Richard Durbin

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey and the Senator from Vermont (Mr. Sanders) are necessarily absent.

Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey) is necessarily absent.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. Madam President, last week the Senate concluded the impeachment proceeding. I heard one of my colleagues say it is the most serious thing that the U.S. Senate has the constitutional authority to do. That argument can be made, but I would disagree. I think the most serious thing we are assigned under the Constitution is the declaration of war because, you see, it isn't just a matter of the political fate of any individual; it is the matter of the lives of many good people in America who serve in our Armed Forces, who may be in danger if we decide to go to war. Even under the best circumstances, a quick and effective war can lead to the deaths of brave and innocent Americans who are simply serving their country. That is why the comments made by the majority leader this morning need to be responded to. His suggestion that Senator Kaine's War Powers Resolution is a mistake, I think, really ignores the obvious. It has been 18 years-- almost 18 years--since Congress and the Senate had an active debate about the United States engaging in war. I remember that debate in 2002 very well because it was a debate that consumed the attention of the Senate, the House, and the Nation over whether we would invade Iraq and whether we would invade Afghanistan. Most of us remember the argument made by the Bush administration for the invasion of Iraq. We were told there were weapons of mass destruction in that country that could threaten the neighbors of Iraq, our allies, and even the United States. Over and over again we heard that phrase, ``weapons of mass destruction,'' ``weapons of mass destruction.'' I was serving on the Senate Intelligence Committee at that time. I remember the classified testimony behind closed doors. I had serious doubts in my mind as to whether they had established that weapons of mass destruction actually existed and whether authorizing a war meant we would just use that as a device to force Iraq into better conduct or we would actually invade their country. As a consequence, I joined 22 other Senators in voting against the invasion of Iraq, which we voted on the floor of the Senate in 2002. Twenty-two Democrats and one Republican all voted against that invasion of Iraq. Obviously, we did not prevail. A majority gave that authority to President George W. Bush, and the invasion was underway. I can still remember it. I can remember the unfolding events as our troops arrived, made their impact on that nation, and eventually took control of Iraq. Then the search was on for the weapons of mass destruction, which led to our invasion of Iraq. The search continued for days and weeks and months without any evidence of weapons of mass destruction. It was a farce. It was a fraud on the American public. Almost 5,000 Americans lost their lives because of our invasion of Iraq, but the premise, the pretense that led to that invasion was misleading information from the administration. But at least I will say this: There was a debate. There was a vote on the floor of the Senate. Did anyone at that time believe, 18 years ago, that we were voting for a war in Iraq that would continue for 18 years? On the invasion of Afghanistan, the argument was made to convince me and virtually every Member of Congress that the parties responsible for the tragedy and terror of 9/11 were somehow camped in Afghanistan, and we needed to go after ISIS and all those responsible for that 9/11 invasion of the United States. I voted for that, but I have to say as well, there wasn't a single Senator or Member of the House who really believed that 18 years later, we would still be at war in Afghanistan. Yet we are. The President is now talking about removing more troops from Afghanistan. We will see. We have heard these promises before, but perhaps it will lead to such a decision by the administration. The point I am getting to is, the Kaine War Powers Resolution--I see Senator Kaine has come to the floor--really addresses the most fundamental question of our constitutional authority and responsibility to declare war. As Senator Kaine says in this resolution, which I am happy to cosponsor, Congress has the sole power to declare war under article I, section 8, clause 11, of the U.S. Constitution. When I heard Senator McConnell come to the floor this morning and argue against the Senate stepping forward and asserting its constitutional authority, I wondered, how does he explain in the Commonwealth of Kentucky that we are still engaged in a war 18 years after there was any vote for an authorization for use of military force in Iraq and Afghanistan? The larger