do infrastructure. i want to do it more than you want to do it. really good at that, that is

what i do. and you can't do it under these circumstances. so get these phony investigations over with. the wall street journal just wrote today, a little while ago i side, mister mueller wasn't obstructed in any way. the wall street journal editorial today. mister mueller wasn't obstructed in any way. his copious report, copious, 434 pages, now they want to interview all of the same people again. they want to interview jerry nadler who has been an enemy of mine for many years, he fought me in new york and successfully by the way. i have had great success against jerry. he was representing manhattan, he would fight me all the time on the westside railroad, many times, very unsuccessfully. he failed. i come to washington and become president and i have jerry nadler again. wall street journal, mister mueller wasn't obstructed in any way. his copious report was released

for all to see and there was no collusion. this is the wall street journal. there was no collusion between russia and the trump campaign. that is it but they want to make this a big deal. whether or not they carry the big i word out. i can't imagine that but they probably would because they do whatever they do. the danger here if someday a democrat becomes president and you have a republican house they can impeach him for any reason or her. any reason. we can't allow that to happen. we can't allow it to happen. when you look at all of the transparency, when you look at all i have done. i will tell you my lawyers say you don't have to do this. you can use presidential privilege. you don't have to let your lawyers and all of your staff testify.

you can use presidential privilege. would you recommend it? you could be transparent or you could be tight. if you have done nothing wrong, being transparent is better. i said i did nothing wrong. let's be transparent. that is what you have. all of these things. all of these things. 500 witnesses that i allowed to testify. it is a disgrace. when they get everything done, i am all set to let's get infrastructure, let's get drug prices down. in the meantime we are doing tremendous work without them. we are doing tremendous executive orders. a lot of work. we've had great success. most successful economy perhaps in our country's history. we have cut regulations at level nobody else has cut before. the largest tax cut in the history of the country. we are doing a lot of work.

this was very sad. this meeting was set up a number of days ago at 11:00. all of a sudden i hear last night they will have the meeting right before this meeting to talk about the word. the i word. can you imagine? i don't speak to russians about campaigns. when i went to wisconsin and michigan. esident. i ask unanimous consent that the quorum call be vitiated. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. barrasso: thank you, mr. president. mr. president, i come to the floor again today to discuss washington democrats' one-size-fits-all health care scheme. every american needs to know about this very radical plan. democrats essentially want washington, d.c., to take over all of health care in this country and to abolish private health insurance that 180 million americans get through their jobs. incredibly, this proposal offered by senator bernie

sanders has the backing of many leading democrats running for president and 109 democrat members of the house of representatives. so i want to continue the debate today, mr. president, by focusing on the terrible impact this radical scheme will have on all of the fine men and women who provide health care to people across the country. and, of course, mr. president, the impact on them will impact the patients that they provide services and, more importantly, provide care for. so i'm talking about the nation's dedicated medical professionals, especially those who serve in our community hospitals. i actually know many of these health care providers because i'm one of them. for many years i practiced orthopedic surgery in casper, wyoming. i was a medical doctor, physician, chief of staff at the hospital at the wyoming medical center. when you practice medicine, mr. president, in casper, wyoming, or where in your home

state of nebraska, you really treat patients from all over your state. that's because many people in wyoming live in small towns. i'm talking about my wife's small town of monopolis, wyoming. my point is, when you work at a casper hospital, you're actually covering a large area in our state and that's often the case in many states. so when i hear that washington democrats want to have a one-size-fits-all health care plan, i wonder, have they given any thought to people in the nation's heartland, people out west? are they considering people in rural communities at all? i'll tell you, i think about the people of wyoming every day. i'm there every weekend. the staff at small hospital whose serve rural communities

like thermopolis and the hospital where i was at a health fair this past saturday talking to all the folks there, their needs are things that i'm not convinced washington democrats have any knowledge or care for at all. the people at these hospitals work hard just to keep the doors open so they can continue to care for patients right there. so alarm bells go off when i see headlines like the one from "the washington post" that said, who's going to take care of these people? as emergencies rise across rural america, a hospital fights for its life. that's the headline, "washington post." now, the "post" is referring to a hospital -- a community hospital in osage county, oklahoma. the hospital has a sign out front that reads, a small community is only as healthy as its hospital. that's the truth.

mr. president, hospitals across rural america are struggling it. many, in fact, are fighting for their lives. but still, democrats are offering a plan that will destroy private health insurance in america, which is the lifeblood of our nation's health care system. 180 million americans get their insurance this way. democrats want to drastically reduce the provider payments, which would of course drive many doctors from practice and shutter many small hospitals. the centers for medicare and medicaid services administrator has said a one-size-fits-all system would, quote, decimate -- decimate -- physician networks, creating a permanent physician shortage. permanent. so how can rural hospitals survive with no financial cushion if democrats' one-size-fits-all health care plan passes? well, just ask "the new york times." last month the "times" ran with this headline -- hospitals stand

to lose billions under medicare for all. hospitals stand to lose billions the "times" cites a study by george mason university that found medicare provider reimbursement rates are more than 40% lower than private insurance rates. 40% lower. at these payment rates, the "times" says some hospitals, especially struggling rural centers, like those, mr. president, in your home state and mine, would close virtually overnight. an overnight closure of hospitals under bernie sanders' and the democrats' one-size-fits-all scheme for medicine in america. now, i'm sure a lot of people listening out there are thinking, maybe it's all a mistake. maybe democrats don't really mean to threaten hospitals. well, the fact is, mr. president, democrats have long argued that hospitals need to close. that's what they've said.

