Richard Durbin

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from California (Mrs. Feinstein), the Senator from Arizona (Mr. Kelly), and the Senator from New Mexico (Mr. Lujan) are necessarily absent.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. Madam President, try to follow that logic, if you will. The Senator is so committed to law enforcement, he is so committed to U.S. marshals, he won't let us appoint people to fill vacancies. He takes the case in Portland, OR, where he wrote a letter to the Department of Justice within the last 2 weeks asking for the status of their defense of these 74 individuals. Now, he knows, and we all know, that before we can take any action for anybody, we need a confidentiality waiver, a privacy statement. That is routine in all of our offices. Each one of these individuals, despite the interest of the junior Senator from Arkansas, has their own legal right to determine whether or not they want to waive any privacy so that they can tell the public or discuss even with the Senator their plight and how they want to address it. There is also something called the attorney-client privilege, which the Senator, I am sure, is aware of. That, too, is a privilege which allows the individual to deny ordinary access to information if they so choose. It is their decision. So the complication of the situation is ignored by the Senator from Arkansas. He is valiantly standing for U.S. marshals that he won't appoint. He believes they are important and that they give their lives to their country--and many have--and yet he won't let them stand up and do that on behalf of our communities. He wants an answer to his letter, and until he gets an answer to his letter, then we are not going to be able to put law enforcement in place to deal with crime in this country. We can make all the statements, run all the ads, make all the speeches on the floor about a concern for safety in our communities, and then the junior Senator from Arkansas says, ``I want you to be safe in your community, but you can't have a U.S. attorney to prosecute those would-be terrorists. You can't have a U.S. marshal for pursuit of fugitives from justice. You can't have a U.S. marshal to protect the courthouse for men and women who go to work there every day and risk their lives for the administration of justice.'' This is upside down. We are talking about 74 individuals. The Department of Justice has said they are going to defend 70 of them. One is a question, I assume, whether he was acting in the scope of his employment, and three are under review. And for that reason, this Senator has decided to stop the administration of justice in these jurisdictions or at least slow it down. That makes no sense whatsoever. The basis for objecting to these individuals has nothing to do with their individual qualifications. He didn't raise a single question. All he said is, ``Your lawyers are going to have to wait,'' as if these were just lawyers waiting for a fee. These are men and women willing to serve, as he serves, in public service. It is more than just lawyers--not that there is anything wrong with that category of Americans--but it is individuals who are willing to engage in public service. And why are we in such a hurry? We are in the second year of this President's administration. It is time to fill these vacancies. As Senator Schumer said earlier on the floor, there are several on the Republican side who just want to drag this out interminably in the hopes that they can stop the Biden administration from filling these vacancies. My colleague from Arkansas asked whether the DOJ is representing Federal law enforcement personnel who protected the Federal courthouse in Portland. The FOX News headline about his letter said: ``Cotton places hold on DOJ nominees after refusal to defend US Marshals involved in Portland Antifa riots.'' Here is the reality. The Department of Justice often represents or pays private counsel to represent Federal employees sued in their individual capacity, but there are some constraints, and I have mentioned them. For example, regulations require that the Department of Justice can only represent employees for actions within the scope of their employment; for example, protecting the Portland courthouse, which clearly is within the scope. And the Department of Justice can only represent them if doing so would be in the interest of the United States. It clearly would be if they are defending against terrorists. The Senator knows this. Do you know why he knows it? Because the Department of Justice responded to his letter. He just didn't like the response--it didn't go far enough. The Department said, ``The Department of Justice strongly supports the provision of representation to federal officers acting in the line of duty.'' The Department also told him that it represents or has paid for private counsel to represent 70 of these employees who