question Senator Kaine and I tried to raise in this resolution is, What does this mean in terms of our future relationship with Iran and their neighbor, Iraq? We know we have had a rocky and contentious relationship with that country. We know they have engaged in acts of terrorism that cost American lives. There has been tension between our countries for decades. We know that full well. President Obama tried to at least bring some sanity to the relationship by limiting the ability of the Iranians to develop nuclear weapons. He felt, I felt, and most Americans felt that was a step in the right direction, to take the nuclear weapons out of the hands of Iraq so that even if they are engaged in conduct we find reprehensible, it would not reach that horrible level of a nuclear confrontation. I thought the President was right. I supported President Obama's efforts to develop this inspection mechanism where international inspectors would come into Iran and see if they were developing weapons and report to the world. We engaged countries around the world to join us in this effort to stop the development of nuclear weapons in Iran. It was an incredible coalition that included Russia and China and the European nations that joined with us to impose this limitation of nuclear weapons in Iran. I thought it was a move in the right direction to have this kind of international support. Yet, when President Trump took office, sadly, he kept his promise to eliminate that nuclear control agreement between the United States, Iran, and the other parties. By eliminating it, he basically gave permission to the Iranians to continue development of nuclear weapons. Yet he warned the Iranians that if they did, there would be a price to pay. This is the very reason why this resolution by Senator Kaine is relevant and why we need to consider what the next step will be, because if we are going to stop the Iranians from developing nuclear weapons--and I pray they will not--how are we going to do it and how much force will we use in response? Will it be authorized by the Constitution and by Congress? I listened to Senator McConnell this morning, and he has basically said to do nothing. Do nothing. Don't assert the constitutional authority of the Congress under the Constitution when it comes to any declaration of war against Iran or any future military endeavors. He described this as a one-off situation, a one-off use of force that we have currently seen in the targeting of General Soleimani. Perhaps it was, but we don't know the answer to that. When it happened a few weeks ago, there was real uncertainty about what would follow, and I suppose that uncertainty is still here to this day. This morning, the majority leader said that he thought the impeachment effort that came to the Senate over the last week would not have occurred if we had been patient, and he said this is another example of impatience where we are setting up this constitutional responsibility of the administration. Well, I disagree with him on two counts. If Senator McConnell is counseling patience, patience in an impeachment trial would certainly have involved evidence, documents, and witnesses. Yet he was impatient to get it over with without any evidence coming before the Senate. I also would say that patience is a good virtue when it comes to most of life's experiences, and it certainly is if there is a prospect of war. What Senator Kaine is doing is asserting the authority of Congress to step up and be party to discussions about whether we move beyond the current situation to one that involves troops or any type of invasion of territory in Iran. I see Senator Kaine is on the floor, and I will defer to him in a moment, but I will tell you this before I sit down: As long as I have been a Member of the House and Senate, I have felt that Congress has a responsibility under the Constitution to declare war. It is a responsibility that most Members of Congress talk about a lot but, frankly, don't want to face. They don't want to be on the record for or against war for fear they will guess wrong in terms of certain foreign policy decisions. Regardless, I think the Framers of our Constitution understood full well that if we are going to ask American families to potentially sacrifice the lives of their sons and daughters in combat, in a war, they should have a voice in the decision on going to war. That is what this article in the Constitution provides--a voice for the U.S. public that comes through the Congress as to whether we are going to engage in a war. Otherwise, we find ourselves in a situation like today, 18 years after an authorization of use of military force--and part of it under false pretenses--continuing a military effort that was never truly authorized. I support Senator Kaine's effort. I am glad it is a bipartisan resolution. I yield the floor.