just playbook at what dr. zeke emanuel, who is the architect of obamacare, a professor in philadelphia, what he said on the subject. he actually wrote a book outlining all of this. it's called "reinventing american health care." he said that a thousand u.s. hospitals would close by 2020. well, we're aproposing that year. we haven't closed 20 in this country, but over 80 have closed. and, mr. president, those are rural hospitals. last year he published an op-ed in "the new york times," the same dr. emanuel, ominously titled "are hospitals becoming obsolete?" he writes, hospitals are disappearing. while they may never completely go away, they will continue to shrink in number and importance. this is inevitable, he says, and good. well, not in rural america, mr. president. good, he says, if thousands of hospitals and patients who rely on them are forced to close their doors for good. i disagree fundamentally with

his principle and what he is saying. and of course all people who practice medicine in small towns want to keep the doors open because they know the impact on the lives of the people who live in those communities. just last week i had a chance to visit with dr. mike tracy, a family physician in powell, wyoming, past president of the wyoming medical society. he is passionate about caring for his patients. guess what? he doesn't participate in medicare at all. instead, he provides his services privately, by charging his patients a set transparent monthly fee. he does what he does to do to keep his practice open. his focus is on his patients, not on washington paperwork. you know what? his patients are very happy. his practice is successful. the patients are happy with the time he is able to sit and be with them and look at them and focus on them instead of the

mandates of a washington computer screen. so, you see, there are doctors like mike all across the country who don't want a one-size-fits-all health system. many doctors in many small commun hospitals cannot afford -- many doctors and many small community hospitals can't afford it. you know this better as most, as you've traveled your state and i've traveled mine, if a small community loses a hospital, it is much harder in that community to attract doctors, nurses, teachers, businesses, all of the things that are vital for a community to have. so the threat is very real in what the democrats and what bernie sanders and the one-size-fits-all health care plan would bring to our country. so met me just tell people that are -- so let me just tell people that are watching the debate now, democrats' one-size-fits-all health care plan, what this will mean for you is you will pay more to wait

longer for worse care. that's what it means. that's what it means to you. you will pay more to wait longer for worse care. that is what is at stake here, mr. president. and we all need to make our voices heard loud and clear. no to democrats' one-size-fits-all health care scheme. yes to real reforms that improve health care and bring down the cost for all americans. thank you, mr. president. and i yield the floor. i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call:

quorum call:

a senator: i ask the quorum call be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. cornyn: mr. president, it seems a bit surreal, but necessary nonetheless to come here to the senate floor and talk about the perils of socialism and its sudden resurgence within the democratic party. we've seen our democratic friends push for policies like medicare for all which would completely wreck the system that provides health care for our seniors and force all americans onto the same plan, regardless of the fact they never paid anything into it like our seniors have, and regardless of the fact they may indeed like their private health insurance that they get from their employers. you remember when the obama administration promised in 2013

if you like your plan, you can keep it. well, i don't really think they meant it, but that's at least what they said. the democrats have gotten so far more radical today, their motto should be if you like your plan, you can't keep it under medicare for all. they have also promised things like free college -- and believe me, free is popular, especially if you don't think you're ever going to have to end up paying for it. promising anyone and everyone that they can go to college for free. now, there are some smart things we can do to help prepare high school students and college students to hold down their debt and to make sure that they get the sort of advice and counseling they need to make sure they are studying something that is going to be able to provide them an income with which they can repay the loans that they take out, and there is some work we need to do in that

area. across texas, i have had a chance recently to go to a number of middle schools and high schools, and in texas, i'm sure we're not alone, there are many high schools where students can get dual credit, college and high school credit, and many of them -- or some of them at least graduate from high school with essentially two years of college behind them, and it costs them nothing. it's free. i guess that's free. actually, it's not free either, but they don't have to pay anything more for it, and their parents don't have to pay anything more for their property or sales tax for it. so that's a smarter way to approach this rather than this radical idea that things like college can be somehow free, knowing that actually there will be somebody that pays for it, whether it's our children when they grow up and they have to pay back the money that we have recklessly borrowed in our