have been sued in connection with the events in Portland, while denying only a single request for representation. I don't know the facts of that denial. I don't know if there has been a privacy waiver signed. I don't know if this individual said, ``I have an attorney-client privilege, and I don't have to tell the Senator from Arkansas or anyone what the circumstances are.'' The Senator from Arkansas is now demanding to know why the Department of Justice denied this one request for representation and why it is still reviewing three others. That is right--he is blocking the confirmation of critical law enforcement officials across the United States until he gets an answer that he likes. The DOJ has already explained that it cannot comment further--here is what they said--``in light of significant confidentiality interests and applicable privileges.'' As I mentioned earlier the privacy laws and attorney-client privilege. ``DOJ's regulations make it clear that communication about an employee's requests for representation are protected by the attorney- client privilege, and the Privacy Act prevents DOJ from disclosing the personnel record of an employee,'' and that is as it should be. Let me be clear. These privileges protect the privacy of the very law enforcement personnel whose interests the Senator from Arkansas claims to represent. My Republican colleagues frequently claim to be the party of law and order, but in this matter and others, they are the ones playing politics with law enforcement because the Department of Justice will not snap to the Senator's request and violate standing Federal laws; because they won't ignore and violate those laws of privacy and attorney-client privilege, he is prepared to endanger the communities and law enforcement until he gets his way. I have heard my Republican colleagues time and again claiming that the Biden administration and Democratic mayors in big cities are responsible for violent crime. They claim that the increase in violent crime has nothing to do with the fact that America is awash in guns, that the reality is that the increase in violent crime started during the last administration, under President Trump. It is affecting communities led by both Republican and Democratic officials. And it is being driven by gun violence. FBI statistics show that 77 percent of homicides in 2020 were committed with guns. In Chicago, that number is higher. Ninety-three percent of homicides last year in Chicago were committed by gun. We face a gun violence crisis. The Judiciary Committee held five hearings last year on ways to reduce it. I am going to continue it this year. But if we are going to address this crisis, we are going to need Senators from both parties to show some courage and to admit that gun violence in America is a real problem. We also need Republicans to stop defending the violent insurrection that took place right in this Chamber on January 6, 2021. The Senator was present. All of us were. We will never forget that day as long as we live. Five brave police officers lost their lives as a result of what the Republican National Committee in its official policy position calls ``legitimate political discourse.'' This is nothing new. Last year, Congress passed the American Rescue Plan--$350 billion for State and local governments. We made sure that funding was going to hire good law enforcement officials and invested in community violence intervention. Not a single Republican Senator approved it. There are areas where we are working together on bipartisan legislation, and I hope we will continue to. Last year, President Biden signed three laws in that area. I hope my Republican colleagues will take a lesson from today. If we are going to stand together, then let us all stand behind the Federal law enforcement team. When President Trump asked for his team, Democrats in the Senate cooperated and gave those people to him. They weren't the people we would have chosen, but he was President and had the right to do his best to protect this Nation. So does President Biden. President Biden has called for significant increases for our police in the Byrne Justice Program and the COPS Hiring Program, but this important funding has been delayed by debate over appropriations. We shouldn't delay the appointment of these key law enforcement officials either. Again and again, Democrats are working to support law enforcement and to keep Americans safe. Sometimes we are joined in these efforts by Republicans and other times not, but there is no benefit to law enforcement when Senators block the confirmation of well-qualified U.S. attorney and U.S. marshal nominees, as we see today. I urge the Senator from Arkansas to stand up for law enforcement. A political story on FOX is not worth undermining the lives of innocent Americans. We have to end this obstruction and let these nominees protect and serve. I now yield to Senator Klobuchar.

