Richard Durbin

Mr. DURBIN

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

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

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. Madam President, I come to the floor of the Senate today at a moment that will be remembered in history. In just a few hours, the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court will come to this Chamber and will be sworn in as the Presiding Officer in the impeachment trial of President Donald John Trump. He will then administer an oath to each Member of the U.S. Senate. It is an oath that is included in our Senate manual. It is very brief, only 35 words, and it bears repeating for the record at this moment. Each Senator will be asked to make the following oath and affirmation: ``I solemnly swear that in all things appertaining to the trial of the impeachment of Donald John Trump, now pending, I will do impartial justice according to the Constitution and laws: so help me God.'' In just 35 words, that oath binds all of us--Republicans and Democrats--who swear by that oath to do impartial justice. The Founding Fathers, and others, could have been much more elaborate in describing the process we face, but in its simplicity, this oath really tells us what we will face in the coming days. I believe more than ever, starting on Tuesday, when the impeachment trial begins in earnest on the floor of the Senate, America will be watching. Many Americans have busy lives--personal, private, family, and professional--and don't tune in to the political events of the moment as many of us do, but I think more and more will be watching come Tuesday. They are going to see a historic moment, only the third time in history when a President of the United States faces impeachment. What will they find? Will they find an effort to do impartial justice? Will they find partisanship? Will they find a real trial? I think it is important for us to realize that a real trial includes evidence. As a lawyer, I brought many cases to trial, a few of them to verdict. I had to prepare my case, not just my theory of the law or statement of facts but proof, real proof that came from documents and witnesses. That is what a real trial is about. Unfortunately, on the other side, the majority leader has suggested we don't need witnesses and that it is only evidence of the weakness of the impeachment charges. I think he is wrong. As the Democratic leader said this morning, history will prove him wrong because in impeachment trial after impeachment trial, evidence and witnesses have been presented. That is the tradition and the precedent of the U.S. Senate. If there is an effort to short circuit that, to eliminate the witnesses and the evidence, I think it will be obvious to the American people who are following this what is underway. In this morning's newspapers, it was reported that the President's defense team has been ready, anxious, if you will, for this impeachment trial to begin and equally anxious to end it as quickly as possible. I hope they don't prevail in that sentiment because a race to judgment may not serve the cause of impartial justice. We believe that the House managers should be allowed to make their presentation, and they will, and the President's defense team, as well. We believe that Members of the Senate should hear those arguments and then proceed to consider any additional evidence. What kind of evidence may be relevant? As Senator Schumer, of New York, mentioned just a few minutes ago, it seems that every day there unfolds another chapter in this story. Every day we learn of the efforts of the President's self-described personal attorney, Rudolph Giuliani, to appeal directly to the leadership of Ukraine to initiate a political investigation of the Biden family, to serve President Trump's political interest in the 2020 Presidential campaign. We have also heard repeatedly on the floor that there have been no allegations of anything that was illegal or criminal on the part of the President. The standard in the Constitution for impeachment does not require the violation of a Federal crime. Our Constitution was written before any statutes creating Federal crimes had been created. Rather, the phrase ``high crimes and misdemeanors'' was used as a standard to be imposed on the President. But we just received information in the last 24 hours from the General Accountability Office, which does raise very serious concern about illegality of the President's action in withholding the funds appropriated by Congress to support the Ukrainian defense efforts against the invasion of Russian troops by Vladimir Putin and their country. As a Member of the Senate Appropriations Committee, ranking member of the Defense Subcommittee, I can recall when we, on a bipartisan basis, decided to provide additional assistance to Ukraine in the form of hundreds of millions of U.S. tax dollars so that they could defend themselves against the invasion of Vladimir Putin. That money was appropriated and we believed would be sent in a timely way to the Ukrainians to defend their own country. Little did we know that money would become part of the bargaining between President Trump and the President of Ukraine as to this political investigation. It turns out that money was withheld until the very last moment. In fact, as I was offering an amendment in the Senate Appropriations Committee, and I was told that the night before--late the night before--the President finally released the funds. Questions were raised by Senator Van Hollen to the Government Accountability Office as to whether or not it was legal or illegal for the administration to withhold those funds. We have now received the statement from the General Accountability Office. They have held that the President's withholding of funds to Ukraine violated Federal law. The Government Accountability Office has a sterling reputation as a nonpartisan watchdog with taxpayers' dollars. GAO's legal opinion today concludes that President Trump and his administration violated the law by putting a hold on military aid to Ukraine while that country was trying to defend itself against an invasion ordered by Vladimir Putin. This is an important ruling that deserves a thorough hearing in the impeachment trial. It should be part of the evidence of wrongdoing by the President, especially as it relates to the alleged abuse of power. I also hope this ruling will convince the administration to speed the additional delivery of $250 million in military aid, which the Congress has also sent to Ukraine. I am going to yield the floor because I know one of my colleagues is coming to speak. In just a few hours, this Chamber will be transformed. As we noted yesterday, at about 5:38 p.m., when the clerk of the House arrived with the Articles of Impeachment, there was a change in the atmosphere and environment of this Chamber, and I can sense it even today. We realize we are only moments away from a historic meeting of this Chamber on the issue of Presidential impeachment. When we take that oath of office, each and every one of us, swearing impartial justice, we need to remember that not only is America watching but history will hold us accountable. I yield the floor.