deficits and debt, or by raising taxes which you can't raise taxes enough on the rich people in order to pay for this, so inevitably that burden will fall on the middle class. but to put the icing on the cake on these radical policies, you have to -- you have to look at this green new deal proposal that democrats have rolled out and really call this the icing on the cake in their socialist proposals. they want to take over the entire energy sector of the economy, and they want to regulate it, and they want to tax it in such a way as to promise somehow something that is never going to be realized. for example, they say they want to achieve net zero emissions in ten years. well, texas, oklahoma, other states generate a lot of electricity from renewable

sources, particularly wind-generated energy. but there's no way in the world you're going to be able to eliminate things like natural gas and other sources of energy because the wind doesn't always blow and the sun doesn't always shine, and so you're going to need something to provide the base load when the wind is not blowing and the sun is not shining, so this idea, this pie in the sky idea of a net zero emissions in ten years by going entirely to renewables is simply fantasy. they also want to overhaul our transportation system. they want to rebuild or retrofit every single building in the country, but they offer no real details, and in fact i think there is a reason for that. because they don't even talk about the details of what needs to be accomplished or the costs that would be associated with trying to accomplish it. the only estimate that i have

seen is a $93 trillion price tag, but that's an important piece of information that you would think the public would have a right to know, and that's not something the advocates of the green new deal have been particularly proud of. even if this is something a majority of americans wanted, we don't currently have the technology or the resources to make it happen. our democratic friends know that. so they are in essence making a promise for something that they can't deliver because of the price, because the technology has not yet been invented. and so what was really bizarre here on the senate floor is when the majority leader provided our democratic colleagues a chance to vote on this resolution on the senate floor, not a single democratic colleague voted for it. they voted present. well, that's a new one on me. i thought when we came here to

the senate, our job was to represent our constituents and vote yes or no on legislation. so to show up and vote present seems to me like an abdication of that responsibility, but it also is some evidence of how really cynical and insincere this proposal really is. but that's not to say it isn't popular when you start offering free things and you start promising things that are unaffordable or unattainable. but instead of talking about these policies that are unwanted, unachievable, and unaffordable, let's talk about some real solutions. i think that's the responsibility of people like me who say the green new deal won't cut it, to which people might ask, well, what are your suggestions, and i think that's an important and fair question. no matter what your perspective on energy issues and the environment, i think every single one of us can agree on at

least one point. we need smart energy policies that will strengthen our economy without bankrupting american families. i would just note parenthetically, mr. president, that we have actually made some pretty good progress when it comes to emissions control. since be 2017, combined u.s. emissions of six criteria air pollutants have gone down 73%. that's as of 2017. it's gone down 73% since 1970. during that same period of time, the american economy grew by 262%. the number of vehicle miles traveled grew 189%. and our population grew 59%. so we were able to reduce pollutants 373% at a time when the population was growing, people were driving more, and our economy was growing. more recently between 1990 and

2017, the u.s. reduced sulfur dioxide concentrations by 88%, lead by 80%, nitrogen dioxide by 50%, particulate matter by 40%, ground level ozone by 22% and carbon dioxide by 77%. from 2005 to 2017, carbon dioxide emissions declined nearly 15% in the united states. during that same period of time -- and this is a fair comparison -- china's annual carbon dioxide emissions have increased roughly double, twice what they were during the same time period. so i would say that we can blame america first for all sorts of problems. i don't think that's fair, nor

is it accurate, and particularly when you start talking about the environment and controlling owe zone-defeating co2 emissions, i think there is a better way to approach it, and we need to start with the facts, and i think the facts are that we need to form partnerships to leverage the capabilities of the private sector and achieve cost-effective solutions. none of the people advocating the green new deal can really tell you how much you will be paying for electricity if we were able to implement the green new deal. how much would you have to pay for your transportation cost? how much would you have to pay to heat or to cool your house? we need policies that make sense, that are affordable, achievable and bring down the costs of each of those items for the american people. so the solution isn't

$100 trillion green new deal, it's good, old fashioned, all-american innovation. by incentivizing research for new technology, we can secure our place as a global leader in energy innovation. one of the great examples of the type i'm suggesting is you can take a trip to the net power plant in la port, texas, which i did outside of houston recently. net power has a power system that generates affordable zero emotions electricity using their unique carbon capture technology, they've taken natural gas, one of the most prevalent energy sources that there is and made it emission free. this is a shinning example of the environmentally and fiscally responsible policies that we should support.

last year renewables accounted for 17% of total energy sources, that includes hydro dowr, wind -- hydropower and other sources. if we could take this common energy source and make it more environmentally friendly, why wouldn't we do that? why wouldn't that be a more fiscally responsible way of addressing it. these policies are important for conservation but also for securing our competitiveness on the world stage. if american companies don't produce these technologies first, well you bet somebody else will. the heavy-handed government approaches we're seeing from our democratic colleagues is not the answer. instead we've got to harness the power of private sector and drive real solutions. we need to invest in innovative solutions that encourage the

