Richard Durbin

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. Madam President, there are certain elements of this responsibility of serving in the Senate that have been tested from time to time in our history. As Members of the Senate, each of us stands in the well right over in that corner, raises our right hand, and swears to uphold and defend the Constitution of the United States. Those words are almost a cliche because they are used so often. Yet here today we are being called on to really reflect on that responsibility. We are called on to reflect on it because of things that have happened that have come to light in the last several days that raise serious constitutional questions. I will say that in the 2\1/2\ to 3 years that Donald Trump has been President of the United States, I think our Nation has been rocked by this President's approach to the highest office in the land. He has said things and done things no other President has ever done. Members of his own political party have been uncharacteristically silent when it comes to criticizing this President for his wrongdoing. The litany of things he has done is long and troubling. But there is one thing that we, as both political parties, need to maintain as the bedrock of this democracy, the bedrock of our commitment to this Constitution; that is, that in this Nation of the United States, the people govern. Ultimately, the people of the United States have the last word--in our elections. In those elections, they make their choices, whether you like them or not. I wasn't particularly enamored with the Presidential choice in 2016, but I accepted it as the constitutional verdict of the American people. It really is the bedrock of who we are and what we are. That is why the notion that some other nation would interfere in our election is so repugnant. The thought that the American people would not have the last word, that there would be other factors and other people, other countries engaged in our election, is as reprehensible under our Constitution as any concept I can think of. We are sworn to defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic--another group of words we have heard over and over again. But reflecting on those for a moment--sworn to defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic--is a nation that tries to interfere in our political process an enemy of the United States? Of course. That is obvious on its face. Those who would encourage a nation to be engaged in our political process, to try to tip the scales one way or the other, are they enemies of the United States? Well, they are certainly not acting consistent with that constitutional principle. This seems like a pretty straightforward constitutional interpretation. You don't need a Ph.D. or a law degree to understand, if a foreign country tries to interfere in the U.S. election process, that foreign country is an enemy in that action. Those who would encourage a foreign country or foreign agents to engage in our election, they, too, have crossed the line. As I consider the revelations that President Trump is using his office to extort Ukraine to support his political reelection campaign, I wonder why there is so much silence on the other side of the aisle. This is an outrageous development. Months before the 2016 election, our Nation's top intelligence officials told key congressional leaders about the efforts of Russia to interfere in the 2016 election, the election where the American people were choosing the President. Our top intelligence officials were understandably concerned. At that time, President Obama asked our congressional leaders for a bipartisan message condemning Vladimir Putin's efforts on behalf of Russia. President Obama wanted to make sure it was bipartisan before that 2016 election and showed a unified resistance to the interference by any foreign country in America's election process. What was the response of the Republican majority leader, Senator McConnell, after hearing this bombshell, this threat from a former Communist KGB official, Vladimir Putin, against America's democratic process of election? He answered that he didn't want to get involved, and he didn't. Then, for months after the election, not a single Republican Senator spoke on the Senate floor about the mounting and devastating evidence of Russia's attack on our election in 2016. I know that, personally, because the first casualty in that attack was the voter file of my State of Illinois. The Russians found a way, through their trolls, to get into the voter file of my home State, into the voting records of 70,000 or more Americans who live in Illinois. What did they do with that information? It appears little or nothing, but they could have changed it, and they could have had a dramatic impact on the right of these American citizens to make their legitimate constitutional choice in the election. For months, the silence was deafening as well, as President Trump defended Vladimir Putin's brazen denials of these attacks. President Trump took the word of Vladimir Putin over that of his own American intelligence professionals. Senate Republicans blocked election security measure after election security measure, and despite finally relenting last week when Senator McConnell said we could come up with $250 million for election security grants, they still continue to block substantive legislation, despite ongoing attacks and U.S. vulnerability. The country spent much of the Trump Presidency asking serious, necessary questions about Candidate Trump's open solicitation of Russian help in his Presidential campaign and if such cooperation actually ran deeper. While unable to establish a formal