quorum call:

the presiding officer: the senator from florida. mr. rubio: is the senate in a quorum call? the presiding officer: we are. mr. rubio: i ask unanimous consent the quorum call be suspended. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. rubio: it's interesting when we come here, we seem to think that everybody in america is reading the blogs and all the major newspapers of the morning. a lot of people do, but some people have lives to live. they get up early, they go to work. they listen to the news from time to time but they don't follow it closely. that's what they hire us to do and deal with as policymakers. on this issue of syria, it strikes me, it did earlier this week when i frequent a gas station close to my house, a little convenience store with a coffee stand inside. a gentleman comes up to me and

basically starts saying why do we care about stuff that's happening there? it's thousands of miles away. these people having fighting forever. let them figure out. i tell you there's appeal to that argument, and i understand why americans feel that way. since september of 2001 we've lost countless young men and women abroad in combat. we've seen families that have been ripped apart. we've seep the injuries of people who have come home, not to mention the amount of money spent on this as well. at a time when we're facing all these challenges people are saying why do we have to be everywhere? these people have been fighting for a billion years. it's not our problem. we need to focus on issues here at home. i do understand the appeal of that argument. i want to tell you that despite how much i focus on these issues and spend time on them, from time to time those arguments appeal to me. but then you have to analyze why

we're there to begin with and what it would mean in the short to long term to our country to just walk away from these obligations. and that's what i hope to do here today in a way that answers that gentleman's question that he asked me last monday. i didn't have time to get into all this because i had an airplane to catch and these airlines don't wait for anybody. and so here's the way i would explain. the first is you have to tell people why we're there to begin with. let me tell you what this is not. this is not about endless war or being somewhere for the rest of our lives. frankly, it's not even about committing thousands of troops. the u.s. force presence in syria was quite small. it achieved an extraordinary amount with such few number of people, 2,000 special operators intedded alongside thousands of kurds. basically an area isis once dominated. they literally controlled the cities. the capital of the caliphate was there at one point. they were driven out, tremendous success, a real example of the counter terror

missions that have been successfully pursued. the stated goal was, first and foremost, to stamp out and eliminate isis. the second was that our presence would provide leverage when the time came for a syrian peace settlement, a settlement that would reflect our national interest. primarily three things, number one, limiting assad's power. the guy is a stone cold criminal. i mean this guy has gassed and murdered his own people. there has to be some limits and constraints to his power. the second is to safeguard the kurds. as you've heard others come to the floor and talk about, these people fought with us. we told them if you will do the ground fighting and we help you from the air and with logistics, we're going to be here with you. and they did, and they lost over 10,000 people in that fight. they have been great partners in that endeavor. we had a moral obligation not to mention a promise that we made. the third is to limit iran's influence. iran would love nothing more than to completely dominate syria because it links them into

lebanon to supply and support hezbollah. it allows them to pivot over into aircraft -- iraq to become the dominant power there. imagine a middle in which iran is the dominant power, even iraq, god forbid bahrain. it would be a nightmare. we are engaged in a campaign of maximum pressure against iran, and the last thing you want to do in a maximum pressure campaign is alleviate pressure and having greater influence in syria would alleviate a lot of pressure for iran. that is the purpose of our presence there. i want to tell you the administration and the president's decision has undermined every single one of them. and that's the only way to talk about it. and i think has done so in ways that we're going to regret for a long time. the first is the isis mission. ten thousand isis killers being held in jails and camps in northern syria.