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in morning business.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. Madam President, we are likely to postpone a vote this week that had been scheduled on a Congressional Review Act resolution of disapproval relative to Education Secretary Betsy DeVos's new borrower defense rule. I would like to explain the background behind this procedure. Although it is likely it will be postponed until after our 1-week President's Day recess, I still think Members should reflect on the importance of this measure. In 1992 Congress added a provision to the Higher Education Act that allowed student borrowers who were defrauded by their schools to have their Federal student loans discharged. Here is what it boiled down to: The Federal Government recognizes the accreditation of colleges and universities. With that recognition, those colleges and universities can offer Federal loans to the students who attend. So there is a partnership that begins this process and this relationship, and the partnership is a seal of approval by the Federal Government in the authorization of Federal loans. What we found was that some of the institutions that were given permission to authorize Federal student loans for those attending their institutions, in fact, were lying to their students. So the students were in a situation where they incurred a debt in student loans for promises made by a college or university that turned out to be false. We said that under the law, that is not fair to the student and the student's family. Those students can be discharged from federal student debt if, in fact, that college or university defrauded them. What would be a typical fraud? To invite students to enroll in your college with the promise that the courses they take in that college would be transferrable, that the credits are transferrable to another school, and then it turns out to be a lie; the promise that if you complete a certain number of courses in the school, you will have satisfied the requirements for licensure for nursing, for example, and that turns out to be a lie; or the possibility that you would finish the courses of this school and get a job in a certain field. Great promises were made to the students, and it turns out they were lies. In those circumstances, students--many of whom are young and facing the first serious financial decision of their lives--were misled and defrauded. We said that under the law, those students should have an opportunity to discharge their student loan. It is bad enough they were lied to, bad enough they wasted their time, and bad enough they had a college experience that didn't make life better for them, but to be saddled with debt because that school lied to them and defrauded them is unacceptable. The process for having their loans discharged is called borrower defense. Under President Obama, we found that many schools--almost exclusively for-profit universities such as Corinthian, ITT, and others--lied to students about what their experience would be if they went there. So the students, saddled with debt, having been lied to, went to the Department of Education to have that debt discharged. There was some success in that, but then came the new President. President Trump, with his Secretary of Education, Betsy DeVos, took a much different view and has ignored the claims of these students for discharge of their student loans. They started stacking up, and nearly 230,000 students from across the United States who were looking for this borrower defense relief from their student loans, after having been lied to and defrauded by these colleges and universities, just found no response whatsoever from the Trump administration and from Education Secretary DeVos. As a consequence, they asked Members of Congress to intervene, and we tried but with no success. Then Secretary DeVos took this decisive step in changing the rules for future students. Do you know what she said? She said to these students: In the future, if you want relief from student debt from being defrauded, prove your case. Lawyer-up. Get your lawyer, and let's have a hearing. Well, understand that these students--young and in debt to start with--are not likely to turn around and hire a lawyer to prove Corinthian, in its catalogues and representations to students, for example, misrepresented the education they were offering. Under the previous administration, that could be established in evidence, and all the students affected by it could use that evidence. Under the DeVos administration, it is an individual burden of proof to qualify for borrower defense. So that will leave many students with no recourse. As a consequence, they will be stuck with the debt for a worthless education or one that didn't meet as promised. More than 223,000 claims are pending before the Department. Many of them have been waiting for years. The claims come from every State in the Union--large, small, red, blue and purple--and they are not going to stop. These claims have led to this CRA, this Congressional Review Act resolution of disapproval. I doubt that we are going to be taking it up this week, so I am going to withhold making a presentation on this until we return after the President's Day recess. But I want to make one last point. We are not just bringing this up on behalf of students; we are bringing this matter before the Senate on behalf of veterans. Student veterans. The American Legion of the United States has stepped up and said to us that veterans have been defrauded just like the students we are talking about on the floor of the Senate. If you believe in these veterans and these military families who are stuck with student loan debt because of lies from colleges and universities, I urge my colleagues to think twice and join us in this effort to stop the DeVos rules and give our veterans a fighting chance not to be burdened with this unfair debt. Madam President, I yield the floor.