Mr. DURBIN. Madam President, I rise today to speak about the critical role played by U.S. attorneys and U.S. marshals in keeping America safe. Law enforcement is a team effort, and we need officials at the Federal, State, and local levels working together to stop crime in this country and to keep people safe in their homes and in their neighborhoods. It was only 2 months ago when I came to the floor of this Senate to request unanimous consent for the Senate to take up and confirm five U.S. attorney nominations. Despite the outstanding credentials of all of these nominees, one Senator, the junior Senator from Arkansas, refused to allow the Senate to confirm five nominees for U.S. attorney positions by a voice vote--a tradition in the Senate. That Senator's objections had nothing to do with the nominees. He said so. They had nothing to do with their records and had nothing to do with their qualifications. Well, after he was confronted on the floor of the Senate, he lifted his objections. We were able to get those U.S. attorneys confirmed and put them to work, and there is work to be done in every State in the Union to make this a safer nation. We believe in law enforcement--we believe in it at every level--and when there is delay in putting professionals in place, that delay can cost lives. If you stand up and say ``I don't want to defund the police'' but then refuse to fill vacancies when it comes to law enforcement, that is inconsistent. Sadly, we find ourselves in the same position today, 2 months later, with the same Senator from Arkansas. He is again objecting to the swift confirmation of U.S. attorney and U.S. marshal nominations. In short, this same Senator is making it increasingly difficult for us to prosecute violent criminals, track down fugitives, and protect Americans from gang violence, cybercrime, terrorism, and fraud. It is worth taking a moment to consider what U.S. attorneys and U.S. marshals do. The positions that they hold are nearly as old as the Nation itself. Both U.S. marshal and U.S. attorney positions were created by the Judiciary Act of 1789, passed by the First Congress, and signed into law by President George Washington. The specific responsibilities have changed over time, but the core function is the same. This is the Federal answer to enforcing the law, prosecuting crimes, and protecting our communities. U.S. attorneys are charged with prosecuting all Federal criminal offenses. U.S. marshals have the responsibility of risking their lives to protect Federal judges and courthouses, tracking down fugitives, and assisting in locating and recovering missing children, just to mention a few. In short, U.S. attorneys and U.S. marshals play a critical role in enforcing the law, promoting public safety, and protecting our communities. So it is sad that this same junior Senator from Arkansas is blocking the confirmations of six U.S. attorneys and two U.S. marshals today. Doing so threatens public safety across America and puts millions of Americans at risk, including the most vulnerable. Despite all of the tough talk we hear from many of these Senators on the other side of the aisle about their dedication to law and order and keeping America safe, it is a Republican Senator who refuses to take up and confirm these nominations in an expeditious way. Before I ask for consent for the Senate to confirm the nominees, I would like to yield to the majority leader.

Mr. DURBIN. I thank the majority leader. I would like to just add: There must be those following the debate who are wondering, ``What is the basis for the junior Senator from Arkansas opposing these eight nominees? There must be something wrong with them. There must be something in their background that doesn't add up.'' Consider the variety of individuals who are being held up by the junior Senator from Arkansas: Ryan Buchanan, of Georgia, to be U.S. attorney for the Northern District; Jason Frierson, of Nevada, to be U.S. attorney for the District of Nevada; Andrew Luger, of Minnesota, to be U.S. attorney for the District of Minnesota--and the Senator from Minnesota will speak to that in just a moment--Mark Totten, of Michigan, to be U.S. attorney for the Western District of Michigan; Marisa Darden, of Ohio, to be U.S. attorney for the Northern District of Ohio; Delia Smith, of the Virgin Islands, to be U.S. attorney for the District of the Virgin Islands; Eddie Frizell, again of Minnesota, to be U.S. marshal for the District of Minnesota; and LaDon Reynolds, of Illinois, to be U.S. marshal for the Northern District of Illinois. We looked especially at our own nominees very closely to make sure that they were qualified to take on these Federal positions. Several of my colleagues are going to come to the floor today to speak about the nominees being held up by one Senator, so rather than delving into the records of all of the eight nominees, let me just focus on the one in Illinois--Chief LaDon Reynolds, nominated to serve as U.S. marshal for the Northern District. Chief Reynolds has served the people of Illinois for nearly 30 years. He joined the Oak Park Police Department in 1994, rising steadily through the ranks until his appointment in 2019 as chief. In addition to his service at the Oak Park Police Department, Chief Reynolds serves on the Illinois Law Enforcement Training and Standards Board, the Illinois Commission on Discrimination and Hate Crimes, and the Executive Board of the Illinois Association of Chiefs of Police. In short, Chief Reynolds is eminently qualified to serve as U.S. marshal for the Northern District of Illinois. There is simply no valid basis to delay his confirmation. And I have yet to hear the Senator from Arkansas come forward with a bill of particulars of why he has decided to single out the people whom I just mentioned, to deny them an opportunity to make communities safer across America. At a time of high crime and the need for a coordinated effort at every single level, there is absolutely no valid explanation of why these individuals are being withheld from their responsibilities in these communities. We need to have law enforcement taken seriously and respected. Holding up nominations for no particular reason other than a political issue that may bother the Senator is certainly no reason for us to jeopardize the safety of innocent people living in these communities who depend on these Federal law enforcement officials to do their job. At this point, I would like to make a unanimous consent request. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the consideration of the following nominations en bloc: Calendar No. 660, 661, 662, 663, 739, 740, 741, and 742; that the Senate vote on the nominations en bloc without intervening action or debate; that the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate; that any statement related to the nominations be printed in the Record and that the President be immediately notified of the Senate's action.