private sector to continue to prioritize affordable and reliable energy sources. when you implement government policies that get government out of the way and let the experts do their jobs, you can be pro energy, pro innovation, pro growth, and pro environment. i'll soon be introducing some legislation that i think will help us move down that road. we know the u.s. leads the world in emotions emission -- ee emission reduction without bankrupting our country. on another topic, as i highlighted this week, the senate has unanimously passed the debbie smith act of 2018, which will provide critical resources for law enforcement to test rape kits, prosecute criminals, and deliver justice for victims. this was a major bipartisan

achievement, and i look forward with working with our house colleagues to get this legislation to the president's desk as soon as possible. but there's more we need to do to assist victims of violence and sexual assault. for example, today i'm filing the help end abusive living situation, or heals act that will provide domestic violence survivors to transition to housing. this will help them to leave their abusers, rebuild their lives and begin a long-term healing process. folks on both sides of the aisle believe we need to strengthen violence against women act, also known as vawa. it is something that i strongly support and an issue that our friend senator ernst continues to champion here in the senate. now, republicans and democrats say we must do more to provide

services for victims of domestic violence and sexual assault, and while we've certainly had some disagreements on the way to do that, there's no question that vawa has traditionally been a bipartisan commitment. that's why i was so shocked -- shocked earlier this year when house democrats blocked a republican effort to reauthorize this critical law before it lapsed last february. the current violence against women law lapsed in february because house democrats refused to allow us to extend it. now why would they do that? if they claim to be supportive of efforts to protect women and others from violence and assault, why would they let the very law that authorizes the various programs that congress has paid for in the past, why would they let that lapse? well, sadly, this is where

politics rears its ugly head. we were seeking a short-term reauthorization of the existing violence against women act so bipartisan negotiations could continue on a long-term update and extension of the law. but house democrats recklessly blocked this reauthorization of vawa because they were seeking to add controversial provisions that should never be part of a consensus bill. certainly not one that enjoys broad bipartisan support. in the face of this political jockeying by house democrats, i'm proud to say that the appropriations committee did the right thing and continued to fully fund all violence against women act programs through the remainder of this fiscal year. so this means that house democrats, when they tried to kill vawa by refusing to reauthorize it actually failed to accomplish there goal if their goal was to deny women and

other victims of violence the critical funding needed for these programs. so despite the efforts they undertook to let vawa expire, critical domestic violence will continue to receive full federal funding until we can reach a bipartisan consensus agreement an update the law. so good for the appropriations committee for making that happen. but my point is, mr. president, that vawa should never be used as a political play thing or pawn. i'm somewhat encouraged by ongoing bipartisan negotiations here in the senate and i commend senator ernst for her commitment to this of for the an look forward to supporting a long-term extension of vawa that has -- is done in the right way, the negotiation and agreement -- through negotiation and agreement, not political gamesmanship. that's the wrong way to do things. we know better if people will

simply stop the political posturing and political games and do the work the american people sent us here to do. mr. president, i yield the floor and i note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call:

the presiding officer: the senator from iowa. mr. grassley: i ask that the calling of the quorum be suspended. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. grassley: i'm here to discuss with my colleagues issues dealing with the work of the senate finance committee and possible legislation that hopefully will come up this summer to keep health care costs down, particularly prescription drugs. but in the process of doing that, i want to set the record straight on an issue that affects every american who's eligible for medicare. more specifically, i'm here to talk about efforts to reduce the rising costs of prescription

medicine. prescription drugs save lives. millions of americans like myself wake up every morning and take their daily medication, but there's something that's become a very tough pill to swallow for an increasing number of americans, and that is paying for the rising cost of prescription drugs. i applaud president trump for turning up the volume on this issue last summer. that's when the president announced his administration's blueprint to lower drug costs for all americans. he found out and we all found out that's a goal that has widespread support. that includes republicans and democrats as well as urban and rural americans. and of course the president can only do so much whatever law

passed by congress allows the president to do. and that doesn't solve yule the issues -- that doesn't solve all the issues. so even though i applaud the president, that doesn't mean i exclude in any way the responsibility of congress to take action. there are many good ideas to build upon that share broad bipartisan, bicameral support. there's one policy, however, that some members are talking about that i don't agree with. and that is repealing what's called the noninterference clause in medicare part d. i'd like to explain why congress kept the government out of the business of negotiating drug prices in the medicare program. some 16 years ago when i was

formally chairman of the finance committee, i was a principal architect of the medicare part d program. for the first time ever, congress in 2003 added an outpatient prescription drug benefit to the medicare program. and maybe i ought to explain for my colleagues why it took between 1965 and 2003 to include drug benefits in the medicare program. but remember, 1965 prescription drugs or drugs generally didn't play a very big role in the delivery of medicine like they do today. but over time they become more important. and that's why great support at the grassroots both bipartisan and bicameral evolved into what we call part d medicare program

adopted in that year that i already stated, 2003. so we came to the conclusion adding the prescription drug benefit for seniors was the right thing to do but it needed to be done in the right way, right for seniors and right for the american taxpayers. by that i mean allowing the forces of free enterprise and competition to drive costs down and drive value up. for the first time ever, medicare recipients in every state had the voluntary decision to choose a prescription drug plan that fit their pocketbooks and their health care needs. the part d program has worked. beneficiary enrollment and

