[Congressional Record Volume 165, Number 164 (Thursday, October 17, 2019)]
[Senate]
[Pages S5884-S5889]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
SAUDI FUGITIVE DECLASSIFICATION ACT OF 2019
Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I have come to the floor to fight for
answers--answers that are long overdue.
In 2018, my hometown newspaper, The Oregonian, identified a handful
of cases where Saudi nationals accused of serious crimes in the United
States, like manslaughter and sexual assault, fled the country and
escaped American justice.
Since then, The Oregonian has identified numerous similar cases--in
fact, almost two dozen such cases across the United States. That
includes 19 in just the last 7 years.
Today I want to tell the Senate about just one of those cases.
Three years ago, not far from my home in Southeast Portland, a young
woman had her life taken from her. Fallon Smart was then a rising
sophomore at Franklin High School, and she was aspiring to be a
teacher. By all accounts, she would have been a terrific teacher.
She was 15, and according to everybody who knew her, Fallon was warm
and smart and friendly. She had her whole life ahead of her.
According to police, she lost her life when she was crossing the
street in front of stopped traffic, and a vehicle illegally swerved
into the left-hand lane and hit her at 55 or 60 miles per hour. Her mom
was in a car half a block away and ran to her daughter. Fallon died in
her mother's arms, and the car that hit her just sped away.
A Saudi Arabian college student named Abdulrahman Sameer Noorah later
returned to the scene and was arrested. He was eventually charged with
manslaughter in Fallon's death and then released on $1 million bail.
The Saudi consulate posted his $100,000 bond, according to The
Oregonian newspaper.
In the United States, in our country, there was every expectation
that Mr. Noorah would get a fair shake from the justice system. Our
justice system was working the right way here until 2 weeks before Mr.
Noorah was scheduled to go to trial. His tracking bracelet was somehow
cut, and he disappeared. Mr. Noorah has never stood trial for Fallon
Smart's death.
Eventually, this spring, the State Department confirmed in a letter
to me that Mr. Noorah had returned to Saudi Arabia.
I felt then, and I do today, this raises an important and a serious
question: How does a foreign national charged with manslaughter, whose
passport was seized, disappear from the United States without a trace?
How does this person escape the country and make it thousands of miles
back to Saudi Arabia with there being no record of his doing so?
News reports in 2018 suggest that the Saudi Arabian Government knew
about Mr. Noorah and these other fugitives and potentially helped them
flee justice.
I have five children. I cannot imagine the grief I would feel if one
of them was taken from me, and the person responsible somehow managed
to evade the justice system. It is almost impossible to comprehend the
anger and the helplessness and the frustration any parent would feel in
a situation like this.
I met with Fallon's mom Fawn, and while she and all of Fallon's loved
ones have borne this miscarriage of justice with extraordinary grace,
they are just heartbroken.
In addition to being heartbroken, they are angry. They are outraged
by the notion that the person charged with killing their daughter may
have just been able to escape scot-free and face no consequences for
his action.
For some time, I have been demanding information from the Trump
administration. In my view, the victims of these crimes, their
families, and the American people are owed some essential answers. How
did this happen? What is the U.S. Government doing about it?
I have written the Department of Justice. I have written the State
Department. I have written the U.S. Marshals Service. I have written to
the Department of Homeland Security. As far as I can tell, I would have
gotten better answers from the Saudi royal family themselves.
In fact, when I asked Secretary of State Mike Pompeo what he was
doing to try to return the Saudi fugitives to the United States,
basically what his Department did is that we just got a collective
shrug of the shoulders. I sent the Secretary of State a letter last
December. He didn't respond.
So I sent another letter in February. I said: The State Department
needs to use all its resources and all the tools at its disposal to
hold the Saudi Government accountable. I asked whether our Ambassador
pressed the Saudi Government about this disturbing, shocking pattern of
Saudi nationals skipping bail.
The State Department finally did respond to my second letter. What I
got was a whole bunch of nothing. One of Mr. Pompeo's aides said that
without an extradition treaty, there wasn't anything they could do
about it. This is from a Secretary who tried to rebrand State as the
``Department of Swagger.'' That swagger was nowhere to be found when it
was time to protect innocent Americans.