Mr. DURBIN

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

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, before I make remarks on a different issue, I would like to address comments made this morning by the majority leader, the Senator from Kentucky. The first related, as most of his comments recently, to the pending impeachment trial in the U.S. Senate. I listened carefully to his arguments that the House and the Senate have moved too quickly on this matter. It is true that they moved with dispatch, and I think it reflects the fact that the charges that have been made were timely, important, and relevant to the election campaign cycle which we now face. The charges in the Articles of Impeachment suggest the President, in conversation with the President of Ukraine, asked for help in the campaign that is about to ensue, asking specifically for investigative material on the son of former Vice President Joseph Biden. At the same time, the President was withholding military assistance voted by the Appropriations Committee in Congress to Ukraine as they continue to battle with Russia. These are serious charges, and they were based on a telephone conversation last July. It is true that the effort by the House of Representatives has been timely and, by measurement of previous impeachment investigations, much faster, but I believe that the timeliness is one of the important elements here because we are facing this campaign. Secondly, there was an argument made by the majority leader that the Articles of Impeachment which we are about to receive in the Senate do not state that a crime was committed. I would refer the majority leader to the Constitution as well as to precedent in the U.S. Senate. The actual allegation of a crime is not required for an impeachment. I think the Senator from Kentucky knows that. The last point he makes is one that I think is very important, and that is that there has been some delay by Speaker Pelosi in sending the Articles of Impeachment to the U.S. Senate. I would say, during the course of the period since they were first voted on last December in the House and their arrival in the Senate this week, we have seen several things of importance unfold, not the least of which was a recent disclosure of new witnesses and new evidence that has have been collected since the House voted on the Articles of Impeachment. In the eyes of many, it is relevant evidence, and the fact that that information is now available to the Senate means we have a better chance of arriving at the truth after deliberation. Secondly, I might add it is encouraging that some Republican Members of the U.S. Senate have made it clear that they oppose the notion of a motion to dismiss the impeachment charges as soon as they arrive. That might have been the dream of some in the White House--and perhaps even some in the U.S. Senate--but cooler heads have prevailed, and I salute my colleagues on both sides of the aisle who believe we have a special responsibility to treat this constitutional assignment with independence and dignity. That means we don't prejudge by coming to the floor and announcing, in some critical terms, that the Articles of Impeachment should not be taken seriously. We should take them seriously. It is a serious matter. I hope colleagues on both sides of the aisle will do that.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, this week the House of Representatives will have the opportunity to stand up for student borrowers who have been defrauded by the schools they attended. The House of Representatives will be voting on a resolution introduced by Representative Susie Lee of Nevada which will allow defrauded student loan borrowers relief from their student debt. Under the Higher Education Act, currently the law of the land, when a student borrower is defrauded by their school, they are entitled to have their Federal student loans to attend that school discharged. That is what Congress intended. Why? The logic behind it is very straightforward. Consider the following: The Federal Government recognizes the accreditation of these schools, colleges, and universities. That accreditation authorizes these schools to offer loans from the Federal Government to pay for the cost of attending. It is a very straightforward process. The schools are accredited. The U.S. Government recognizes the accreditation which authorizes the school to offer courses to students, and then it goes on to say that students attending those colleges and universities will qualify for Federal student loans. Now, that is where this particular statement I am about to make becomes particularly relevant. The school makes promises about the education they are going to offer to the students to entice them to attend and to borrow money to attend. For example, the school may tell the students that the credits they earn at this school can be transferred to other schools, but sometimes that turns out to be untrue and false. These schools may tell the students there are jobs waiting for them in the fields that they want them to study at the schools. They tell them that, after graduation, there are plenty of employment opportunities, and oftentimes that turns out to be untrue. In fact, in the case of some of these schools, they have deliberately misrepresented the job placement of graduates to create the impression of success if you complete a course. The schools are lying to the students. The school may also promise that, if you complete a course at the school, you will automatically be qualified for certain certifications under State law. Sometimes that turns out to be a lie. They may also tell the students there are certain teachers and courses available to them if they pay their tuition, and that may turn out to be untrue as well. The law I referred to earlier is intended, when these types of lies and misrepresentations occur and the student is misled into borrowing Federal student loans based on these misrepresentations, to give the defrauded student the right to be relieved of the student loan responsibility under the law. It makes sense. If the student is lied to, takes out a Federal loan, and it turns out the school lied to them and defrauded them, we don't want the students saddled with a loan from that school that could literally change their lives. Now we have a new Secretary of Education under President Trump, Betsy DeVos. She has decided to rewrite the rules when it comes to these students receiving relief from the fraud I have just described. She places burdens on these students that we have not seen before. Basically, she is saying to the students: Lawyer up. You just can't make your plea to the Department of Education that you, along with a group of other students, were defrauded by representations in the materials they distributed or the statements they made--not good enough under the new rule written by Secretary DeVos. What she has basically said is that each one of these students now has an individual responsibility to prove that that student was defrauded, that there was a representation to that student as opposed to it being made by the school to all of the students or in its publications and the like. The burdens which Secretary DeVos now places on defrauded students have led to estimates that only 3 percent of the students who have been defrauded can possibly expect to receive relief from their student debt--3 percent. You might say: Well, these things happen. It is a ``buyer beware'' market. Students ought to know better. Really? When the Federal Government recognizes an accredited school and says to that school: You can offer Federal student loans, do we not bear some responsibility to the student and the family if that school lies and misrepresents facts to the students? Well, 78 percent of Americans happen to think, yes, we don't want to have students in a predicament where their own futures are going to be somehow compromised