the guards at those camps were not americans. they were kurdish guards. what happens when someone invades the cities your family lives? you send people to meet that enemy. that means they have been removing guards from the prisons to the front lines. there are less and less guards in these camps. already estimates are a large number of isis killers have already gotten out and anticipate more to get out soon. but just imagine 10,000 killers running loose, not to mention efforts by isis to break them out with less security. by the way, this is a problem not just in syria, it's a real problem in iraq. already about 200,000 refugees amassed at the border. there's no way iraq can go through them and determine who's an isis killer, who's a refugee and who is coming back. you can see this surge of isis spread and destabilize iraq. suddenly this evil movement we had on the roads and frankly was already reemerging as a surge is

i is beginning to operate in one, now in two countries. how about goal of providing leverage for a future settlement to reflect our interests? first of all, restraints on assad's power, think about it this way. literally overnight because the kurds -- when the turks came in, the kurds didn't have us any more, they were forced to cut a deal with assad. and so suddenly the kurds are basically telling assad's troops come up to the cities that we once had and you now be the troops here to back us up. you take control. that's what they had to do to avoid being slaughtered. what it means in practical terms is that assad literally overnight has captured a third of the land of syria at no price, no concession. he had to make no concessions, pay no price. do nothing other than just send people up to take it. so this doesn't sound to me like we've imposed restraints on assad. it sounds like he's literally been gifted control of the national territory at no concession, no price. he had to do nothing. how about safeguarding the

kurdish interests? i think that's self-explanatory. the kurds have been forced to align themselves with assad who in the short term may be fine but once this is all over i doubt very seriously whether the kurds are going to be treated well. not to mention, by the way, the aziti and christian communities the kurds were protecting who are now also under assad's rule. suffice it to say that nothing here safeguards their interest. there's news today that the vice president and the secretary of state were able to go to turkey and without out what's being called a cease-fire. i think they deserve praise along with the president for pursuing that mission because ann time -- any time human lives are spared from death in a war, that is cause for celebration. it does not appear to me, however, with all due respect, that this is really a cease-fire. it is more an ultimatum because what it basically is saying is erdogan is saying here's land that i intend to take, i intend to drive every curd out of this area and i intend for turkey to control this area in northern syria as a security zone as he

calls it. the only thing he's agreed to as an ultimatum. the kurds can leave in the next five days or i'll move in and take it and kill them. you can call it a cease-fire, but frankly, it doesn't appear to have changed the strategic objective that erdogan has for that part. i certainly think that while it's good news that they made lemonade out of this lemon, nonetheless these are cities in which not just kurdish troops but people, families are going to have to leave now and we're going to have to be involved in helping to coordinate and guarantee that, which runs its own risks. but ultimately it's an ultimatum. i have five days to leave before i move in and kill you. how about limiting iran's influence. iran will now have more operating space in syria. the lack of u.s. presence there means iran and affiliated groups, particularly these hezbollah chutes in syria will

have more operating space and the stronger assad is the stronger iran will be. assad is a close ally of the iranians and the more space he controls the more space they have to operate. part embedded in this is iran developed the ability to develop attacks against the united states sometimes using third groups they control to either blame the attacks on, to claim credit for the attacks or in some cases conduct them. it gives iran the capability of attacking the united states without facing international condemnation for the attack. especially for countries not looking to not blame iran anyway because it would force them to get out of the iran deal. and they have gotten away with it. one of the things iran has taken into calculation in these attacks is we believe the united states is trying to get out of the region, meaning if we attack them, we can hit them much harder than we have before because they don't want another war. they're not goes gshes going --

going to hit us back as hard. i'm confident this decision has strengthened that perception, not weaken it. by the way, this also increases iran's influence in aircraft. -- in iraq. if you're an iraqi politician, you're thinking to yourself, we are next. and when the americans leave here at some point -- and some point we'll have to -- the iranians are going to being about the most important group on the ground. there were reports yesterday there were protests in the street and there were iraqi and iranian linked militias. these were iranian elements operating in iraq. this has increased their influence in iraq and their ability to determine the future of iraq in a way that's terrible for us, terrible for our allies like israel, and of great benefit to the iranians. not to mention that syria creates an extraordinary land bridge that the iranians can now