Today, I am not writing any more letters. I am here on the Senate
floor asking for action--action today. I am
[[Page S5885]]
seeking to pass the Saudi Fugitive Declassification Act of 2019. My
bill requires the FBI Director, in coordination with the Director of
National Intelligence, to quickly--quickly--declassify any and all
information related to a key question: whether the Government of Saudi
Arabia helped any Saudi nationals escape the country when those Saudi
nationals were awaiting trial or sentencing for a criminal offense.
Let me just repeat that so there is no confusion. The bill requires
that the FBI Director and what is called the DNI, or the Director of
National Intelligence, would quickly--quickly--declassify any and all
information on the issue of whether the Government of Saudi Arabia
helped any Saudi nationals escape the country when those Saudi
nationals were awaiting trial or sentencing for a criminal offense in
the United States.
I believe what I am asking for today must happen in the name of
justice immediately. The American people deserve answers. The people I
represent at home in our neighborhoods in Southeast Portland want
answers. These are not academic matters. This is not about a series of
victimless crimes.
This is about manslaughter. It is about rape. It is about a whole
array of ugly offenses. This is about real people, real families--
families who have suffered immeasurable pain. They deserve to see
justice served. When individuals who are charged with violent crimes--
no victimless crimes here, violent crimes--manage to escape and when
the United States fails to do much of anything about it, it undermines
public safety and it harms the U.S. justice system.
If, as some of the press stories have suggested, the Saudi Government
has helped these alleged criminals escape justice, the American people
have the right to be doubly concerned. Is the public image of Saudi
Arabia a higher priority than the safety of American citizens?
Any action by a foreign government to thwart our criminal justice
system would be an attack on our national security and our sovereignty.
If that is what has happened, then, all Americans deserve to know.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the U.S. Senate proceed
to the immediate consideration of S. 2635, submitted earlier today.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the bill by title.
The bill clerk read as follows:
A bill (S. 2635) to require the Director of the Federal
Bureau of Investigation to declassify any and all information
relating to whether the government of Saudi Arabia assisted a
citizen or national of Saudi Arabia in departing the United
States while the citizen or national was awaiting trial or
sentencing for a criminal offense committed in the United
States, and for other purposes.
There being no objection, the Senate proceeded to consider the bill.
Mr. WYDEN. I further ask unanimous consent that the bill be
considered read a third time and passed and the motion to reconsider be
considered made and laid upon the table, with no intervening action or
debate.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The bill (S. 2635) was ordered to be engrossed for a third reading,
was read the third time, and passed, as follows:
S. 2635
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the ``Saudi Fugitive
Declassification Act of 2019''.
SEC. 2. DECLASSIFICATION OF ANY AND ALL INFORMATION RELATING
TO ACTIONS BY GOVERNMENT OF SAUDI ARABIA TO
ASSIST PERSONS IN DEPARTING UNITED STATES WHO
WERE AWAITING TRIAL OR SENTENCING IN UNITED
STATES.
Not later than 30 days after the date of the enactment of
this Act, the Director of the Federal Bureau of
Investigation, in coordination with the Director of National
Intelligence, shall declassify any and all information
related to whether the government of Saudi Arabia materially
assisted or facilitated any citizen or national of Saudi
Arabia in departing from the United States while the citizen
or national was awaiting trial or sentencing for a criminal
offense committed in the United States.
Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, parliamentary inquiry.
With that action, has this bill now been passed?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. It has.
Mr. WYDEN. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. RUBIO. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Turkey and Syria
Mr. RUBIO. Mr. President, it is interesting. When we come here, we
seem to think that everybody in America is reading the blogs and all
the major newspapers every morning. A lot of people do, but some people
have lives. 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 is what they
hire us to do and they hire us to deal with as policymakers.
On this issue of Syria, it strikes me, and it really did earlier this
week when I visited this gas station close to my home that I frequent.