because of the fraud by the school. How many students are affected by this? A handful? No. It turns out, a dramatically large number. Over the last decade, tens of thousands of college students in America have been defrauded in ways I just described, lured into enrolling in classes with false promises and aggressive tactics, only to be left with massive student debt and a worthless education and no job. Sadly, it is a common occurrence in the for-profit college industry. That industry, the for-profit college industry, is an industry that can be best described by two numbers. Nine percent of postsecondary students are enrolled in for-profit colleges and universities in America. Think about the University of Phoenix, DeVry, and others. Nine percent of students end up in schools like that. Yet 33 percent of all the federal student loan defaults are students from these for-profit colleges and universities--9 percent of the students, 33 percent of the student loan defaults. Why? The tuition is too high; the education is virtually worthless; and there are no jobs at the end of the rainbow. Some of these schools--for-profit colleges like Corinthian, ITT Tech, Westwood, Dream Center--preyed on students, reaped huge profits, and then conveniently went bankrupt. They may be gone, legally gone, but the debts for the students still live. Others, such as Ashford, University of Phoenix, Career Education Corporation, are still out there doing business. Virtually, all of these notorious schools have been the subject of multiple State and local investigations or lawsuits for unfair, deceptive, and abusive practices. Unfortunately, they continue to create more student victims due to the lack of enforcement by our own U.S. Department of Education and loopholes in the laws, which, sadly, Congress has been unable or unwilling to close. Currently, there are more than 223,000 claims made by students of being defrauded and seeking relief under the Higher Education Act--over 200,000 student borrowers whose lives have been collared by student loan debt from these worthless, defrauding schools. The claims--223,000 of them--come from every State in the Union, big and small, red, blue, and purple. There are over 11,000 from my State of Illinois; over 19,000 from the State of Florida; 7,800 from Ohio; 6,100 from North Carolina; 3,800 from Colorado; 1,000 from the State of West Virginia; 385 in Maine; and more than 200 in Alaska. The American people believe these defrauded student borrowers and future defrauded borrowers deserve help. According to a poll by New America, 78 percent of Americans believe students should have their Federal student loans forgiven if their schools defrauded them. That includes 87 percent of Democrats and 71 percent of Republicans who feel that way. This new rule by Secretary DeVos would not allow borrowers to receive the Federal student loan discharge currently in the law. It is why more than 60 organizations are supporting the resolution, which the House will vote on this week, and the companion resolution I have introduced in the Senate. Among those supporting our effort are the American Federation of Teachers, the National Education Association, the Student Veterans of America--and one that I want to highlight. I see there are others on the floor preparing to speak, so I am going to abbreviate my remarks, but I want to make one last point. Among the groups supporting our efforts to undo the borrower defense rule, promulgated by Secretary of Education DeVos, is the American Legion. The American Legion sent me a letter last month, and, in support of our effort to undo the DeVos rule, they said, among other things, that the rule is fundamentally unfair to veterans. Listen to what they say about the plight of veterans having been defrauded by schools, trying to get relief from their loans. This is from James ``Bill'' Oxford, national commander of the American Legion. He writes: Thousands of student veterans have been defrauded over the years--promised their credits would transfer when they wouldn't, given false or misleading job placement rates in marketing, promised one educational experience when they were recruited, but given something completely different. This type of deception against our veterans and servicemembers has been a lucrative scam for unscrupulous actors. As veterans are aggressively targeted due to their service to our country, they must be afforded the right to group relief. The Department of Education's ``Borrower Defense'' rule eliminates this right. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record the letter dated December 18, 2019.

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I have an additional letter from 20 State attorneys general led by the Commonwealth of Massachusetts Office of the Attorney General. I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record the letter dated January 14, 2020.

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, along with Attorney General Kwame Raoul of Illinois and others, signers include the attorneys general of Maine, Iowa, Pennsylvania, and North Carolina. In their letter, these chief state law enforcement officers write: In issuing the 2019 rule, the Department has abdicated its Congressionally-mandated responsibility to protect students and taxpayers from the misconduct of unscrupulous schools. The rule provides no realistic prospect for borrowers to discharge their loans when they have been defrauded by predatory for-profit schools . . . if this rule goes into effect, the result will be disastrous for students while providing a windfall to abusive schools. Senators are going to get a chance--Democrats and Republicans--to undo the mess created by the Secretary of Education. Senators will get a chance to stand up for the student loan borrowers who have been defrauded and, equally important, a chance to stand up for our veterans. How many speeches have been delivered on this floor about the men and women in uniform and those who have served and how much we honor them? Honor them by standing with the American Legion and vote to undo the borrower defense rule of Secretary DeVos. I yield the floor.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, the majority leader, Senator McConnell, also addressed the USMCA. This is characterized as the NAFTA-2 or ``the new trade agreement'' between the United States, Canada, and Mexico. As he noted, trade among our three countries is critically important to all of us and, certainly, to the American economy and to my home State of Illinois. Our trade with Mexico and Canada eclipses all the other trade around the world and is important, especially, to our agricultural sector. Just last weekend, in my hometown of Springfield, IL, I held a historic press conference. I brought together the President of the Illinois State AFL-CIO, Tim Drea of Christian County in Central Illinois, and Dick Guebert, who is the president of the Illinois Farm Bureau, both of whom, through their organizations, support the USMCA trade agreement that is about to come before Congress. There were a lot of smiles and laughter in the room as these two friends of mine noted that it is the very first time they have ever come together at a press conference: organized labor and the farmers of the State of Illinois. They both agree that this USMCA trade agreement is a step forward, an improvement over the original NAFTA. They both endorse it, and I do too. I also want to add that the suggestion that somehow Speaker Pelosi, in the words of the majority leader, slow-walked the USMCA really, in a way, ignores the obvious. In the period of time between the original submission of the USMCA and the vote that will take place soon in the U.S. Senate, changes have been made to the trade agreement which the President submitted to Congress--important changes. For example, there was a provision in the trade agreement submitted by the President to Congress that