satisfaction are robust. the part d marketplace offers consumers better choice, better coverage, and better value and yet here we are again. it's been 13 years since part d was implemented. and once again i'm hearing the same calls to put the government back into the driver's seat of making decisions on what you can take in the way of pills or what your doctor might be able to prescribe to you based upon what a formulary might be. and we want the private sector to decide the formulary, not the government. so these people happen to be the same backseat drivers who think that centralized government knows everything and knows best. as the senator who worked -- on

once again chairs the committee with jurisdiction over medicare policy, i'm not going to let congress unravel what's right about medicare part d. remember i was a republican leading the charge to add a new benefit to a government program. a lot of people think that's very uncharacteristic of a republican, but i told you why i did that. because medicine was becoming an increasing part of the delivery of quality health care. so you heard me correctly. i was republican chairman working with my democrat ranking member max baucus to accomplish part d. we negotiated an agreement to add prescription drug coverage for seniors. for me and other republicans, namely president george w. bush,

there were a few key caveats. first it must be voluntary. second, beneficiaries would share the cost with the taxpayer because having skin in the game keeps check on spending and on utilization. third, we must allow competiti competition, not government mandates, to drive innovation, curb costs, expand coverage, and improve outcomes. it wouldn't work if the federal government interfered with delivery of medicine and dictated which drugs would and would not be covered. that's why we wrote a noninterference clause in the law. and my friend senator wyden, the current democratic ranking member of the finance committee,

voted for final passage in 2003. by the way, we're having very good bipartisan cooperation in our finance committee on hopefully legislation debated in our committee in june in regard to lowering drug costs. the noninterference provision expressly prohibits medicare from, one, negotiating drug prices. two, setting drug prices. and three, establishing a one-size-fits-all list of covered drugs. that list is called a formulary. i remember that many of my friends on the other side of the aisle voted for this policy and yet some are now pushing for repeal of that provision.

here's a lot of democrat leaders who supported and voted to ban medicare from negotiating drug prices when he was? the senate, senator biden, senator kennedy, senator baucus, senator reid, the former majority leader, senator schumer now in the senate, leahy, durbin, stabenow, cantwell. on the other side of the capitol, the list included speaker pelosi and chairman of the ways and means committee chairman neal. there's something else i learned in all my years talking health care policy with iowans at my annual 99-county meetings where i enjoy a q & a with whatever agenda my colleagues -- or my constituents call upon me to discuss with them.

at the end of the day, iowans don't want the government prescribing lifesaving medications. iowans want to make those decisions with a physician who is treating them. last year 43 million out of 60 million medicare recipients were enrolled in the medicare part d program. that's the vast majority of medicare beneficiaries nationwide that don't have coverage through a past employer or similar coverage from another source. plans sponsors design different plan choices and compete for beneficiaries based on what those plans cover and what they cost. beneficiaries can pick from many options with over 3,000 plans offered across 34 geographic

areas. in other words, different plans. you don't have one plan dictated by the government. most beneficiaries were covered by a prescription drug plan. a growing number were covered by a medicare advantage prescription drug plan. the part d base premium amount is low and has remained stable over many years. and looking back to our negotiations in 2003 to get this bill to the president of the united states, we wondered how high these premiums would go. and we were fearful they'd just go out of the -- i guess go into the atmosphere, that they would not be stable like they have been over a long period of time. so the noninterference clause

then ensures that plans sponsors create plan options that respond to the beneficiaries want -- what they want, not what the government says it should be. the nonpartisan congressional scorekeeper, the congressional budget office, has repeatedly stated that repealing this noninterference clause would not save money unless there was a restricted formulary. and i stated -- we wrote this bill in 2003 so the government wouldn't get between you and your doctor on what you ought to have in the way of prescription drugs. so in regard to the cost, i asked c.b.o. to update. they did. c.b.o. sent me a letter stating the same thing. and i would submit that letter for the record, mr. president.

without objection. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. grassley: repealing the noninterference clause means a restricted formulary which places limits on the drugs that are available to seniors. maybe excluding some drugs that your doctor wants to prescribe for you. and i don't believe that medicare beneficiaries want the government interfering in that process. as policymakers then, we must keep in mind we're making decisions that affect health care choices for the people that we are elected to represent. let's all remember to first do no harm. repealing the noninterference clause may sound good, but not even a spoonful of sugar will help that bad dose of policy

medicine go down. so i come to the floor today to hope that i can put this issue to rest. and as we try to work in a bicameral and bipartisan way to reduce drug costs, that we don't get held up by something -- people want to do something different by having the government more involved when it isn't going to save any money, when it will restrict formularies, it'll get the doctor between the government -- the government between you and your doctor. in other words, i'm trying to say part d has been a decorate success. it is accepted by the people -- has been a great success. it's been accepted by the people. let's keep drug costs down without having this issue interfere with our process. we need to preserve the foundation of private enterprise on which part d is based. in other words, the marketplace