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Colorado (Mr. Bennet), the Senator from Minnesota (Ms. Klobuchar), the Senator from Vermont (Mr. Sanders), and the Senator from Massachusetts (Ms. Warren) are necessarily absent.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Colorado (Mr. Bennet), the Senator from New Mexico (Mr. Heinrich), the Senator from Minnesota (Ms. Klobuchar), the Senator from Vermont (Mr. Sanders), and the Senator from Massachusetts (Ms. Warren) are necessarily absent.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Colorado (Mr. Bennet), the Senator from Minnesota (Ms. Klobuchar), the Senator from Vermont (Mr. Sanders), and the Senator from Massachusetts (Ms. Warren) are necessarily absent.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Colorado (Mr. Bennet), the Senator from Minnesota (Ms. Klobuchar), the Senator from Vermont (Mr. Sanders), and the Senator from Massachusetts (Ms. Warren) are necessarily absent.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Colorado (Mr. Bennet), the Senator from Minnesota (Ms. Klobuchar), the Senator from Vermont (Mr. Sanders), and the Senator from Massachusetts (Ms. Warren) are necessarily absent.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, this week, Senator McConnell has scheduled votes on five judicial nominees. Some of these nominees, I will oppose, including 11th Circuit nominee Andrew Brasher. Some, I will support, including John Kness, a nominee for the Northern District of Illinois, who was part of a bipartisan package of nominees in my State. But first, I want to point out that, under this Republican majority, the Senate simply doesn't do legislation any more. There are literally hundreds of bills that have passed the House of Representatives and are gathering dust on the Senate desk. These bills deal with critical issues like reducing prescription drug prices, protecting pensions, securing our elections from foreign interference, and closing gaps in our gun background check system, but time and again, when Senate Republicans have the opportunity to bring bills to the floor, they take a pass. They just don't want to do the hard work of legislating. Last year, the Senate voted on only 22 amendments all year. I remember when we used to vote on that many amendments in a single day. Sadly, under this Republican majority, the Senate is becoming an appendage of the White House and no more than a conveyor belt for President Trump's judicial nominees. We are abdicating our responsibility to legislate on matters of importance to the American people. The Constitution assigns the Senate important roles as part of a coequal legislative branch. We are not rising to meet these challenges. When we look at this week's nominations votes, we are reminded yet again of how the Senate is abdicating its authority. Andrew Brasher is the 18th Trump circuit court nominee who has been moved through the Senate Judiciary Committee without blue slips from both home State Senators. For a century, blue slips served as a critical check in the system, helping ensure that Senators, as the elected representatives of their State's citizens, have a role in choosing the Federal judges who will serve lifetime appointments in their State. But Republicans, who used blue slips to obstruct many of President Obama's nominees, cast aside the blue slip once President Trump came into office. Now, circuit court nominees are routinely being rammed through the Senate over the objections of home State Senators. Some of these nominees are lightly qualified, to put it nicely. Some have barely practiced law in the State in which they have been nominated to serve. Some have barely seen the inside of a courtroom. Today's nominee, 38-year-old Andrew Brasher, was confirmed as a district court judge last year without bipartisan support. Less than a year later, he is being put forward for the 11th Circuit. A former solicitor general of Alabama, he worked on controversial efforts to restrict voting rights, limit reproductive rights, and undermine gun safety laws. But beyond the controversial advocacy that he undertook on behalf of his clients, Andrew Brasher also made comments in his personal capacity that call into question his impartiality and temperament. This includes a 2015 blog post he wrote in opposition to same-sex marriage and a speech he gave at a 2014 pro-life political rally where he said, ``The ACLU and Planned Parenthood want a fight and we will give them one.'' I will oppose the Brasher nomination, and I will also oppose Alaska district court nominee Joshua Kindred, who has a lengthy record of opposition to environmental protections. Mr. Kindred once described environmentalists as being driven by ``passionate ignorance.'' I will vote in support of the nomination of John Kness to the Northern District of Illinois. Mr. Kness is the final part of a package of four Illinois district court nominees that was agreed upon between myself, Senator Duckworth, the Illinois Republican congressional delegation, and the White House. It is a good bipartisan package. Mr. Kness is a graduate of Northwestern and Northwestern Law and a former Assistant U.S. Attorney. He is currently the general counsel for the College of DuPage. He is diligent, thoughtful, and principled, and I urge my colleagues to support his nomination.