Mr. DURBIN. Would the Senator from Nevada yield for a point?

Mr. DURBIN. Madam President, that last admission by the Senator from Arkansas tells the whole story. He doesn't even know why the Department is turning down representation of 1 person out of 74. They have agreed to represent 70 of these U.S. marshal employees, and they said they will represent them; and three are under review. One has been turned down; and he hasn't received a privacy waiver, so he doesn't know why. I don't know why either. But you know who is paying the price for it? Millions of Americans who are asking for Federal law enforcement to be adequately staffed to do their job. The U.S. attorneys and U.S. marshals that want to keep us safe and be part of the team to do that. And because this Senator suspects there may be something suspicious about this, he doesn't have a privacy waiver, he is going to hold up those officials throughout the United States and put their communities in peril. Tell me that that is devotion to law enforcement.

Mr. DURBIN. Will the Senator yield for a question? I ask the question through the Chair. Has the Senator been given a privacy waiver by the one marshal that the Department of Justice is not going to defend?

Mr. DURBIN. How much time do we have? I am sorry. Go ahead.

Mr. DURBIN. Madam President, how much time do we have remaining?

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from California (Mrs. Feinstein), the Senator from Arizona (Mr. Kelly), the Senator from New Mexico (Mr. Lujan), and the Senator from Rhode Island (Mr. Whitehouse) are necessarily absent.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I want to take a moment to say a special word of thanks to a former member of my staff who has meant a lot to me and has performed great service in my office. Corey Tellez was part manager and part legislative magician. She was also my deputy chief of staff. She was one of the first persons I would reach out to. She seemed to always find a way to translate big ideas into legislation and then legislation into law. Corey is driven by solid values. She has a special talent for management and organization. Every Senator should be so lucky to have a Corey Tellez on their staff. Corey joined my staff nearly 11 years ago as my economic policy adviser. Her first assignment was to help craft and build support for a bill called the Marketplace Fairness Act. Here was the goal: give Main Street businesses across America, mom-and-pop shops, a level playing field on which to compete against the giant online retailers by giving States the option to require out-of-State businesses to collect sales tax on online sales, the same way local businesses do. The big online retailers resisted. Corey would not back down. She worked with the staff in the offices of our main cosponsors--Senators Mike Enzi, Heidi Heitkamp, and Lamar Alexander--and together they came up with a solution that won support on both sides of the aisle and even won the support of some of the giant retailers. In 2013, the Marketplace Fairness Act passed the Senate. Corey was still working on getting the bill signed into law when, to our surprise, in 2018, the Supreme Court issued a ruling negating the need for it by giving the States the same option our bill created. Corey had made her mark, and she became a critical part of our legislative team. Six years ago, I moved her up to be my legislative director. Three years ago, she became my deputy chief of staff. At the end of last year, to my disappointment, she announced she was moving on from the Senate for a new opportunity, working for the Department of the Treasury in their congressional relations office. She is returning to the field she loves, with a special emphasis on international economic policy. I have no doubt she is going to be successful just as she was in the Senate. Corey first came to the Hill 15 years ago, working in the Congressional Hispanic Caucus as an intern to the office of Representative Henry Cuellar of Texas. She already had a degree in political science and history and a law degree from the University of Illinois. She worked on the House side as a legislative assistant for Representative Carolyn McCarthy of New York and as deputy chief of staff and counsel for Representative Debbie Halvorson of Illinois. It is an impressive resume, but I think that Corey has put as much effort and passion into advancing the careers of others as she has her own. My own staff is filled with talented men and women whom she encouraged and gave a chance to grow professionally. There is a danger, when you work with policy and dry legislative text for a long time, that you might forget the people whose hopes and dreams ride on the laws we enact. That never was a problem for Corey. While growing up, Corey's mom was a single mother. She views every bill and every initiative through the eyes of a proud, hard-working American, just like her mom. Basically, she has two basic questions when it comes to these issues: Are they true to the Constitution? Do they treat working families with fairness and dignity? That was her litmus test for any legislative undertaking. I can't think of a better one. Since joining my staff, she became a mother too. She and her husband are parents to a little daughter, Elliott. With her move to her next exciting assignment, I want to say again: Thank you, Corey, for all that you have given our office, the Senate, and our State of Illinois. I am wishing you the very best of luck in your new position.