It also has a little convenience store with a coffee stand inside. A
gentleman comes up to me and basically says: Why do we care about all
the stuff that is happening there? You know, it is thousands of miles
away. These people have been fighting forever. Let them figure it out.
Why do we have to be involved in all of this?
I will tell you that there is appeal to that argument. There really
is. I understand why Americans feel that way. Since September of 2001,
we have lost countless young men and women abroad in combat. We have
seen families who have been ripped apart. We have seen the injuries
that people come home with, not to mention the amount of money that has
been spent on all of this as well. At a time when we face so many
challenges, a lot of people are saying to themselves: Well, why do we
have to be everywhere? Why do we have to care? These people have been
fighting for a billion years. It is 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 are 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. That is what I hope to do here today in a way that answers
the question the gentleman asked me last Monday. I didn't have time to
get into all of this because I had an airplane to catch, and these
airlines don't wait for anybody.
So here is the way I would explain it. The first is that you have to
tell people why we are there to begin with. Let me tell you what this
is not. This is not about an endless war or being somewhere for the
rest of our lives. Frankly, it is not even about committing thousands
of troops. The U.S. force presence in Syria was quite small. It
actually achieved an extraordinary amount with such a few number of
people.
There were 2,000 special operators imbedded alongside thousands of
Kurds and our international partners. Basically, it is an area that
ISIS once dominated. They literally controlled the cities. The capital
of the caliphate was once there at one point. They were driven out.
There was tremendous success, a real example of the sort of
counterterror that these missions have 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 interests, which are primarily three things.
The first is limiting Assad's power. The guy is a stone-cold
criminal. 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 have 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 are going to be here with you. 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.
[[Page S5886]]
The third is to limit Iran's influence. Iran would love nothing more
than to completely dominate Syria because it links them directly into
Lebanon to supply and support Hezbollah. It allows them to pivot over
into Iraq to become the dominant power there.
Just imagine a Middle East in which Iran is the dominant power in
Lebanon, in Syria, and, of course, in Iran, and, eventually, in Iraq,
and, God forbid, in Bahrain, and with a growing influence in Yemen
through the Houthis. They not only encircle Israel. They encircle Saudi
Arabia. 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 to
alleviate pressure, and having a greater influence in Syria would
alleviate a lot of pressure for Iran. That is the purpose of our
presence there.
The administration's and the President's decision has undermined
every single one of them. That is the only way to talk about it. I
think it has done so in ways we are going to regret for a long time.
The first is the ISIS mission. There are 10,000 ISIS killers being
held in jails and camps in northern Syria. The guards at those camps
are not Americans. They are Kurdish guards. What happens when someone
invades the cities that your family lives in? You send people to go
meet that enemy. That means that they have been removing guards from
the prisons to the frontlines.
There are less and less guards in these camps. Estimates are already
that a large number of ISIS killers have already gotten out, and they
anticipate more to get out soon. 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 is a real problem
in Iraq. About 200,000 refugees have already amassed at the border.
There is no way Iraq can go through every single one of them and
determine who is an ISIS killer and who is a refugee who is coming
back. So you can suddenly see this resurgence of ISIS spread and
destabilize Iraq. So, suddenly, this evil movement that we had on the
ropes and had become an insurgency--and, frankly, was already
reemerging as an insurgency--has just been given fuel to operate in
one, and now in two, countries.
How about the goal of providing leverage for a future settlement to
reflect our interests? First of all, in restraints on Assad's power,
think about it this way. Literally, overnight, when the Turks came in
and the Kurds didn't have us anymore, they were forced to cut a deal
with Assad. 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 of them. That is what they
had to do to avoid being slaughtered.
In practical terms, what it means is that Assad, literally,
overnight, has captured a third of the land of Syria at no price and no
concession. He had to make no concessions, pay no price, do nothing
other than just send people up to take it.
To me, this doesn't sound like we have imposed restraints on Assad.
It sounds like he has just literally been gifted control over a third
of the national territory at no concession and no price. He had to do
nothing.