use to increasingly continue to supply hezbollah and lebanon, to increasingly supply their own militias just across the golan heights. the irony in all this ironically is that this decision actually, i fear, makes it likelier there's going to be a war and i'll tell you why. the iranian attack calculation, this further strengthens their belief that they can get away with even more brazen attacks because the threshold for a u.s. military response is higher than it's ever been because we're looking to get out and this proves it. what that can mean is they can miscalculate. we're going to have to respond and all of a sudden we're in a real shooting war. not a 2,000 person on the ground working with the kurds war. a real regional conflict. the other is all of our alliances around the world are built on security guarantees. in eastern europe, the nato security guarantee in many of these countries is a 300, 400, 500 man force, a trip war. they're there because if confronted by russians would trigger a broader conflict. you can say the same about south

korea, our presence in japan, the commitments we made to israel, the troops presence we have now in saudi arabia. it goes on and on and on and on. and ask yourself after this will any ally relying on the united states security assurances be more or less confident of our assurances? i'll tell you this, less than 48 hours before this withdrawal decision was made, the chairman of the joint chiefs of staff gave unequivocal assurances that we were not going anywhere, the chairman of the joint chiefs of staff, a general, general milley said we're there, we're not going anywhere. these are all rumors. 48 hours later this withdrawal announcement was made. with all due respect, this is not his fault. i don't blame him. he believed that. what is his credibility now when he says anything like that to anybody else or when he warns someone not to do something against us because we'll act in return? maybe his credibility isn't shot and i would warn our enemies not to view it that way, but i can tell you it hasn't been strengthened by this. one last point on this, russia

and china are going all over the world trying to come up with ad hoc anti-u.s. coalitions, coalitions of countries we're sanctioning to get around the dollarization of the global economy, coalitions to fight us against impediments against china spy ware and technology. and the argument they make to these countries is why are you relying to america? they are unreliable. they will cut on you as soon as it makes sense domestically for them to do so or somebody else gets elected and has a different opinion. has that argument been strengthened or weakened? have we made it years or harder for russia and china, including the countries we have basing agreements now, including the countries that we ask, don't buy russian weapons, don't install chinese products in your cities,

don't allow them to take over your port facility or operate military or row taicial -- rotationally -- when china comes to you and says america is unreliable, they will have one more exhibit as evidence to prove it. that's why i say this decision has an impact that goes well beyond syria. i will tell you that i am, again, i think what the vice president and the secretary of state did today is noble. their lives -- there are lives that will be saved because they have five days to leave those areas, but that doesn't address any of the other repercussions, in the blink of an eye we undermine and unravel the justification for this operation. all the stated reasons that we said he -- we were there. we have 2,000 troops working with the kurds to keep isis from emerging and to restrain assad's

power and safeguard our partners interest. every single one of those stayed interests -- that was your policy less than two weeks ago -- has been wiped out. and the favorite question in the hallway for the reporters is, what should congress do now? what can we do? i think we're searching to see what ee can do to mitigate some of this damage. there are some mistakes and some decisions that cannot be reversed. there are some -- there is some damage that cannot be mitigated, and i fear some of these things are a part of it. we'll spend time thinking about it. i think there might be some opportunities for the administration in the weeks and months to come to do something about it, but right now i think we need to prepare ourselves for the consequences of what this will mean in the long term. it was a long answer to give someone at a gas station when i had a flight to catch in 45 minutes, and they were in a

hurry as well. but i hope to people back home and around the country who have an interest in this topic, i was able to shine some light on why some of us do not support this decision. it isn't because we favor endless wars or invasions, it's because when you might think it is good, sometimes what is popular in the short term is not good for america's national security in the long term. and it's my fear that this is one such example. mr. president, i yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

the presiding officer: the senator from iowa. mr. grassley: i ask that the

call of the quorum be suspended. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. grassley: and i seek permission to speak as if in morning business. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. grassley: the purpose of my speaking today is to remind my colleagues about some history as it relates to the adoption of part d of medicare back in 2003 and the importance of considering that history in regard to the importance of passing legislation this year in regard to high drug costs. and those -- the reminder goes to colleagues that are up for election based on the fact of the history of the elections of