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from New Mexico (Mr. Lujan) is necessarily absent.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. DURBIN. Madam President, I have come to the floor of the Senate many times over the last several years to discuss an aspect of higher education only few people even know exists. The so-called for-profit colleges. This disgraceful industry enrolls 8 percent of all postsecondary students in America--8 percent--and yet accounts for 30 percent of all Federal student loan defaults. Those two numbers tell the story. For- profit colleges get 8 percent of the students and are responsible for 30 percent of the student loan defaults. Why? For obvious reasons. They are too expensive. They charge a higher tuition than community colleges or even many private colleges. Secondly, the students don't end up finishing because they get mired in debt. And third, if they end up with a degree, it turns out to be virtually worthless. When I think of cases that we have looked into in Illinois, in Chicago, of the exploitation of well-meaning students, sometimes the first in their families to go to college, who are lured in by the siren song of the marketing of for-profit colleges--they sign up, sign all the papers, turn over all their Pell grants, then sign up for Federal student loans and other private loans and have a disastrous experience where they can't even finish. They are so deeply in debt or, if they finish, they find their degree was worthless. How many of those young people I remember coming to me and saying: I was majoring in law enforcement, and I was getting this degree from one of the local for-profit colleges to go into law enforcement. And you know what, Senator? They laughed at me when they saw the name of the school: That isn't a real school; that isn't a real degree. Senator--they tell me--it is a real debt. And that is the reality of these for-profit colleges. I have called for greater oversight of this industry, as they exploit these students and their families. We have called out some of the most vicious predatory players in the industry like Corinthian, University of Phoenix, DeVry, ITT Tech, Westwood--institutions that are more likely to lead students into a lifetime of debt rather than a lifetime of opportunity. Now, just imagine, if you will, that one of the leading architects of this fraudulent industry was chosen to be one of its watchdogs by the Federal Government. Well, that is the situation we have today. Dr. Arthur Keiser, who embodies the worst of the for-profit industry, is the chairman of the board of for-profit Southeastern College. He is also chancellor and CEO of Keiser University, a so-called nonprofit university that he converted from for-profit status in the year 2011. This so-called conversion to not-for-profit is misleading. The overlap between Southeastern College and Keiser University is well established. For example, multiple executives at Keiser University are also executives at Southeastern. An IRS filing shows that executives at Keiser University, a supposedly nonprofit school, are paid hundreds of thousands of dollars each year. You know when you hear the term ``not-for-profit,'' you think of charitable institutions, people just barely making enough to get by, service to principles and values. Well, Mr. Keiser and his gang have turned that upside down. They make hundreds of thousands of dollars each year, a hefty salary for part-time employees working for a nonprofit college. Arthur Keiser is also notorious for shady dealings. I am not making this up or going to a source of fake news for it. These were detailed in a GAO report last year. For example, in the year after Keiser University was converted into a not-for-profit college--not-for- profit--the school paid out more than $34 million to members of Mr. Keiser's family--$34 million? That is right, to Arthur Keiser's family. Not bad for a not-for-profit venture. Arthur Keiser's financial misdeeds are so grave, so serious, that his own mother has filed a lawsuit against him over shifty financial handlings of the colleges that they cofounded. This would be a dramatic situation comedy were it not for the victims, the students. Rather than being chastised by this GAO report and lawsuit by his mom, Mr. Keiser is now seeking to dramatically extend his influence within the for-profit college industry. How exactly is he planning to do this? Lucky for Arthur, the power is already in his hands. Today, Arthur Keiser serves as chair of the National Advisory Committee on Institutional Quality and