How about safeguarding the Kurdish interests? I think that is self-
explanatory. The Kurds have now 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 will be treated well, not to
mention the Yazidi and the Christian communities that the Kurds were
protecting, who now are also under Assad's rule. Suffice it to say that
nothing here has safeguarded their interests.
There is news today that the Vice President and the Secretary of
State were able to go to Turkey and work out what is being called a
ceasefire. I think they deserve praise, along with the President, for
pursuing that mission because anytime that human lives are spared from
death in a war, that is cause for celebration.
With all due respect, it does not appear to me, however, that this is
really a ceasefire. It is more an ultimatum because what Erdogan is
basically saying is this: Here is land that I intend to take. I intend
to drive every Kurd 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 has agreed to as an ultimatum is that the Kurds can
leave this area voluntarily in the next 5 days, or he will move in and
take it and kill them. You can call it a ceasefire, but, frankly, it
doesn't appear to have changed the strategic objective that Erdogan has
for that region.
I certainly think that while it is good news that it made some
lemonade out of this lemon, nonetheless, these are cities in which not
just Kurdish troops but people and families are going to have to leave
now, and we are going to have to be involved in helping to coordinate
and guarantee that, which runs its own risks.
Ultimately, it is an ultimatum by him saying: You have 5 days to
leave before I move in and kill you.
How about limiting Iran's influence? First of all, clearly, Iran will
now have more operating space in Syria. The lack of a U.S. presence
there means that Iran and its affiliated groups, particularly these
Hezbollah shoots that are now in Syria, will have much more operating
space. The stronger Assad is, the stronger Iran will be. Assad is a
very close ally of the Iranians, and the more space he controls, the
more space they have to operate.
Embedded in this, as you have noticed, is that Iran has developed
this ability to conduct attacks against the United States, sometimes
using third groups that they control, to either blame the attacks on,
to claim credit for the attacks, or, in some cases, to conduct them,
because what this does is it gives Iran the capability of attacking the
United States without facing international condemnation for the
attack--enough deniability--especially from countries that are 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.
But one of the things that Iran has calculated in these attacks--one
of the things they have taken into the calculation--is this: 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 ever had before
because they don't want another war. They are not going to hit us back
as hard. We can get away with more.
I submit to you that I am pretty confident that this decision has
strengthened that perception, not weakened it. I fear what that can
mean next.
This also increases Iran's influence in Iraq. If you are an Iraqi
politician right now, whether you are a Shia or a Sunni, and you have
just seen this decision, you are thinking to yourself: We are next. And
when the Americans leave here at some point--at some point we will have
to--the Iranians are going to become the most important group on the
ground.
In fact, there were reports yesterday that there were these protests
on the street and there were Iranian-linked militias with snipers on
the rooftops operating in Iraq. These were not elements of the army or
the police force. 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 is terrible for us, terrible for our
allies, like Israel, and a 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 in
Lebanon and to increasingly supply their own militias just across the
Golan Heights.
The irony in all of this, ironically, is that I fear this decision
actually makes it likely that there is going to be a war. I will tell
you why. As I pointed out first, there is 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 has ever been because we are
looking to get out, and this proves it.
What that can mean is they can miscalculate it, and we are going to
have to respond. Then, all of a sudden, you are in a real shooting
war--not a ``2,000 person on the ground, working with the Kurds'' war,
a real regional conflict.
The other point is that all of our alliances around the world are
built on security guarantees. In Eastern Europe,
[[Page S5887]]
the NATO security guarantee in many of these countries is a 300-, 400-,
500-man force--a tripwire. It is not enough to stop a Russian
incursion, but they are there because if they were confronted by
Russians, that would trigger a broader conflict.
You could say the same about South Korea, our presence in Japan, the
commitments we have made to Israel, and the troop presence we have now
in Saudi Arabia. It goes on and on and on.
Ask yourself: After this, would any ally relying on the U.S. security
assurances be more or less confident of our assurances? I will 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 are there. We are not going
anywhere. These are all rumors. Forty-eight hours later, this
withdrawal announcement was made.