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Colorado (Mr. Bennet), the Senator from Minnesota (Ms. Klobuchar), the Senator from Vermont (Mr. Sanders), the Senator from New Mexico (Mr. Udall), and the Senator from Massachusetts (Ms. Warren) are necessarily absent.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Colorado (Mr. Bennet), the Senator from Minnesota (Ms. Klobuchar), the Senator from Vermont (Mr. Sanders), the Senator from New Mexico (Mr. Udall), and the Senator from Massachusetts (Ms. Warren) are necessarily absent.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Colorado (Mr. Bennet), the Senator from Minnesota (Ms. Klobuchar), the Senator from Vermont (Mr. Sanders), and the Senator from Massachusetts (Ms. Warren) are necessarily absent.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Colorado (Mr. Bennet), the Senator from Minnesota (Ms. Klobuchar), the Senator from Vermont (Mr. Sanders), the Senator from New Mexico (Mr. Udall), and the Senator from Massachusetts (Ms. Warren) are necessarily absent.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Colorado (Mr. Bennet), the Senator from Minnesota (Ms. Klobuchar), the Senator from Vermont (Mr. Sanders), the Senator from New Mexico (Mr. Udall), and the Senator from Massachusetts (Ms. Warren) are necessarily absent.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. Madam President, every day, we are reminded of the devastating toll of gun violence in our Nation. On average, around 100 Americans die each day from gunfire. It is an epidemic of violence. This week marks the anniversaries of three horrific mass shootings. On February 15, 1 year ago, a gunman shot and killed five coworkers at a warehouse in Aurora, IL, and also shot and wounded five police officers who rushed to the scene. On that day, we lost Russell Beyer, Vicente Juarez, Clay Parks, Josh Pinkard, and Trevor Wehner. February 14 was the date of the 2008 mass school shooting at Northern Illinois University in DeKalb, in which a mentally disturbed gunman killed 5 students and wounded 17 more. On that day, we lost Gayle Dubowski, Catalina Garcia, Julianna Gehant, Ryanne Mace, and Daniel Parmenter. And February 14 was also the date when 17 students and staff were murdered in 2018 at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, FL. These anniversaries and statistics are grim, but they do not capture the true impact of this horrific gun violence--so many funerals, so many families and communities devastated. And every day we lose still more lives to gun violence in communities large and small. Just this past weekend, at least 23 people were shot in the city of Chicago, nine of them fatally. We pray for the families and loved ones of those we have lost, and we remember the wounded who bear physical and mental scars from their trauma. We also renew our thanks for the first responders who run toward the sound of gunfire and risk their lives to help others. There are many people throughout America who are doing all they can to try to reduce our Nation's epidemic of gun violence. This includes parents, community leaders, teachers, faith leaders, law enforcement, public officials, the medical community, and more. I particularly want to commend a coalition of hospitals that has been working with me in Chicago on the HEAL Initiative. This is an effort to coordinate these hospitals' resources, from economic investment to community programming, to help reduce violence and improve quality of life in their surrounding neighborhoods. There are promising efforts taking place in many States and local communities to address gun violence. But is the U.S. Senate doing all it can to protect our communities from gun violence? No, not even close. While there is no single reform that could prevent every shooting, we know there are obvious gaps in Federal gun laws that make it easy for felons, abusers, and mentally unstable people to get guns. Nearly a year ago, on February 27, 2019, the House of Representatives passed a bipartisan bill to close gaps in our background check system that allow an estimated 22 percent of gun sales to occur without a check. Around 90 percent of Americans support closing the gaps in the background check system. It is a step that would save lives. Yet the Republican Senate majority refuses to call the bill up for a vote. I can't explain why Senate Republicans won't take up bipartisan, House- passed gun safety legislation that Americans overwhelmingly support. It makes no sense. There have been too many deaths, too many mass shootings, too many grim anniversaries, and too many excuses for inaction. It is time for Senator McConnell to call up H.R. 8, the bipartisan background checks bill, and hold a vote.