was a dream come true for the pharmaceutical industry of the United States. It extended the period of time of exclusivity for certain biological drugs in that treaty. What it meant was that these pharmaceutical companies could continue to charge the highest prices on Earth to American consumers while delaying any competition from generic drugs. That was a deal-breaker, as far as I was concerned. I told everyone involved I would not support the President's original USMCA with that sweetheart deal for the pharmaceutical industry. Thank goodness, because of Speaker Pelosi; our leader on the Senate side, Senator Schumer; and many others, we had that provision removed. Now the majority leader is criticizing Speaker Pelosi for slow-walking. I don't see it as slow-walking. I see it as bargaining, negotiating, and coming up with the result which made this trade agreement more acceptable to people on both sides of the aisle. There was also language which the Democrats insisted on ultimately included in the USMCA, which provides additional protection for workers in the United States when it comes to the competition with workers in Mexico and Canada, which provides for additional inspections of production facilities in those other countries if there is a suspicion that they are engaging in the treatment of workers in an unacceptable manner. In other words, we put more enforcement provisions in the treaty over the last year while it has been before Congress, as we should--exactly what the American people want. For the Senator to come to the floor and criticize this as somehow negative and political and slow-walking--I think those two things I have just mentioned are substantive and important and go to the heart of why this agreement now has strong bipartisan support, which it should have had. I think we have added to this process by making it truly bipartisan.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. Madam President, the Senate as it is currently meeting is in the normal course of business, but in just a few days, this Senate Chamber will change. It will no longer be the Senate considering resolutions and legislation; it will be a Senate considering an impeachment proceeding. It will be a piece of history for those who watch. This will be only the third time in the history of the United States of America that the Senate will be convening for an impeachment proceeding relative to the President of the United States. It is a matter of the most serious constitutional gravity, and I hope all of us as Members of the Senate will consider it and approach it that way. Under the Constitution, we have a unique role as Members of the Senate. We are the jurors; we are the jury. There are 100 Senators who will decide whether the Articles of Impeachment should be voted on and whether the impeachment of the President of the United States should proceed. We are also in a unique role under the Constitution in that we aren't just jurors sitting silently in the jury box. We are also judges in one respect. We set up the procedure, the way the trial moves forward. Before I was elected to Congress, I used to practice trial law, and jurors had the ultimate word in terms of the fate of my clients, but the jurors didn't decide the procedure of the trial. That was decided by a judge. When it comes to an impeachment proceeding under the Constitution, the actual process or the procedure of the impeachment trial is decided by the jurors, the Senators. It is very unusual, but it was a decision made by our Founding Fathers to put this ultimate test of impeachment in the hands of the Senators. Why pick the Senate? It could have gone to the Supreme Court or some other tribunal. Alexander Hamilton said that there were two reasons they wanted to bring the impeachment trial to the floor of the Senate. He said that the Senators, by their nature and political composition, would be ``independent and dignified''--his words, ``independent and dignified.'' I hope he is right. I was here 20 years ago during the Clinton impeachment trial, and I can remember very well how the temperament and mood and environment on the floor of the Senate changed when the impeachment proceedings began. There was the arrival of the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court in his judicial role to sit where the current Presiding Officer of the Senate is sitting and to preside over the trial. Instantly, when you walked into the Chamber and saw the Chief Justice, you knew this was different. This was a new challenge. This was being treated differently by the Constitution. Then, of course, each of us, having been sworn in to be Senators representing the States that sent us, take a separate oath when it comes to our responsibilities under impeachment. That oath is fairly routine, but it includes one phrase that stands out when I read it. We swear that we will impart ``impartial justice'' as impeachment jurors-- impartial justice. We hold up our hands and swear. We sign the book on the desk at the front of the Senate, as a matter of history, that we have made this oath for impartial justice. That is why I have been troubled, as we lead up to this impeachment proceeding, when I hear some of the statements and speeches that have been made on the floor of the Senate. The Republican leader from Kentucky said very openly several weeks ago that he was going to work with the President's defense team to prepare for how he would handle the impeachment proceedings in the Senate. I understand there are some elements of this that just make sense that there would be conversation with the managers of the impeachment as to the procedure to be followed. But what we have heard, even today, on the floor of the Senate is more than just cooperation in setting up the workings of the impeachment proceeding. What we have heard from the Republican majority leader is nothing short of an opening statement at a trial. He has come to the floor even today to question, challenge, diminish, even ridicule the entire impeachment proceeding. To me, that steps over a line--a line where we were sworn to show impartial justice in this proceeding. When the Senator from Kentucky comes to the floor and says, for example, that this is a hurried process, he raises the question as to whether the impeachment proceedings in the House were appropriate. He is correct when he says that the previous impeachments have had lengthy investigations leading up to them. In fact, one I recall before I was elected to Congress involving President Nixon went on for months on questions of the Watergate scandal, which was at the heart of the proposed Nixon impeachment. There were special prosecutors and investigators and people who worked constantly for month after month after month before the Articles of Impeachment were being prepared. You may recall that President Nixon resigned before the actual impeachment proceeding. But, then again, there was the Ken Starr investigation under President Clinton. It, too, went on for months with sworn testimony and depositions and videotaped proceedings of witnesses that led up to the impeachment. This is different. The case is being brought to us by the House of Representatives for the impeachment of President Trump. It is true that in comparison it had a shorter investigative process, shorter than the two I just referenced. But it is also true that the second count of the Articles of Impeachment raises the question as to whether the President cooperated in providing witnesses and evidence that led to the Articles of Impeachment in the House, and that is one of the counts of impeachment against him--that he didn't participate and cooperate. For the Senator from Kentucky to stand here and say that it should have been a lengthier proceeding in the House--there should have been more witnesses; there should have been more evidence--is to ignore the obvious. One of the counts of impeachment raises the question as