Integrity, also known as NACIQI. I have never heard of it, but those in the industry know it quite well. NACIQI is the Department of Education's Federal advisory board that approves the creditors who act as gatekeepers for Federal student dollars. So in order to offer a Federal student loan, the Department of Education has to first establish that you are a real school--I mean, a real school with real teachers and classrooms or some other means of teaching students and that your degree is being presented to you in real terms, whether it is really going to help your life. This NACIQI is the watchdog of all the Federal watchdogs when it comes to for- profits. And guess who is the Chair: Arthur Keiser. As Chair of NACIQI, Arthur Keiser poses a systematic threat to student borrowers. His chairmanship is a major conflict of interest in NACIQI's vital role of maintaining integrity of Federal student aid. For-profits are already one of the most heavily subsidized sectors in America. I took a look at what these companies, these for-profit colleges, were taking out of the Federal Treasury. They put some of the worst Federal contractors to shame. And of course, they often leave students saddled with debts they will never be able to pay for worthless degrees. Now, naturally, you may wonder, how do these for-profits spend all the Federal dollars sent their way? Well, this is what it is all about. They spend millions on advertising their worthless degrees to underprivileged students. There was an ad that was running out here a couple years ago, one of my favorites from the for-profits. It showed this young lady; she couldn't have been more than 19 years of age. And she was lounging in her bedroom with her laptop on the bed next to her, talking about how she was going to college in her pajamas. I am not making this up. They spend millions of dollars just like that, advertising to young people who may not know any better that you have to put in a real effort to get an education. It pays off, but it doesn't come to you sitting in your pajamas. Instead of reforming the for-profit advertising model, Dr. Keiser is expanding it. He likes this marketing. He has applied some of the same predatory practices to the so-called nonprofit college space. In 2017, Keiser University--aptly named after himself--which Dr. Keiser claims is nonprofit, racked up the second largest advertising bill of any private nonprofit institution. Keiser University spent nearly one-fifth of its entire budget on ads and marketing--more than $82 million. We found some of the colleges that have been investigated in the past were spending more money on advertising than they were on faculty salaries. And it showed. For the sake of comparison, other nonprofit colleges--real nonprofit colleges--are estimated to spend 1.5 percent to 6 percent of their budget on marketing. Dr. Arthur Keiser, his university spent almost 20 percent. Southeastern College, Dr. Keiser's for-profit school, reported in 2018 to the IRS that 87 percent of its annual revenue came from student aid. That is close to the 90-percent cap imposed by the 90-10 rule. What does that mean in the big picture? It means this is just a conduit. Follow, if you will, the process. The student sits in the admissions office, and the admissions officer says, We are ready to launch. We are ready to put you in the courses. All you have to do is sign this. Here is your contract, the contract where you are going to seek Federal student aid. The student signs it, naturally. Got my Pell grant. Got my Federal student aid. It is all going to the for-profit school. Then what happens next? Well, the student has got the debt to pay back for the loan. The school gets the cash. The school turns around--Dr. Keiser turns around and has a big distribution party, and the student finds out 6 months later it is a worthless undertaking, but they have still got the debt to pay. And unless some action is taken by the Department of Education that proves up fraud and releases that student from his obligation, that is going to be a debt he is going to carry for years. It is going to change his life. Do Dr. Keiser and his gang care? They have got their money. They have distributed it among themselves. Dr. Keiser has also demonstrated questionable conduct as chair of NACIQI, namely, protecting his own interests at the expense of students and taxpayers. This is a real fox in the chicken coop. In 2020, under Dr. Keiser's leadership, NACIQI wrongfully penalized the Higher Learning Commission, an accreditor that tried to rescind accreditation from two fraudulent for-profits. Just last year, Dr. Keiser was forced to recuse himself from the review of Accrediting Commission of Career Schools and Colleges--or ACCSC. Why exactly did he have to recuse himself? Because this organization accredited his college, so he was putting the pressure on that entity. And in Dr. Keiser's absence, the other NACIQI members rightly considered student outcomes in determining whether they would continue as an accreditor. But when Dr. Keiser