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. Madam President, the Chicago area is blessed to have some of the top hospitals and academic centers in the country. Rush University Medical Center and College in Chicago, in particular, has advanced into a comprehensive and leading health care institution. Rush continues to deliver high-quality care to its patients, driving the field of innovative medical research and training the next generation of healthcare practitioners. I would like to celebrate the tenure and accomplishments of the hospital's president and CEO and the leader in the program at Rush, my friend, Dr. Larry Goodman. In 1976, Larry earned his medical degree from the University of Michigan's Medical School. He completed his residency at the Rush University Medical Center, where he served as the chief medical resident before joining the faculty. At Rush, Larry served as an infectious disease specialist, working to improve the lives of people affected by HIV and AIDS. He also served as the senior vice president of medical affairs and the dean of the Rush Medical College before the hospital appointed him as it's president and CEO in 2002. Under Larry's leadership, Rush has prospered. The hospital doubled its student enrollment in the last 20 years, training future physicians who will provide top-notch healthcare services in communities around the Nation. The hospital also collaborated to increase its employment of local community members. These efforts, in part through West Side United, have helped to reduce the health inequities that exist between the residents of low-income communities and those in affluent communities. In fact, it was Dr. Goodman who first told me about the alarming 16-year gap in life expectancy between people living in the Loop and in West Garfield Park--just two ``L'' stops, or 6 miles, apart from each other on the Blue. More than a year ago, I joined several community leaders to announce the Chicago Hospital Engagement, Action, and Leadership, or HEAL, Initiative to help address many of the root causes of gun violence, such as economic hardship and spare mental health services. Under this initiative, each hospital made 16 commitments to address these issues. Larry was the inspiration for this undertaking and instrumental in getting it off the ground. It is a testament to his lifelong dedication to those in need. After decades of service dedicated to improving lives and helping others, Larry has retired with an amazing legacy. He has been key to thinking about the transformative role of hospitals in uplifting communities and through his hard work, vision, and commitment to make it possible. I am especially grateful for our partnership over the years, from his leadership on the Cook County Hospital transition to the Chicago HEAL Initiative. I am proud to call Larry my friend, and I wish him the very best in retirement.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. Madam President, it was more than 50 years ago that a young couple from Springfield, IL brought their baby daughter to then- Children's Memorial Hospital in Chicago. They drove more than 200 miles each way because they knew Children's Hospital provided the best care for their daughter, and they repeated that trip every 3 months for years. I know this story well because it is the story of my family's relationship with Children's Memorial, now known as Lurie Children's. It also is a story thousands of other children and families could tell about the world-class treatment they received at Children's. I want to take this time to recognize a person who has been the heart and soul of this hospital for decades: my friend, Mr. Patrick Magoon. Pat served as the president and CEO of the Ann and Robert H. Lurie Children's Hospital of Chicago for more than two decades. He retired recently, and I want to take this opportunity to honor his work. In 1977, Pat started his career at then-Children's Memorial Hospital as a planning department intern while he pursued his master's degree in urban policy and planning from the University of Illinois. When he joined the staff at the hospital, he held a number of administrative positions--even working as the hospital's laundry manager--before he became president and CEO in 1997. In the last 20 years under Pat's direction, Lurie Children's has come to be recognized as one of the best children's hospitals in the Nation. In the last 8 years, U.S. News and World Report has named Lurie's a top 10 children's hospital in the country 7 times. It also has received four Magnet Award designations, the highest national recognition given for excellence in nursing care. When Pat was appointed, the hospital faced financial challenges, losing about $1 million a month. Thanks to his hard work, vision, and commitment, the hospital is not only financially stable but has become a beacon of hope for children--both within its own walls and in the Chicago community. During Pat's tenure, it has increased the number of children it serves by more than 50 percent, giving thousands of children access to high-quality healthcare services. Lurie Children's has significantly expanded its innovative research and treatment services, including its Nation-leading efforts on trauma-informed care and violence prevention, to meet the increasing needs of its patients. Pat Magoon has been the key to positioning Lurie Children's as a national leader in the care of kids. I am especially grateful for our partnership over the years and his leadership in protecting and advocating for the youngest, most vulnerable patients. We could always count on Pat and Children's to be a strong ally in the support of the Affordable Care Act and Medicaid, biomedical research funding, and addressing violence and the social determinants of health. Pat Magoon's legacy is not just a great children's hospital, which Lurie Children's has become, but the heartfelt appreciation of the children, parents, staff, and volunteers who know he has been an integral part of making their lives better. I salute my friend, Pat Magoon. (At the request of Mr. Schumer, the following statement was ordered to be printed in the Record.)