working to get -- and we need to get to the real work of reducing prescription drug costs. i yield the floor. i note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

mr. lankford: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from oklahoma. mr. lankford: i ask the quorum call be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. lankford: mr. president, just to give the senate and the body a quick update on what's happening in my state right now, we've had some pretty dramatic flooding. over 15 tornadoes in the last 48 hours across the state. thankfully, most of those tornadoes hit in open areas; did not hit structures. there have been some structures that have been damaged. the flooding has been far worse than the tornadoes and the high winds. we've had in just one of our counties -- osage county -- just two nights ago now, severe flooding from 10:00 p.m. until 2:30 in the morning, over 100 different homes had to be evacuated in the middle of the

night. many of the folks from law enforcement, firefighters, first responders arriving at their home with boats, with a truck to get them out of their homes literally in a boat. they spent the entire night saving homes and saving people getting out. when dawn broke and they knew they had at least gotten everyone out, he headed back to his own house only to find out he could no longer get to his home anymore because of the flood watch. we've had folks all over the state, whether that be in perry are we had two homes destroyed in a for neigh dough that in -- in a tornado that thankfully did not hit the center of town, or where there's been stillwater flooding, dale, where we had a dangerous overnight tornado that came in literally while everyone was sleeping, there have been pockets of folks that have been affected literally all over the

state. the department of transportation folks, the folks that are in our police and fire, for the emergency management individuals both for the state and counties, for city mayors, for hospitals, county workers, for city staff, the corps of engineers, and quite frankly just neighbors down the street, it's been a long week. there have been a lot of folks serving each other to take conveyor of those -- to take care of those needs. i thought if body could use a quick update. sometimes people feel a long way from washington, d.c. to understand what's literally happening in the center of america is affecting all americans. i did want to tell a story, though. it's a little bit of a different story. it's about 9,000 people in tulsa that were suddenly left homeless. it wasn't this week, and it wasn't a natural disaster.

it was actually on june 1, 1921, when the worst race right/massacre happened in american history. that story is still one that this body needs to remember. a few years ago i brought this up, and i thought it may be time to bring it up again. we're approaching quickly the 100-year anniversary of a whole series of riots that happened around america in the summer of 1919. as the soldiers were coming back home from world war i, many of those being african american soldiers that had served with great dignity and honor there, they returned back home with skills they had picked up overseas and with a patriotism and work ethic and returned back to america to go back to work. but they were greeted by a lot of white business owners and a lot of white workers in the country who said, you may have

served overseas and fought the war, but you're not welcome to work here. and white neighbors started setting homes and cities on fire. there were riots, there were protests, and there was a national pushback that happened in the summer of 1919. in chicago, washington, d.c., it was some of the worst. oklahoma really survived it well. interestingly enough, in oklahoma, we had 30 towns that were considered black towns scattered all across the state. the first of the folks that came to oklahoma actually that were african american actually came with the five tribes when they were relocated. they were brought by the five tribes who had held them as slaves. when they moved from the southeastern part of the country and they moved to eastern oklahoma and were relocated

there in that tragic walk, they brought their slaves with them. then after 1889 and the land rash and in the years later when we became a state, individuals moved from all over the country that were african american families coming for new hope and opportunity. and 30 different towns sprung up all over oklahoma that were dominantly african american towns, one of those being greenwood. it was affectionately known at the time as black wall street, one of the most prosperous towns in the country, right on the north end of tulsa. when they left out from greenwood and came into tulsa to be able to shop, to work, whatever, they were limited. in greenwood there were shops and stores and movie theaters and all kinds of activity -- lawyers, doctors, everything was there in greenwood. but if they walked a few blocks from greenwood into tulsa, they found themselves not being

welcomed. in down-tournesol is a, there was only one place where a -- in downtown tulsa, there was only one place where a black man could go to the bathroom. it was in that building that a gentleman named dick roland took the elevator up to go to the bathroom, on the elevator there was a white girl named sarah page. we have no idea what happened in that elevator. but when the elevator door opened, she screamed and a crowd quickly grabbed dick roland and pulled him off, accusing him of all kinds of things, and hauled him off to jail in downtown tulsa where within a few hours a lynch mob gathered around that jail. to their credit, law enforcement in tulsa went out to the streets and said, y'all go home. but they did not. the mob stayed there. soldiers that had served faithfully in world war i that

were african americans that lived in greenwood, picked up their rifles, gathered together to go in and support the law enforcement that was at the jail in downtown tulsa to protect dick roland. as they marched down to go help, the law enforcement said, y'all go home, we've got this handled. there was a shuffle in the street and there was a shot fired and we have no idea how it happened or who happened first. the news never reported that. but we knew that group of african american men left out and ran back to greenwood and the mob followed them. they marched their way to greenwood and they burned it down. destroying greenwood, wiping out that city. that night all night long, may 31 into june 1, america had one of its darkest moments.