to whether the President appropriately denied any cooperation with the House impeachment proceeding. Secondly, the Senator from Kentucky comes to the floor and consistently says that the suggestion that we should allow witnesses and evidence to be considered is evidence of the weakness of the case coming out of the House of Representatives. Well, there aren't an exact number of parallels between ordinary civil and criminal litigation and impeachment proceedings, but in the world of law and trials, there is usually an opening pleading or proceeding through a grand jury that leads to charges against an individual. I have been through that many times on the civil side--rarely, but once in a while, on the criminal side. The trial itself takes that initial pleading, that initial statement of a case, and elaborates on it, opens up, brings in evidence and witnesses on both sides. When we talk about witnesses and evidence coming before the Senate on any impeachment proceeding with President Trump, it isn't just on one side of the case. What we are suggesting is there should be witnesses from both sides. Let the President bring those who he believes can speak most convincingly to his innocence. Let the House managers supporting impeachment take the opposite position and find those witnesses who they think tell the story from their side of the case. That is the nature of a trial. The American people have seen it over and over again in their personal lives and in what they have witnessed on television and other places. Both sides put on their best evidence, and, ultimately, the jury decides the truth of the matter. That is all the Democrats are asking for here. We are asking that the impeachment proceeding witnesses be allowed on both sides, evidence be allowed on both sides, and, ultimately, as Senator Schumer said earlier, we get to the truth of the matter; we make our decision in the Senate; and the American people get to witness this democratic process. Senator McConnell has said in many different places that he resists this idea of witnesses and evidence, but I hope he will reconsider. I hope at least four Republican Senators will reconsider--if they are in Senator McConnell's position--and opt, instead, for the historic precedent of witnesses and evidence at a trial. The Senate will change this week. If you are witnessing it through C- SPAN or in the audience in the Galleries, you will notice it. First, the Senators will be on the floor of the Senate, which is rare, and second, with the Chief Justice presiding, there is a much different air in the proceedings and business of the Senate. The final point I want to make is that I am troubled by the continued suggestion that the prospect of an impeachment trial is holding the Senate hostage, that we cannot consider serious legislation because of the possibility of an impeachment trial. It is true that once the trial starts, we devote ourselves to it. But that hasn't happened. So how do the leaders of the Senate on the Republican side explain the year 2019? It was a unique year in the history of the Senate. It was unique for what we failed to do. During the course of the entire year, the Senate considered 22 amendments total. There were 22 amendments on the floor of the Senate. Six were offered by the junior Senator from Kentucky, all of which, I believe, failed. But there were 22 amendments in a year. I can tell you that it is not unusual if you look at the history of the Senate for us to consider 22 amendments in the course of a week, sometimes in the course of a day. But in the entire year, there were only 22 amendments. Why? Because Senator McConnell, who has the power under the Senate rules, decided there would be no business before the Senate but for the filling of judicial vacancies and other Executive appointments. That was it. A handful of other pieces of legislation were considered--the Defense authorization bill and, finally, a massive spending bill--but never with amendments. So to suggest that the impeachment trial has something to do with the inactivity in the Senate is to ignore the obvious. Last year, before there were any Articles of Impeachment, Senator McConnell, under his leadership, called for virtually nothing to be debated and considered on the floor of the Senate. I have said this before, and I stand by it. This is a Senate Chamber, but too many days, in too many respects, it is a storage facility. We are storing the desks of the Senate, once occupied by Senators who came here to work. They offered bills, offered amendments, had real debates and votes. We look at these desks and say: Boy, it must have been a great day in the Senate when you actually did that. For the Republicans to blame the impeachment process for the inactivity of last year defies common sense. For that reason, I hope that when the impeachment trial ends, Senator McConnell of Kentucky, the Republican majority leader, will consider at least 1 of the more than 200 bills that the Democratic House of Representatives has sent us to consider--bills relating to healthcare, bills relating to the price of prescription drugs, bills relating to student loans, bills relating to immigration. They are all sitting somewhere in a file cabinet and a computer somewhere in Senator McConnell's office. Maybe we can be the Senate after the impeachment trial. It is in the hands of Senator McConnell to make that decision.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from New Jersey (Mr. Booker), the Senator from Minnesota (Ms. Klobuchar), the Senator from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey), the Senator from Connecticut (Mr. Murphy), the Senator from Vermont (Mr. Sanders), and the Senator from Massachusetts (Ms. Warren) are 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 was necessarily absent for rollcall vote No. 11, the motion to invoke cloture on the nomination of Peter Gaynor to be Administrator of the Federal Management Agency. Had I been present for the vote, I would have voted yea.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from New Jersey (Mr. Booker) and the Senator from Massachusetts (Ms. Warren) are necessarily absent.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from New Jersey (Mr. Booker), the Senator from Vermont (Mr. Sanders), and the Senator from Massachusetts (Ms. Warren) are necessarily absent.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, last night Iran fired more than a dozen ballistic missiles at two military bases in Iraq where American troops were based. It was a brazen escalation with dangerous implications for the United States and the world. We are fortunate. As of today, at this moment, none of our personnel have been reported to have been harmed, but the outrageous act was a clear and unsurprising retaliation to President Trump's killing of Iranian General Soleimani. Our first order of business must be the safety of our military and civilian personnel in Iraq and the region, and I call on the Trump administration to make that the highest priority. Another immediate requirement is that the Congress step up and play one of the most important and long-neglected constitutional roles that we can envision. Article I, section 8, of the U.S. Constitution is clear in stating that the power to declare war is an explicit authority and power of Congress, as it should be. One should never send our sons and daughters into conflict without the knowledge and consent of the American people. Our Founding Fathers were wise in making sure that this awesome power did not rest with a King-like leader but with the people's elected representatives. I have made this same argument regardless of whether the occupant of the White House was a Democrat or a Republican. Some have had the audacity to argue that the 2001 authorization for the use of military force approved by this Congress to respond to the September 11, 2001, attacks or the 2002 AUMF, the war with Iraq, apply