2000 and 2002 had consequences for people that weren't aware of the -- grassroots support for doing something for prescription drugs and medicare as part d turned out to be. and so in this environment today, i don't think there's a proper concern that people at the grassroots of america are expressing about the need to do something about prescription drug prices. so i'm going to spend my time that i just summarized for you going through the history of 20 years ago versus now. i want to lower the cost of prescription drugs for american seniors. i have spoken on this topic many

times before. and in my previous speeches years and years ago, i said that we were delivering on the promises of the last three elections in a bipartisan manner to help seniors who had waited far too long for relief, and that relief came out as part-d medicare. so, mr. president, that speech was more than 15 years ago. we've been here before. in 2003, i was leading the last piece of bipartisan entitlement reform, the creation of medicare part-d program and that was entitled the medicare modernization act of 2003. and now here we are again on the

cusp of meaningful bipartisan action in regard to prescription drugs. this action would fulfill the promises that i and many of my colleagues and the administration, meaning the trump administration, made to the american people that we're going to do something about prescription drug pricing. we ought to be reminded that promises made ought to be promises kept. i want to premind -- remind my colleagues that history does not have to repeat itself. hopefully this will help avoid the gridlock that delayed us from delivering medicare part-d nearly two decades ago. as we all know, the medicare

modernization act was signed into law in november of 2003, but the process of creating part-d began long before the president actually signed that bill. you could go back more than a decade, although that's not the most important part of it. but in fact congress was voting on versions of what would become a prescription drug coverage as early as 1988. obviously it did become law. suggestions for how to help seniors afford prescription drugs came from every corner throughout the next decade after those 1988 votes. yet the proposals weren't enacted, so we failed to bring any kind of comprehensive change to medicare. under president clinton, prescription drug pricing reform

gained very national attention, just like it has national attention today, because president trump has made it one of his premier goals of reducing drug prices. so going back to the clinton administration as part of the balanced budget act of 1997, congress created a forum to bring more attention to prescription drug program under medicare. that was called the national bipartisan commission on the future of medicare. after years of work by that commission and research, that commission voted on three recommendations in 1999, including a prescription drug benefit. however, the recommendations failed to receive the mandated supermajority of members'

votes, so no formal recommendations were ever submitted to congress because that was the rule of the commission. it had to be a supermajority of the members of the commission. facing mounting pressure from the public to act in anticipation of the 2000 election, all of the major presidential candidates presented plans. president bush suggested a new federal subsidy to help low-income beneficiaries purchase drug coverage through private insurance. vice president al gore, the democratic candidate, proposed a new voluntary benefit within medicare to protect chronically ill and low-income beneficiaries against catastrophic prices, and yet the congress still couldn't reach a compromise even though it was very much discussed during that

presidential election and it was a lot of issues in senate races as well. so at that time the committee -- the country was united behind medicare reform, but congress was divided on how or even if it should act, and it did not act. in the finance committee, the person that preceded me when i took over the chairmanship of the finance committee, his name was bill roth of delaware, he proposed two plans to committee members in hopes that a consensus could be reached. the first plan worked to fundamentally change the medicare program. the proposal included a universal drug benefit for medicare program with several major contracting reforms. the reforms would have permitted pharmacy benefit managers,

insurers and other qualified firms to compete to manage the government drug benefit in a cost-effective way. then-chairman roth also proposed a scaled back plan which would extend prescription drug coverage to low-income seniors and on the state level to those seniors facing catastrophic levels of spending. now this second piece of the roth proposal was meant to be a back stop, just a short-term bipartisan band-aid on a gaping wound while negotiations continued to find a longer-term solution. but despite the support from then-president bill clinton, republican leader and majority leader trent lott exroim was

elusive -- compromise was elusive and the finance committee did not act before the november election. so then we had the 2000 election. this was a big issue, and it was a big issue probably more for republicans because we controlled the united states senate. we lost five republican senators incumbents because people didn't pay attention to this being a major issue. and hence, to remind you what i opened with, i don't want senators to make that same mistake this year. the american people were obviously disappointed in the lack of action back there in 2000, and it showed. but as we have to do when there's grassroots support like there was then, we marched on to find a path forward but building consensus was not easy.