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Colorado (Mr. Bennet), the Senator from Minnesota (Ms. Klobuchar), the Senator from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey), the Senator from Vermont (Mr. Sanders), the Senator from Hawaii (Mr. Schatz), and the Senator from Massachusetts (Ms. Warren) are necessarily absent.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, Benjamin Franklin knew the strength of our Constitution, but he also knew its vulnerability. His words, oft repeated on this floor--``a republic, if you can keep it''--were a stark warning. Franklin believed every generation could face the challenge of protecting and defending our Nation's liberty-affirming document. We know this personally. Before we can legally serve as Senators, we must publicly swear an oath to support and defend the Constitution of the United States. A trial of impeachment, more than any other Senate assignment, tests the oath each one of us takes before the people of this Nation. The President's legal team warns us of the danger of impeachment and conviction. They tell us to think carefully about what the removal of a duly elected President could mean for our democracy. But if we should have our eyes wide open to the danger of conviction, we also cannot ignore the danger of acquittal. The facts of this impeachment are well known, and many Republicans concede that they are likely true. They believe as I do, that President Trump pressured the Ukrainian President by withholding vital military aid and a prized White House visit in return for the announcement of an investigation of the Bidens and the Russian-concocted CrowdStrike fantasy. Some of these same Republicans acknowledge that what the President did was ``inappropriate.'' At least one has used the word ``impeachable.'' But many say they are still going to vote to acquit him regardless. So let's open our eyes to the morning after a judgment of acquittal. Facing a well-established election siege by Russia and other enemies of the United States, we, the Senate, will have absolved a President who continues to brazenly invite foreign interference in our elections. Expect more of the same. A majority of this body will have voted for the President's argument that inviting interference by a foreign government is not impeachable if it serves the President's personal political interests. We will also have found for the first time in the history of this Nation that an impeachment proceeding in the Senate can be conducted without any direct witnesses or evidence presented on either side of the case and that a President facing impeachment can ignore subpoenas to produce documents or witnesses to Congress. Alexander Hamilton described the Senate as the very best venue for an impeachment trial because it is ``independent and dignified,'' in his words. When the Senate voted 51 to 49 against witnesses and evidence, those 51 raised into question any claim to independence or dignity. In addition, an acquittal will leave the extreme views stated by the President's defense counsel Alan Dershowitz unchallenged: first, that abuse of power is not an impeachable offense; second, that the impeachment charges against the President were constitutionally insufficient; and, third, his most dangerous theory, that unless the President has committed an actual crime, his conduct cannot be corrupt or impeachable as long as he believes it was necessary for his reelection. By this logic, Professor Dershowitz would have excused Richard Nixon's ordering of IRS audits of his political enemies. Mr. Dershowitz has created an escape clause to impeachment, which is breathtaking in its impact and unfounded in our legal history. We have all received a letter signed by nearly 300 constitutional law scholars flatly rejecting the arguments offered by the President's defense team. I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record the scholars' letter.