With all due respect, this is not his fault. I don't blame him, if he
believes 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 will 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 certainly hasn't been strengthened by this. One last point
on this. You know, Russia and China are going all over the world trying
to come up with an ad hoc, anti-U.S. coalition--a coalition of
countries that are sanctioned--to try to get around the dollarization
of the global economy, a coalition to fight against the impediments
against Chinese spyware and technology, and a coalition to limit our
presence in one part of the world or another. The argument they make to
these countries is, Why are you aligned with America? They are
unreliable. They are unreliable partners. 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.
Well, ask yourselves, has that argument been strengthened or
weakened? Have we made it easier or harder for Russia and China to make
that argument, including the countries that we have basing agreements
with now and including the countries that we are meeting with every
single day and asking them: Don't buy Russian weapons. Don't install
Chinese technology and spyware in your Safer City Initiatives so they
can spy on you and ultimately on us. Don't allow them to take over your
port facilities or operate rotationally based military forces in your
national territory. We will help you with those things instead.
Well, I can tell you that when China and Russia go to them the next
time and say that America is unreliable, they will have one more
exhibit to show them as evidence to prove it. That is why I say this
decision has an impact that goes well beyond Syria.
I will tell you that, again, I think what the Vice President and the
Secretary of State did today is noble. There are lives that are going
to be saved because now they have 5 days to leave those areas. But that
doesn't address any of these other repercussions. In a blink of an eye,
we completely undermined and unraveled the very justification for this
operation and all of the stated reasons we said we were there. We had
these 2,000 troops working with the Kurds to keep ISIS from reemerging
and to provide leverage in the future Syrian settlement, to restrain
Assad's power, to safeguard Kurdish interests, our partner's interest,
and to limit Iranian influence. Every single one of those stated
interests--that was our policy less than 2 weeks ago--has been wiped
out.
One of my favorite questions in the hallway from the reporters is,
What should Congress do now? What can we do? Well, I think we are all
searching to see what we can do to mitigate some of this damage. But I
want to be honest with you--there are some mistakes and some decisions
that cannot be reversed. There is some damage that cannot be mitigated,
and I fear that some of these things are a part of it. We will 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, for what this is going to mean in the long term.
So it was kind of 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 that for the people back home and potentially around the
country who have an interest in this topic, I was at least able to
shine some light on why some of us do not support this decision.
It isn't because we favor endless wars or want invasions. It is
because while this may be popular when first presented to people, when
you view it in its totality and entirety, sometimes what is popular in
the short term is not good for America's national security in the long
term, and it is my fear that this is one such example.
I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. GRASSLEY. I ask unanimous consent to speak as in morning
business.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Healthcare
Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, 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. The reminder goes to my colleagues
who are up for election, based on the fact that the history of the
elections of 2000 and 2002 had consequences for people who weren't
aware of the grassroots support for doing something for prescription
drugs and Medicare, as Part D turned out to be.
In this environment today, I don't think there is proper concern that
people--the grassroots of America--are expressing the need to do
something about prescription drug prices, so I am going to spend my
time doing what 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 Medicare Part D.
That speech was more than 15 years ago. We have been here before. In
2003, I was leading the last piece of bipartisan entitlement reform,
the creation of the Medicare Part D Program that was entitled the
``Medicare Modernization Act of 2003.''
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 are going to
do something about prescription drug pricing. We should be reminded
that promises made ought to be promises kept.
I want to remind my colleagues that history does not have to repeat
itself. Hopefully, this will help rid 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 the bill. We could go back more than a
decade--but that is not the most important part of it--but Congress was
voting on what would become prescription drug coverage as early as
1988. Obviously, it didn't become law.
Suggestions for how to help seniors with 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
national attention, just like it has national attention today because
President Trump has made it one of his premier goals of reducing drug
prices.
[[Page S5888]]
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
the prescription drug program under Medicare. That was called the
National Bipartisan Commission on the Future of Medicare.
After a year's worth of work and research, the 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 at
the time. It had to be a supermajority of the members of the
Commission.