and i was chairman during part of that time between the years 2000 and 2003. i wasn't chairman all that time because the congress -- the senate flipped to democrat majority when senator jeffords of vermont changed from republican to democrat. but between these years, 2000 and 2003, we held countless member meetings and hearings on the status of medicare and how we could come to an agreement to add part-d and bring medicare into the 21st century. the gridlock seemed inescapable. in 2002, the budget allowed for $350 billion to reform the medicare program, and most of that was going towards the prescription drug reform that we were proposing.

partisan discourse led to three separate proposals being sent to the senate from house republicans that were subsequently voted down. then as a result of the 2002 elections, republicans were back in the majority and i retook the gavel as chair of the finance committee. i promised at that time legislation that would address seniors' concerns and be bipartisan so that it would pass an almost evenly split senate. that was my goal. in the finance committee, we went through the important and wide-ranging process of creating what eventually became the medicare modernization act of 2003. i worked across the aisle, across the capitol, down pennsylvania avenue to make sure that the prescription drugs

medicare improvement bill struck the right balance, spending the money allocated to us by president bush to be done in a fair and equitable way. a lot had changed in the practice of medicine since medicare had been signed into law 40 years before that time, 1965 is when it was signed, and we needed to recognize that the practice of medicine has changed. my friend, senator bachus, who was at that time democrat ranking member of my committee, and i were able to thoughtfully put, pull together a package that medicare by closing a big coverage gap and doing that in the right way. the part-d marketplace offered consumers better choice, better coverage, and better value.

and of course it was about time that congress was taking this demand from the grassroots of america in a serious way. i said in 2003 -- and so i'm quoting myself -- we all know seniors don't want politics. they want prescription drugs. and that's the end of the quote. and that holds true today as we consider this issue. it's important to note that just like in the 2000 election, the country took notice. but this time it was for our accomplishments, and republicans gained four senate seats in that 2004 election. i'm now standing here again more than 15 years later to make the very same point. it might seem like deja vu.

american seniors don't care about party politics any more now than they did in 2003 when it comes to almost any issue, but particularly health care issues. what they care about is having access to affordable medications. i'm once again leading a bipartisan effort to enact much-needed entitlement reform, and once again some of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle are resisting compromise. once again medicine has changed since the last entitlement reform that i led. let me remind you, medicine was not much -- prescriptions were not much of the, much a part of the cost of medicine in 1965

when medicare was passed. by 2003 it had become a significant portion of the cost of medicine. that's why people needed medicare part-d. it's even more a part of -- pharmaceuticals are even more a part of the practice of medicine today. scientific advances have led to many new and more effective treatments. however, they are often accompanied by very, very high costs. that means that prescription drug prices have skyrocketed and americans want congress to act now so they can afford their life savings medications. our seniors deserve better than the over five-year delay in action that we put them there last time. in other words, five years

before we finally passed something in 2003 called part-d of medicare. shouldn't have to wait five years this time. so -- so congress has been here before, and do weep want to make sure -- we want to ma make -- to be make sure that history doesn't repeat itself. i want to make sure it doesn't repeat itself. i have had the opportunity to watch patients slip away. now, just like then, americans want action on entitlement reforms. now, just like 2003, the president supports action. now, just like back then in 2003, numerous proposals were floated and ultimately fell short of the finish line. we have another opportunity to deliver meaningful reforms to

help the part d program adapt -- adapt to new innovations in the health care world. so the bill that came out of my committee 19-9, we entitled it the prescription drug pricing reduction act of 2019. that act builds on the successful programs we created in 2003. it will lower beneficiary premiums by $6 billion, lower out of pocket costs by $25 billion. the bill will implement and out of pocket cap, eliminate excess payments, cap tape subsidies -- taxpayer subsidies and repeal the doughnut hole in medicare part d. it uses market forces.