Mr. DURBIN. Yet a verdict of acquittal by the Senate blesses the professor's torturous reasoning. An acquittal verdict would also give President Trump's personal attorney Rudy Giuliani a pat on the back to continue his global escapades, harassing American Ambassadors whose service he distrusts, and lounging at European cigar bars with an entourage of post-Soviet amigos. More than anything, a verdict of acquittal says a majority of the Senate believes this President is above the law and cannot be held accountable for conduct abusing the powers of his office. And make no mistake, this President believes that is true. On July 23--2 days before his phone call with President Zelensky-- President Trump spoke to a group of young supporters and he said: ``I have an Article II, where I have the right to do whatever I want as president.'' This is the dangerous principle that President Trump and his lawyers are asking us, with a verdict of acquittal, to accept. Under the oath I have sworn, I cannot. What does it say of this Congress and our Nation that in 3 years, we have become so anesthetized to outrage that, for a majority in this Senate, there is nothing--nothing--this President can do or say that rises to the level of blushworthy, let alone impeachable? Nearly 6 years ago, I traveled to Ukraine with a bipartisan group of Senate colleagues led by John McCain. It was one of John's whirlwind visits where we crammed 5 days' worth of meetings into 48 hours. We arrived in Kyiv on March 14, 2014. It was bitterly cold. Ukrainians had just ousted a corrupt, Russian-backed leader who looted the national treasury and hollowed out their nation's military. They had done so by taking to the streets, risking their lives for democracy and a better future. More than 100 ordinary citizens in Kyiv had been killed by security forces of the old government simply because they were protesting for democracy. Seeing Ukraine in a fragile democratic transition, Vladimir Putin pounced on them, ordered an invasion and occupied Crimea. Putin and his thinly disguised Russian thugs were on the verge of seizing Donetsk in the east. I asked the Prime Minister what Ukraine needed to defend itself. He said: Everything. We don't have anything that floats, flies or runs. Many may not appreciate how devastating Russia's war on Ukraine has been to that struggling young democracy. Their costly battle with Russia was for a principle that is really basic to America's national security as well. In a country with one-eighth of our population, more Ukrainian troops have died defending Ukraine from Russia than American troops have perished in Afghanistan. During the months President Trump illegally withheld military aid, as many as two dozen Ukrainian soldiers were killed in battle. By withholding security aid from Ukraine for President Trump's personal political benefit, he endangered the security of a fragile democracy. Can there be any deeper betrayal of a President's responsibility than to endanger our national security and the security of an ally for his own personal political gain? And to those of my colleagues who describe the President's conduct as merely ``inappropriate,'' I disagree. Disparaging John McCain's service to our country is disgusting and inappropriate. What this President has done to Ukraine crosses that line. It is impeachable. I will close by remembering two public servants who, like us, were called by history to judge a President. Tom Railsback passed away as this impeachment proceeding began. He was 2 days shy of his 88th birthday. I knew Tom. I considered him a friend. In 1974, Tom was a Republican Congressman from Moline, IL, and a member of the House Judiciary Committee. He regarded President Nixon as a political friend. He believed that Richard Nixon had achieved much for America, including the opening of the door to China. After studying the Watergate evidence closely, Congressman Railsback came to believe that Richard Nixon had violated the Constitution. When President Nixon refused to turn over records and recordings requested by Congress, Tom Railsback took to the House floor to say: ``If the Congress doesn't get the material we think we need and then votes to exonerate, we'll be regarded as a paper tiger.'' When he voted to impeach President Nixon, Tom believed it was probably the end of his career, but he was elected four more times. To his dying day, Tom Railsback was proud of his vote. He voted for his country above his party. Bill Cohen--also a Republican--was a freshman Congressman at the time and a member of the House Judiciary Committee. He studied the evidence with Tom Railsback and then worked with him to draft Articles of Impeachment. Bill Cohen received death threats, and he thought his votes to impeach President Nixon would be the end of his political career. But he went on to a distinguished career in the House, three terms in the Senate, and served as Secretary of Defense. Listen to what Bill Cohen said recently of President's Trump's actions: This is presidential conduct that you want to be ashamed of. He is corrupting institutions, politicizing the military, and acts like he is THE law. And then Cohen added: If [the President's conduct] is acceptable, we really don't have a Republic as we've known it any more. May I respectfully say to my Senate colleagues, Ben Franklin warned us of this day. I will vote guilty on both Articles of Impeachment against President Donald John Trump, on article I abuse of power and article II obstruction of Congress. But at this moment of high constitutional drama, I hope my last words can be a personal appeal to my Senate colleagues. Last night, many of us attended a State of the Union Address which was as emotionally charged as any I have ever attended. As divided as our Nation may be and as divided as the Senate may be, we should remember America has weathered greater storms than this impeachment and our current political standoff. It was Abraham Lincoln, in the darkness of our worst storm, who called on us ``to strive on to finish the work we are in, to work to bind the nation's wounds.'' After this vote and after this day, those of us who are entrusted with this high office must each do our part to work to bind the wounds of our divided nation. I hope we can leave this Chamber with that common resolve. I yield the floor.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. Chief Justice, now I send a question to the desk.

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. Chief Justice, I send a question to the desk.

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. Chief Justice, I send a question to the desk.