to the situation today in Iran. That is clearly wrong. Let me be clear. I cannot imagine that anyone--anyone--who took either of those votes nearly 20 years ago--and I was here at that time--thought that they were approving a war with Iran two decades later. I certainly didn't. This Congress should not be a troubling rubberstamp for President Trump's worst instincts by marching into another war in the Middle East. Simply, it is time for Members of this important body to show some courage and do their constitutional jobs. If you want a war with Iran, step up and face your constituents and record your vote accordingly. The War Powers Resolution I filed last week, with the leadership of Senator Tim Kaine of Virginia, will be a first step regarding Congress's role in any conflict with Iran but not a last step. Ultimately, this President cannot start a war with Iran without the approval, under the Constitution, of Congress, and the Republican leadership should not roll over and play the role of lapdog when it comes to such a serious, life-and-death matter. Tragically, this escalation with Iran--and the heightened risk to our personnel and security interests--was entirely predictable, except, it appears, to President Trump and Secretary Pompeo. The question was never the simplistic canard over whether killing Soleimani, a genuinely loathsome terrorist actor, was warranted or not, but, clearly, whether taking him off the face of the Earth was in the best interest of the United States. Would such an act really advance the cause and interest and policies of our country or precipitate another war in the Middle East? The answer is increasingly upon us, and we here must debate this crisis before President Trump drags us even closer to this precipice. Mr. President, sadly, President Trump's erratic and incoherent policies toward Iran have greatly contributed to the current crisis. Before taking office, Iran's nuclear weapons program was halted in a historic agreement President Obama negotiated in cooperation with our European allies, China, and Russia. Iran continued its malign behaviors in the region, but containing them was much easier without the threat of a nuclear bomb. President Trump petulantly withdrew from the nuclear agreement and tried to starve Iran of benefits it was to receive from that deal. He pursued an incomprehensible erratic policy of regime change by trying to flatter and meet with Iranian President Rouhani to negotiate a supposedly better deal . . . threating Iran militarily . . . and tightening sanctions. Those efforts were going nowhere. Iran was lashing out at American interests, we were alienated from our key allies, and Iran inched closer to restarting its nuclear program. And in just the last week alone, President Trump's impulsive actions managed to reverse the recent Iraqi protest sentiment that wanted Iran to stop meddling in its politics, leading instead to a vote this weekend in the Iraqi parliament to expel all U.S. forces. Similarly, after months of anti-government protests in Iran, he almost instantaneously united Iranian public opinion in hostility toward the U.S. Iran now announced it is restarting its nuclear program and our interests around the region are on high alert and are at risk from further Iranian attack for considerable time to come. Tragically, all President Trump has to show for his foolish, quote, ``maximum pressure'' campaign is an enflamed region, attacks on our personnel, the U.S. military potentially being evicted from Iraq, greater U.S. troop deployments to the Middle East, and an America less safe and on the brink of war. Most certainly not ``all is well.'' Have we learned nothing from the thousands of lost lives and injuries and trillions of dollars spent on the war in Iraq--a war sold to this country on false pretenses? Are we going to be led to yet such another fiasco by some of the same voices around President Trump who have yet to account for their failures in their disastrous war in Iraq? Will my Republican colleagues finally show some backbone to an unchecked, uninformed, and untrusted President about to bumble into another war in the Middle East? For the sakes of the sons and daughters who would be sent to any war with Iran, I certainly hope so. I see that my colleague from Illinois is here and has asked for permission to speak on the floor. I yield the floor.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from New Jersey (Mr. Booker), 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 New Jersey (Mr. Booker), 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 New Jersey (Mr. Booker), the Senator from Vermont (Mr. Sanders), and the Senator from Massachusetts (Ms. Warren) are necessarily absent.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I listened carefully to the comments by my colleague from Texas, Senator Cornyn, when he talked about impeachment purgatory and the fact that the Senate is unable to act on critical legislation--many bills that have already passed the House of Representatives--because of the impeachment proceedings. Well, the impeachment proceedings have not started in the U.S. Senate. So what is the excuse? Was it the impeachment proceeding that stopped us from considering one bill in the Senate this week? Was it the impeachment proceeding that stopped us from considering one bill in the Senate last week? No, it was the conscious decision of the Senate majority leader, Senator McConnell, the Republican leader, with the Republican majority, not to call a single piece of legislation in the last 2 weeks. There shouldn't be any surprise among the membership that we did nothing in the last 2 weeks other than a few garden-variety nominations. The fact is, we have done nothing for a long time under Senator McConnell's leadership. Do you know, for the record, how many amendments were actually debated on the floor of the U.S. Senate last year in the entire calendar year? Twenty-two. Twenty-two amendments, six offered by the junior Senator from Kentucky. If I am not mistaken, all of them were defeated, but the point I am trying to make is, 22 amendments in 1 year and now the Republican majority is blaming Speaker Pelosi and the impeachment proceedings for the fact that we do nothing. It doesn't make sense, and it doesn't add up. We are doing nothing because that is the strategy of Senator McConnell. The House of Representatives has passed hundreds--not a dozen, hundreds--of bills for the Senate to consider, on every imaginable topic: issues relating to healthcare, which we heard about from the Senator from Texas; issues relating to immigration. The litany is long. Within that litany, you would think that Senator McConnell could find one bill--just one--from the House of Representatives to debate on the floor of the U.S. Senate, but we don't do that in the Senate. We no longer debate under Senator McConnell's leadership. Some people look at this room and call it the Senate Chamber. That is true; it is the Senate Chamber. Now, sadly, it is more the Senate storage facility. We store on the floor of the Senate Chamber the desks of former Senators who actually legislated on the floor of the Senate. It is not a museum because there is still some active business underway, but it is a storage facility. These desks, if they could only speak, would tell the stories of men and women who stood up on the floor and debated critical issues. I was here for some of it. Issues of war and peace--we don't take those up anymore. If a President wants to go to war in Iran, obviously, his party thinks that we shouldn't interfere with his thought process, though the Constitution states clearly we are supposed to interfere. Congress has the authority, under the Constitution, to declare war. When issues would come up before us--important issues--in the past, we would debate them at length, whether it was health insurance for Americans, whether we were talking about questions