Facing mounting pressure from the public in anticipation of the 2000
election, all of the major Presidential candidates presented plans.
President Bush had suggested a new Federal subsidy to help low-income
beneficiaries purchase drug coverage through private insurers.
Vice President Al Gore, the Democratic candidate, proposed a new
voluntary benefit within Medicare to protect chronically ill and low-
income beneficiaries against catastrophic expenses. Yet the Congress
still couldn't reach a compromise, even though it was very much
discussed during that Presidential election, and it was in a lot of
discussions in Senate races as well.
At that time, 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, a person by the name of
Bill Roth of Delaware, 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 the 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.
This second piece of the Roth proposal was meant to be a backstop--just
a short-term, bipartisan bandaid on a gaping wound while negotiations
continued to find a longer term solution.
Despite the support from then-President Bill Clinton and the
Republican majority leader, Trent Lott, compromise was elusive, and the
Finance Committee did not act before the November election. So then we
had the 2000 election. Prescription drug coverage was a big issue, and
it was a big issue probably more for Republicans because we controlled
the U.S. Senate. We lost five incumbent Republican Senators because
people didn't pay attention to this being a major issue. Hence, to
remind you what I opened with, I don't want Senators making that same
mistake this year.
The American people were obviously disappointed in the lack of action
back in 2000, and it showed, but as we have to do when there is
grassroots support like there was then, we marched on to find a path
forward, but building consensus was not easy.
I was chairman during part of that time between the years 2000 and
2003. I wasn't chairman all that time because the Senate flipped to a
Democratic majority when Senator Jeffords of Vermont changed from
Republican to Democrat. Between the years 2000 and 2003, we held
countless 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, most of that going toward the prescription drug reform that we
were proposing. Partisan discord led to three separate proposals being
sent to the Senate from House Republicans that were subsequently voted
down.
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 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, and down Pennsylvania
Avenue to make sure the prescription drugs and 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, in 1965, and we needed to recognize that the
practice of medicine had changed. My friend Senator Baucus, who was at
that time the Democratic ranking member of my committee, and I were
able to thoughtfully pull together a Medicare package 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. Of
course, it was about time that Congress had taken this action demanded
by the grassroots of America in a serious way. I said in 2003, ``We all
know seniors don't want politics, they want prescription drugs,'' and
that holds true today as we consider this issue.
It is 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 am now standing here again, more than 15 years later, to make the
very same point. It seems 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 healthcare issues, what they care
about is having access to affordable medication.
Once again, I am 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 I led. Let me remind you,
prescription medication was not much of 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 is why people needed Medicare
Part D. 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 high
costs. That means prescription drug prices have skyrocketed, and
Americans want Congress to act now so they can afford their lifesaving
medications.
Our seniors deserve better than the over 5-year delay in action we
put them through last time--in other words, 5 years before we finally
passed something in 2003 called Part D of Medicare. They shouldn't have
to wait 5 years this time. Congress has been here before. We want to
make sure history doesn't repeat itself. I want to make sure it doesn't
repeat itself. I personally have been here before. I have watched the
opportunity to help patients slip away. Now, just like in 2003,
Americans want action on entitlement reforms. Now, just like in 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 to new innovations in the healthcare world. The
bill that came out of my committee 19 to 9, titled the ``Prescription
Drug Cost Reduction Act of 2019,'' builds on the successful programs we
created in 2003. It will lower beneficiary premiums by $6 billion and
lower out-of-pocket costs by $25 billion. The bill will implement an
out-of-pocket cap, eliminate excess payments, cap taxpayer subsidies,
and permanently repeal the doughnut hole in Medicare Part D. It uses
market forces. Those market forces will incentivize manufacturers to
lower list prices and report more accurate calculations of their rebate
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 5 or
10 years from now.
[[Page S5889]]
I want to give credit to Senator Wyden of Oregon, the ranking
Democrat on my committee and my partner on this issue.
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.
I ask all of my colleagues to join Senator Wyden and me in our
bipartisan effort to lower the cost of prescription drugs.
I yield the floor.
I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The senior assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
____________________