returned from recusal, he chastised the same members for having the gall to prioritize the needs of students. So even when he was forced to recuse himself, Dr. Arthur Keiser found a way to use his position as Chair to advance his own interest. This week, I am going to lead a letter with Sherrod Brown, my colleague from Ohio, requesting the Department of Education finally take a hard look at Arthur Keiser's Chairmanship and his obvious conflicts of interest. It is worth noting that we are not alone in raising these concerns about Dr. Arthur Keiser. Earlier this month, the House Education and Labor Committee chairman, Bobby Scott of Virginia, also raised the issue of Keiser's manipulative conversion of his for-profit college to nonprofit status. Time and again, Arthur Keiser has put his own personal priorities over the needs of the students and taxpayers he is supposed to serve. His conflicts of interest have become abundantly clear, and now it is time for the Department of Education to put an end to this party. Last month, Secretary Cardona announced the Department of Education's priorities. One of them is holding postsecondary institutions accountable for taking advantage of kids. Right now, the Department of Education has an opportunity to uphold that priority by bringing Arthur Keiser's nefarious conduct to an end. We are going to be watching. On behalf of those students and their families, on behalf of colleges and universities that do a good job, we have got to put an end to this rip-off. I yield the floor.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from New Mexico (Mr. Lujan) is necessarily absent.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I have listened carefully to the remarks of my friend and colleague, Senator Sanders of Vermont. I read his published article in the Guardian newspaper yesterday, and it paralleled many of the things which he said on the floor today. We have a very positive starting point between us. I think my record on voting to go to war may be identical to his, if not very close. Neither of us wants war--that is the last resort--and it is frightfully predictable that there will be innocent people killed, even in the best of times and in the best of military force. Secondly, I couldn't agree with the Senator more that we should be promoting all that we can in terms of diplomacy at this moment. The other night, I had the opportunity to be in a meeting with some Senators and with the new Chancellor of Germany, Chancellor Scholz. He was on his way, soon, to Moscow; President Macron of France has been there; and others are going. I encourage that communication, that dialogue, as much as possible. I think it is hopeful that these efforts can lead to a peaceful resolution in the controversy that we are now facing in Ukraine. The third point, which I agree with, is that it is certainly in the interest of the United States, for our values, to make it clear that we want to protect and defend--at least not in a military fashion but, let me say, in a general fashion--the notion of sovereignty when it comes to Ukraine. It is up to the Ukrainian people to chart their course and make their future. Where I think we disagree, Senator, is on this whole question of sphere of influence. I am afraid that that suggestion is the green light for Vladimir Putin. If you will concede that he is somehow entitled because of the size of his country to reclaim Soviet Republics or to move into other theaters, I am sorry, but I have to part company with you at that point. I was fortunate enough, 30 years ago or so, to be on the ground in the Baltics when I saw a dramatic demonstration of courage rarely seen in the world. This tiny nation of 3 million people broke away from the Soviet Union and scheduled a free election. I was there at the time the election took place, and we knew that it was an invitation for Mikhail Gorbachev to retaliate, and he did. He moved in the Soviet tanks and started killing innocent people. Before it was all over, more than a dozen innocent Lithuanians--and several in Latvia--had given their lives because they wanted to be free again. And who would question why they would want that? I happened to have visited that area--my mother was born in Lithuania; I must put that on the record--in 1978, and I saw what life was like in the Baltic States under Soviet rule. It was sad. It was enraging. It was disgusting. What they have done in the Soviet Union is to forcibly take those countries and others--some through the Warsaw Pact, some through the direct accession to the Soviet Union--and control every aspect of their lives with communism. I went to the University of Vilnius, which I believe dates back to the 16th century. They took me to their Catholic chapel, which, under Soviet times, had been converted into what they called a museum in tribute of atheism. On display in the middle of this former chapel setting were showcases of boomerangs from Australia in this holy space, in which they were trying to eradicate religion by demonstrating a new materiel