of the disabled in America being active participants in our society, a time when Senators from both sides of the aisle stood up in this Chamber and, in a lengthy debate, passed the Americans with Disabilities Act. One was Senator Bob Dole, a disabled veteran from World War II and Republican leader; another was Tom Harkin, a Democrat from Iowa. The two of them had a bipartisan measure and a real fulsome debate that doesn't happen on this floor of this Senate Chamber anymore. For Senators to come here and blame Nancy Pelosi, the Speaker of the House, for our inactivity is laughable. We have failed to move forward because the leadership does not want to call the bill. Senator McConnell has the authority to decide what we will debate on the floor of the U.S. Senate, and he has decided we will debate nothing--nothing. What a wasted opportunity. If America was just picture-perfect from sea to shining sea, you would say: Well, there is no reason. We don't need a Senate or a House. We know better. There are important issues we should address, issues related to challenges facing families across America; issues of the mounting student debt across this country and what it has meant to hundreds of thousands of young people and their future; the issues involving gun violence in this country, where we still have mass killings yet can't even pass one bill to keep guns out of the hands of convicted felons and people who are mentally unstable; the issue of healthcare. I certainly agree with the Senator from Texas when it comes to the cost of prescription drugs, the No. 1 concern of families across this country. All Senator Schumer has asked for is that we bring this measure to the floor and let Senator Cornyn's good idea be brought to the floor with Senator Durbin's good idea--and perhaps other Senators' good ideas--and actually have a debate right here on the floor of the Senate. It would be amazing. People would be tuned in all across America saying: You can't imagine; the Senate is alive; it is actually considering measures. Although, we don't. Twenty-two amendments in one calendar year--it is just amazing that we have reached that point.

Mr. DURBIN

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

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. Let me read one paragraph from Commander Oxford: As veterans are aggressively targeted due to their service to our country, they must be afforded the right to group relief. The Department of Education's ``Borrower Defense'' rule eliminates this right, forcing veterans to individually prove their claim, share the specific type of financial harm they suffered, and prove the school knowingly made substantial misrepresentations. The preponderance of evidence required for this process is so onerous that the Department of Education itself estimated that only 3 percent of applicants would get relief. Whether you are a Democrat or Republican, don't go waving that flag and tell everybody how much you love our veterans and ignore this letter. The leader of the largest veterans group in the United States of America--a nonpartisan group--told us these schools exploited veterans, and Secretary DeVos's new rule means that these veterans will never get relief. Ninety-seven percent will never get any relief. In a matter of a few days--maybe weeks--I will be calling this matter to the floor. I am asking my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to put the party labels outside, hang them up in the cloakroom, come on inside here, and stand up for students across America who did their best to get a college education and were deceived in the process, stand up for students who were loaded up with student debt, which could destroy their lives, and give them a fighting chance for a future by saying that Secretary DeVos's borrower defense rule is unfair to veterans, unfair to students, and unfair to American families. I ask my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to do the right thing when the time comes and give these borrowers a second chance at being financially independent Americans who can contribute to their families and our national economic growth. For our veterans, please join me in making sure that Secretary DeVos's borrower defense rule is disapproved by both the House and the Senate. I yield the floor.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. Madam President, this morning, the Republican majority leader took to the floor and spoke at great length about the execution of General Soleimani. General Soleimani, who was the head of the military forces in Iran, was killed by a drone strike at the authorization of the President of the United States, Donald Trump. Senator McConnell, this morning, made a lengthy case about the background of General Soleimani. It is hard to argue with the facts he brought to the floor. In fact, I would concede and most would agree that General Soleimani, in his time, was an architect of terrorism and that, in the course of his career, there has been American blood on his hands. That is fact, but it wasn't a fact just discovered in the last few weeks. The Presidents of both political parties have known this about General Soleimani for a long period of time. They have had opportunities to end his life, yet they didn't seize those opportunities. Presidents of both parties decided it was prudent not to do it. The question that has been raised now is why this President, at this moment, made the decision to execute the general. We know this general and his past activity have had an impact not only on the United States but on the Middle East and many other innocent people. The question that has been raised is, Why at this moment? Why did it make sense at this moment? But for a few Members of the Senate, most of us have not had extensive briefings or an opportunity to ask questions of this administration about the timing of this critical decision. We will get our chance tomorrow. There is a classified briefing in which representatives at the highest level of this administration will come before us and explain why they believe the President's decision at that moment was the right thing to do for America. So many of those who come to the floor and defend the decision or criticize those who question that decision really have not had the benefit of a classified briefing, which will be offered to Members tomorrow. I am going to withhold any comments about those elements, as much as I can possibly say publicly, until I get the chance to have more information. But this much I do know: Regardless of that decision on General Soleimani, we know for certain the Constitution of the United States empowers the American people, through their elected Representatives in the Senate and the House, to make the ultimate decision about whether the United States will go to war with Iran or any other country on Earth. We have learned, bitterly, that the ignorance or refusal of Congress to exercise that constitutional right can be disastrous. Many of us have memories of the war in Vietnam, where 58,000 American lives were lost, 2 million Vietnamese were killed, and $170 billion-- now, in today's terms, $1 trillion--was spent on a conflict that divided America and cost so many American lives. Congress did not exercise the authority given to it under the Constitution to make the initial decision about that war in Vietnam. Many times thereafter, people said: Why didn't you step up and make the decision before this costly mistake was made? If there is to be a war with Iran, I join with Senator Kaine of Virginia in saying that the American people, once again, need to make this decision under the Constitution through Congress, article I, section 8, which provides, in clause 11, that only Congress has the power to declare war. If we are going to proceed down a path to war with Iran, the American people have the right to know and the right to hear the fulsome debate. In the time I have served in the Senate, I have seen Presidents in the past who have come before the American people with flimsy evidence or even misleading evidence to justify military action. I know the bitter consequences of war. Even the best American troops are going to suffer casualties and deaths in the execution of a war. Let us make certain that if we are going to move forward with hostilities against Iran, we do it under our constitutional requirement to have a fulsome debate before the American people and have an official declaration of war before we move forward. We owe the American people nothing less.