1,200 homes were destroyed that night in greenwood. 9,000 people were left homeless, 6,000 african americans were rounded up by the police in tulsa and jailed. quote-unquote, for their protection. but they were the ones that were held. not the rioters that actually led to the massacre. the numbers are all over the place of how many people actually died that night. there are numbers as small as 35, as large as 300. we'll never know. but let's just say, there were many -- very likely into the hundreds of people that died that night. a third of the people were gone. a third of the people we have no idea what direction they went. a third of the people packed up and moved and left, and a third of the folks stayed. but what's interestingly enough is, that sunday, after the fire, after the riots, after the destruction of greenwood was left leveled, folks from

greenwood gathered that sunday for worship. dr. olivia hooker, she passed away just this last november. she was one of the last survivors of the tulsa race master. in an interview before she passed away she told the story of hearing the men with axes destroying her severity's piano during the riot. with her three siblings she hid under a table as her home was literally destroyed around her. you would think that devastation would be the end of her story. it was not. in world war ii, she became the first african american to join the coast guard. she earned degrees from two universities and ended up being a professor at fordham university. that's tenacious resilience. she reminds me of a modern-day friend, my friend, donna jackson. donna jackson in 2013 determined

that north tulsa was known for its entrepreneurship. that's why it got the name black wall street. she determined in 2013 she was going to challenge 100 new businesses to start in greenwood to bring life back to h that area again with business and entrepreneurship. for its 100th anniversary there would be 100 new businesses. donna lives in breeze, greenwood, born in morton memorial. she goes to church in north tulsa, works in north tulsa and believes in north tulsa's future as do i. she's going to make her goal of 100 new businesses there. she's doing the work to help introduce people to north tulsa and be engaged. there are countries from outside the area coming in like the new q.t. that opened up there. there are lots of individual businesses that continue to be able to start and thrive again in north tulsa. north tulsa is a place where we should practice basic

reconciliation, where america should stop and look again and to say what can be done and what have we done, and to fix it. josh jacobs, he was born in north tulsa in 1998, graduated from high school in north tulsa, ended up making a really bad decision. he left north tulsa to go play football for the university of alabama. clearly a terrible decision. josh ended up being drafted 24th overall by the oakland raiders this last year. he's a tremendous shining example of somebody that grew up in north tulsa and is representing us well. his dad made an interesting statement there, saying as he was growing up he was a great athlete, he could have traveled to anywhere in the area to be able to play football in high school and he chose to stay there on the north side. he said why would we not want to build up our side of town? why would we take off and leave? you would be pleased to know

that josh in his own twitter account has on his twitter account, second peter 3:9. it's what pinned to the top. the lord is not slow in doing what he's promised, the way some people understand slowness but god is being patient with you. he doesn't want anyone to be lost but he wants all people to change their hearts and their lives. it's a pretty good message, josh. i believe we are still a nation of reconciliation, but the first step in reconciliation is not forgetting who we were and who we have been as a nation. and to make sure we take the steps necessary to resolve broken relationships. there's not a law that we can pass in this body that will solve the race issue. there are ways that we can protect and make sure every person has every opportunity, whether it be in housing and employment, whatever it may be, but race is not a political issue. race is a heart issue.

the primary issue with race begins in your own heart and in your own family. so i started several years ago asking a very simple question of folks in oklahoma, and i ask it of -- that same question of people here. has your family ever invited a family of another race to your home for dinner? interestingly enough, the response i get back from most people when i say that is they'll smile at me and say i have friends of another race, to which i'll smile at them and say that's not what i asked. i asked has your family ever invited a family of another race to your home for dinner, to be able to have just real dialogue so that your kids can sit with kids of another race and your kids can watch you interact as a parent with people from another race and see that it's normal conversation. because our kids only believe what they see.

and if they never see someone from another race in their home, they just assume we don't have friends of another race. i like to say we'll never get all the issues about race on the table until we get our feet under the same table. and start talking this out as friends. reconciliation is not something we can legislate. reconciliation is something we do and it's who we are. and it comes about by action. next week folks will gather in tulsa, oklahoma, again to recognize 98 years ago the city was on fire, and most of the white community looked away while greenwood burned to the ground. in two years from now the entire country will probably pause for 24 hours and we'll look at tulsa

and we'll ask a simple question. what has changed in 100 years? it's a fair question. i think tulsa will stand up and say not just -- let me show you the structures that have changed but we'll show you the hearts that have changed because tulsa is a very different community now. we still have a ways to go, as do the rest of the state. but we're making tremendous progress. and while much of the world ignores race and chooses never to deal with race, we as americans embrace each other and say what do we have to do to restore what is broken to make sure we see each other as friends and neighbors again. we're doing it different, and that's of greatest benefit to us. in mount zion baptist church, it was founded in 1909 by reverend sandy lyons, originally just a one-room schoolhouse.