approach to the entity. I only say this because, when the time came and they finally, through their courage, broke from the Soviet Union, Lithuania, Latvia, and Estonia came to me, knowing that I had an interest in the region, as did the Polish people, and said: We don't want to be under the thumb of Russia ever again. We want our freedom. We want to decide our future. The only way that we can achieve that is if we can ally with the United States. Can we be considered for NATO membership? Eventually, through a lot of hard work and determination, that is what occurred. Poland and the Baltic States, along with others, joined in the NATO alliance. It is worth noting here that the NATO alliance is a defensive alliance. The Suwalki Gap, which links Russia as it now exists in Kaliningrad with Belarus, is a gap, a land bridge, and on either side is Poland and Lithuania. It is still contested territory by the Russians, and they are concerned about it. When the Russians put tens of thousands of troops and military exercises on the Baltic border in Belarus, it is understandable they are concerned. They are small countries that could be easily pushed over. The only thing that saves them, I believe, is their NATO alliance. Should Ukraine be part of the NATO alliance? Well, there are two decisions that must be made, and the first and most important one is by the Ukrainian people. They have to decide if they believe that it is in their best interest for their future. We cannot decide it for them nor should we try to. Secondly, the NATO alliance has to decide. Under article V, are we willing to risk the lives of the NATO allies if some terrible event should occur in Ukraine? That is what the sovereign nations of Poland, Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia, and so many other countries did when they decided to ask for membership in NATO. I don't understand this theory of the Senator's that, somehow, Vladimir Putin is entitled to a sphere of influence or control. That, to me, is unacceptable and inconsistent with the notion of Ukrainian sovereignty. If they are to decide their future, how can we say that Vladimir Putin has any voice in that process? There is a way that he can find a more peaceful situation in the world, and that is if he will stop being a thug and stop sending his troops to the borders of countries and stop cutting off gas supplies to countries that he doesn't like. I mean, his strong-arm tactics deserve a response from the United States, and I am afraid simply sending him a harsh letter is not enough anymore. So we have made it clear that he will pay a price if he invades, the NATO alliance has. The price will be a string of sanctions, and we have included some of them in the legislation that Senator Menendez is working on, which I cosponsored. But that is the only way to make it clear to him that such a price will be paid. What he has done is very obvious to me. He has united the NATO alliance in a way we didn't expect. There were some divisions within the alliance--some serious and some not serious--but he has brought us together. And we should be together in standing in defense of the territory of the NATO allies and in making it clear that if Vladimir Putin is going to try to extend his reach into Ukraine or into any other area, he will at least meet with political resistance. I think, at a minimum, that is where it should be. I hope it doesn't go any further. I share the Senator's feeling on that. I don't want the military situation to escalate or to threaten American lives or to involve us at that level at all, but unless we are firm with him now and don't concede that he has any sphere of influence in Ukraine, I am afraid he will take advantage of the situation. I am open to a question if you have one. I would like to have a dialogue, if possible, on this through the Chair, of course.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate be in a period of morning business, with Senators permitted to speak therein for up to 10 minutes each.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation be discharged from further consideration and the Senate now proceed to S. Res. 467.

Mr. DURBIN. I ask unanimous consent that the Blumenthal amendment at the desk to the resolution be agreed to; that the resolution, as amended, be agreed to; that the Blumenthal amendment at the desk to the preamble be agreed to; that the preamble, as amended, be agreed to; and that the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the consideration of S. Res. 510, submitted earlier today.

Mr. DURBIN. I ask unanimous consent that the resolution be agreed to and that the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table, with no intervening action or debate

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that pursuant to the resolution of the Senate of January 24, 1901, the traditional reading of Washington's Farewell Address take place on Monday, February 28, following the prayer and pledge; further, that Senator Leahy be recognized to deliver the address.