those market forces will incentivize maferrers to lower -- manufacturers to lower list prices and recalculate their obligations. in short, this is the right bill at the right time. we should seize this opportunity to support actions that americans need now, not five or ten years from now. i want to give credit to senator wyden, of oregon, the ranking democrat on my committee and my partner on this issue. i thank you for working with us in the tradition of the finance committee in the same way that senator baucus and i worked together 15 years ago on part d legislation. so i ask all my colleagues to join senator wyden and me in our

bipartisan effort to lower the cost of prescription drugs. i yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

mr. mcconnell: mr. president? the presiding officer: the majority leader. mr. mcconnell: are we in a quorum call? the presiding officer: we are. mr. mcconnell: i ask consent that further proceedings under the quorum call be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. mcconnell: i understand there's a bill at the desk. i ask for its first reading. the presiding officer: the clerk will read the title of the bill for the first time. the clerk: s. 2644, a bill to impiece sanctions with respect to turkey and for other purposes. mr. mcconnell: i now ask for its second reading and in order to place the bill on the calendar under provision of rule 14, i object to my own request. the presiding officer: the objection having been heard, the bill will receive its second reading on the next legislative day. mr. mcconnell: i ask unanimous consent the senate proceed to the immediate consideration of calendar number 214, h.r. 1396.

the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: calendar number 214, h.r. 1396, an act to award congressional gold medals to katherine johnson and dr. dr. christine dardin and so forth. the presiding officer: is there objection to proceeding to the measure? without objection, the senate will proceed. mr. mcconnell: i ask unanimous consent the bill be considered read a third time and passed and the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. mcconnell: i ask unanimous consent the senate proceed to the immediate consideration of calendar 163, s. 2258. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: calendar number 163, s. 2258, a bill to provide antiretaliation protections for antitrust whistle-blowers. the presiding officer: is there objection to proceeding to the measure? without objection, the senate will proceed. mr. mcconnell: i ask unanimous

consent the bill be considered read a third time and passed and the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. mcconnell: i ask unanimous consent the senate proceed to the immediate consideration of s. res. 364 submitted earlier today. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: senate resolution 364 congratulating the washington mystics on winning the 2019 women's national basketball association championship. the presiding officer: is there objection to proceeding to the measure? without objection, the senate will proceed. mr. mcconnell: i further ask the resolution be agreed to, and the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. mcconnell: i ask unanimous consent the senate proceed to the consideration of s. res. 365 submitted earlier today. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: senate resolution 365 designating october 16, 2019, and october 16, 2020 as world food day.

the presiding officer: is there objection to proceeding to the measure? without objection, the senate will proceed. mr. mcconnell: i know of no further debate on the measure. the presiding officer: is there further debate? if not, the question is on the adoption of the resolution. all in favor say aye. all opposed no. the ayes appear to have it. the ayes do have it. the resolution is agreed to. mr. mcconnell: i ask unanimous consent 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. mcconnell: i ask unanimous consent that when the senate completes its business today, it adjourn until monday, october 21 at 3:00 p.m. following the prayer and pledge, the morning hour be deemed expired, the journal of proceedings be approved to date, the time for the two leaders be reserved for their use later in the day and morning business be closed. further, following leader remarks, the senate proceed to executive session and resume

consideration of the treaties calendar 5, treaty document number 116-1. finally, that the cloture motions filed during today's session ripen at 5:30 on monday. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. mcconnell: so if there's no further business to come before the senate, i ask it stand adjourned under the previous order. the presiding officer: the senate will be adjourned until 3:00 p.m. on monday.

the presiding officer: the majority leader.

mr. mcconnell: first this morning, i'd like to join colleagues on both sides of the colleagues on both sides of the >> i'm like to join my colleagues on both sides of the capitol and expressing her grief and sadness at the passing of our house colleague chairman elijah cummings. for more than two decades in the house of representatives cummings became a living a leged in his native baltimore. by all accounts he was a powerful and passionate voice on the national stage and a strong advocate for his neighbors. he counted and admires from across the political spectrum. today the capital will lower its flag to mark the significant loss and remember a life well lived. the senate unites. our prayers are with those of the house for elijah's wife, for his children and for all the colleagues, friends andta