in 1916 the church began a $92,000 endeavor which i can assure you was a lot of money in 1916. they took out a loan to build a new church. construction was completed in early 1921 and on april 4, 1921 they held their first service. and then on june 1 of that same year a riot burned it to the ground. worse yet, the white insurance company refused to pay their insurance, saying it was their fault that the riot ever happened. the congregation could have been bitter, but instead they stayed put and they rebuilt that congregation. they first paid off the mortgage for what had been burned to the ground and then they rebuilt the church on that same exact

location. vernon a.m.e. church still stands in the same spot. the only thing left from that building is the basement. but they rebuilt by 1928, right on that same spot. and dr. turner there is a friend and is the pastor there, he made the statement i'm humbled every day to walk through a place that has seen so much terror but has also been a vessel of hope for so many people. after the massacre, people who lost their homes and their belongings still went to church on sunday morning, believing in a god of reconciliation that i still believe in today. let's continue to get better. but let's not forget where we've come from so it never ever, ever happens again. and as we approach the summer of 1919 where the nation was on fire from so many riots around the country, let's continue to finish what has begun in our

hearts until it is complete. with that, i yield the floor. a senator: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from maryland. mr. cardin: thank you, mr. president. i rise to express my deep concern over the constant attacks on women's health we are seeing all across america, from this administration's policies to donald trump's judicial nominees to governors and sledges lay tors under republican leader -- and legislators under republican leader are denying women their constitutional rights to make their personal and health care decisions. women and their health care should not be under constant threat. we as a nation have made great efforts to promote equal rights for women and men. mr. president, in this congress, we will celebrate the 100th anniversary of women's

suffrage. it took a long time for women to get the right to vote, and we continue to make progress on equality. yet, in the 21st century the donald trump continues to push policies that are sending this country and women in the wrong direction. the supreme court made it clear in griswold vs. connecticut and roe v. wade there is a constitutional right to privacy that includes making health care decisions such as the use of contraception and the right to access abortion. to advancements in women's health, access to contraception and education, the number of unintended pregnancies has significantly been reduced with a corresponding reduction in abortion, yet we see republican leaders trying to reverse advancements our nation has made in women's health. access to contraception and education. for nearly 50 years the supreme court has upheld the legal precedent of roe v. wade, including its affirmation in

planned parenthood vs. casey in 1992. in that case the supreme court held that our laws afford constitutional protection to personal decisions related to marriage, contraception, family relations, child rearing and education. these matters involve the most intimate and personal choices a person may make in a lifetime, choices central to personal dignity and autonomy are central to liberty protected by the 14th amendment. the court prohibited states from passing statutes to place undue burdens on women's rights to make her own health care decisions, and yet republican leaders continue to introduce and pass laws that interfere with a woman's autonomy over her health and well-being. last week, for instance, the republican governor of alabama signed into law banning almost all abortions in that state with no exceptions for the cases of rape or incest. the law not only prosecutes women but it also unprecedented

criminal penalties against doctors, threatening them with life in prison for treating women. the alabama law exposes doctors to felony charges punishable up to 99 years in prison for providing or attempting to provide an abortion making this the most extreme ban of its kind in nearly 30 years. since the beginning of 2019, bills attempting to restrict abortion have been filed in 45 states including alabama, missouri, and georgia. earlier this year georgia's republican governor signed a six-week ban into law that would make it illegal for a woman to terminate a pregnancy and a doctor to perform the termination after a fetal heartbeat is detected. mr. president, i must tell you many women don't even realize they're pregnant after six weeks. the alabama and georgia bills impose burdensome and medically unnecessary limitations on women and their doctors, particularly

those in low-income medically underserved areas. the bill harms women who are victims of sexual assault and minors who are victims of incest. these provisions appear to be designed to perpetrate a culture of not believing women and trying to discredit the victims of assault. it is certainly -- it is hard to understand how many republicans are talking about big government, getting big government out of people's lives, but not when it comes to one of the hardest and most intimate decisions a woman can make, a decision that she wishes to make between herself and her doctor. in these circumstances, the same colleagues that believe big government and not the women herself know better, they believe that government and not the woman should dictate whether she or should not have control over her own body, believe that government should have the power to force a woman to forego medically necessary procedures. they believe a woman should be stripped of that power, stripped of the choice of

deciding what is best for herself. and many believe that even in cases of incest and rape where the woman is the victim of a chime and should be compelled to bear the child against her will and bring the pregnancy to term, talk about being intrusive. mr. president, this is basically the rights of women that are being trampled today. i thought we got beyond that, and now we see that we are moving in the wrong direction. empowering women is one of the most important things we can do for the future of our country. core to women's constitutional liberties is the autonomy over their own health and well-being. if we truly want to support women, we need to safeguard, improve, not limit access to c comprehensive health care. i would hope that we could all agree that on this 100th anniversary of women's suffrage that we should be looking at ways to remove discriminations based upon sex, not move in the wrong direction and take away from women the right to make their own health care