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from New Jersey (Mr. Booker), the Senator from Maryland (Mr. Cardin), 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. Madam President, I thank the Senator from Virginia for his clarion call for the U.S. Senate to assert its constitutional responsibility when it comes to the prospect of a war with Iran. He has referenced, many times, the War Powers Act. The War Powers Act, students of history will remember, was passed by the U.S. Congress after the end of the Vietnam war so Congress would assert, with specificity, its authority when it came to the execution of a war. The President at the time, Richard Nixon, opposed the War Powers Act and vetoed it, and because of what the United States had endured during the course of the Vietnam war, Congress overrode the veto of President Nixon to make it clear, with the War Powers Act, that we would never ever, by design, find ourselves in the same moral predicament we did with the war in Vietnam. Almost 50,000 American lives were lost in that war in Vietnam, a war which was not a declared war under the Constitution but one which still exacted a heavy, incalculable price on American families--families I know and everyone knows, whose lives were touched by that Vietnam war, whose sons and daughters may have served or may have given their lives in service. The decision was made in Congress never again. We are not going to let this happen again. We are not going to find ourselves backsliding into a war. The American people, through their elected men and women representing them in Congress, will make the decision as to whether it is time for us to go to war and will make the decision as to whether our men and women in uniform are going to risk their lives at war. The decision will be made by the American people through their elected representatives in Congress. It was not a novel idea. We find it in this little Constitution, which we are all handed when we take the oath of office. As Senator Kaine from Virginia has noted, article I, section 8, in just a few words, says: The Congress shall have the power to declare war. It is not equivocal. There are no footnotes, asterisks, or question marks. The Congress shall have the authority to declare war. Now, at this moment in time, with the assassination of General Soleimani and the escalation of the conflict between the United States and Iran, Senator Kaine and I come to the floor and ask this Congress, Republicans and Democrats alike: Do these words count? Do we have a constitutional responsibility to stand up and speak up and to challenge this President or any President of either political party when they start moving us toward a moment of war which could easily claim the lives of many Americans? That is the purpose of our resolution. It is simple and straightforward, but it really goes to a fundamental question. The men and women who serve this country in uniform--God bless them for their sacrifice and their courage. We know that when they take the oath to serve, they are prepared to risk their lives in service. Many of us have attended the funerals of servicemembers who gave their lives in Iraq and Afghanistan and so many other places. It is a heartbreaking experience to see that emotional family leaving a church or a synagogue after a service honoring someone in uniform who has given their life for this country. That is so fundamental. Senator Kaine and I have come to the floor today to say we are finding ourselves now moving, day by day, closer and closer to a confrontation with Iran that could result in a war. What Senator Kaine has catalogued and gone through is this long buildup under the Trump administration that brings us to this moment. To think President Trump inherited from President Obama an international agreement that included the signatories of not only our traditional European allies but also China and Russia to stop Iran from developing a nuclear weapon; to think that that agreement was being monitored by international overseers who reported back to us that they had ready access throughout the nation of Iran when it came to making certain that the JCPOA agreement was lived up to; to think that that at least gave us the assurance that Iran would not develop a nuclear weapon--and then this President, with a series of tweets and actions, swept it away and said we are going to ignore this treaty, we are going to walk away from it, and we are going to confront the Iranians in a variety of ways, as Senator Kaine has spelled out. So we come to the floor this afternoon to really appeal to our colleagues on both sides of the aisle. On behalf of the American people, let us learn the lessons of history--a lesson bitterly learned during the Vietnam war--that if Congress does nothing, a war can develop and continue at great human cost. I know the moments of great decision that are made in the U.S. Congress, and I have been fortunate to be part of some of them. I remember October 16, 2002, as if it were yesterday. I remember that well, at that place that I point to, where in the early morning hours, three of us--three Senators stood and spoke to one another as we left to go home. There had just been a vote for an authorization for use of military force in Iraq. The three of us had gathered in the well, including Senator Paul Wellstone from Minnesota and Senator Kent Conrad from North Dakota, and we looked at one another, having all three voted against the invasion of Iraq, and realized we were headed home to face the electorate on that decision. It was an emotional moment. I remember saying to Senator Wellstone, who had voted against the invasion of Iraq, as I had: Paul, I hope this doesn't cost you the election. He said: Dick, if it does, it is all right because that is what I was elected to do, to come here and to vote on issues. Is it possible there is any issue more important than the issue of asking American families to give their children in service of this country in a war? Senator Wellstone passed away a few days later in an airplane crash. It was my last conversation with him, but I remember that moment, and I remember the responsibility we had. What Senator Kaine and I are doing now is to appeal to our colleagues on both sides of the aisle. Do not walk away from our responsibility when it comes to the future decision of whether we go to war with Iran. Stand up for those American families who sent us here to do our constitutional duty and engage in the debate as to whether it is the right thing at the right moment of history or whether it is an impulsive decision by a President who broke away from a political campaign meeting to authorize the assassination of General Soleimani and then returned to the campaign meeting. Make the decision as to whether this is the right moment in history. Don't point to the President that it is his responsibility; it is our responsibility. That is what this Constitution says. (Mr. BOOZMAN assumed the Chair.) Now, with that responsibility, we need to stand up and act. I am honored to join Senator Kaine. We have filed our resolution. We are seeking a ruling by the Parliamentarian, and we want to move forward on a schedule for a debate on the floor of the Senate. It may be the single most important debate we face this year for many years to come. I yield the floor.