conspiracy between the Trump campaign and the Russians, in nearly 200 pages, the Mueller report described ``numerous links between the Russian government and the Trump Campaign.'' The Mueller report also laid out, in detail, how the Russians brazenly and systematically interfered in our election in 2016 and tried to shape the outcome. You would think that after such a sobering set of findings, any American President would take the matter seriously and reassure the Nation that he really does put America, not a foreign power, first when it comes to our electoral process, but, no, shortly after the Mueller report was released, President Trump told ABC's George Stephanopoulos he would still accept a foreign government's offer to share damaging information about a political rival, echoing similar remarks he made in his original Presidential campaign. In short, President Trump learned nothing from the experience of the 2016 election. The silence of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle seems to indicate the same. Now we have reports that President Trump is at it again, trying to strong-arm the leader of Ukraine to join him in attacking one of President Trump's political rivals, Joe Biden. It is not to advance American interests, not to serve the American people, not to help an ally in Ukraine, not to uphold American values but to serve the President's own reelection campaign interest. Last week, I offered an amendment in the Appropriations Committee to address $250 million which had been appropriated by Congress to help protect Ukraine from Russian aggression and was never released. Last Thursday, I had this amendment coming before the committee, and it basically said to the administration: If you don't release the money we have appropriated, you are going to pay a price for it. Occasionally, that is all you can do as a Member of Congress to get money spent that was appropriated and approved by the President. It was a curiosity. Why in the world were we holding back $250 million that was supposed to help the Ukrainian people stop the aggression of Vladimir Putin? I went to the committee hearing on Thursday morning. Before it started, one of my staff members said: Oh, the Trump administration released the money last night. Last night? Why did they wait until 2 weeks before the end of the fiscal year to release the money? Oh, they were reviewing this to determine whether there was any problem with releasing the money to Ukraine. It was a curious answer. It didn't make much sense. The President had signed this appropriations bill. For months, as President Trump, through his personal attorney Rudy Giuliani, tried to pressure Ukrainian President Zelensky to further his political agenda, the money that was supposed to go to Ukraine was withheld. We learned in this morning's Washington Post the President had instructed his Chief of Staff to notify the appropriate agencies to withhold the money while he bargained with Zelensky over salacious, negative information about Joseph Biden and his family. Now we are learning there was a whistleblower complaint, reportedly about the same issue. Apparently, someone in the administration who learned what President Trump was trying to do in strong-arming Ukrainian President Zelensky decided it overstepped the bounds and needed to be reported on officially. The congressional Intelligence Committees that get access to the information provided by this whistleblower are still waiting for that information--information the Trump-appointed inspector general for the intelligence community, Michael Atkinson, a Trump appointee, has determined to be credible and urgent. In other words, something happened at the highest levels of our government which led a professional in the intelligence agency, the inspector general, to make a whistleblower complaint for the record. The law requires that complaint to be shared with committees of Congress. It wasn't. It turns out that the Attorney General of the United States, William Barr, may have played some role in diverting that from its ordinary statutory course. The President may not want anyone to see it, but the law is clear and must be respected: This information in the whistleblower complaint must be transmitted to Congress. Is there anyone in the Senate, anyone who took the oath to protect the Nation against enemies foreign and domestic, who thinks any of us, regardless of political party, should solicit help from a foreign power to make sure we get elected or reelected? This abdication of responsibility by the other party is remarkable. I want to salute one Senator, and I hesitate to mention any direct reference to him, but one Senator on the Republican side who has spoken out. He understands the gravity of the situation, the constitutional issues at stake in this debate, and the fact that, ultimately, history must stand in judgment of all of us of whether we have spoken up. If this President of the United States can attempt to extort a foreign leader to withhold security funds that would have been given by the United States to his country in order to pursue and promote his own political agenda, we have reached a new low in the United States. If this whistleblower's claim goes into detail, it is only right and appropriate, under the statute, that this information be shared with the appropriate committees of the U.S. Senate and House. The whistleblower's claim needs to be released to the appropriate congressional committees and evaluated according to the law, and congressional Republicans--House and Senate--need to make it clear once and for all that no President--not this President, no President--can solicit or strong-arm a foreign country to further his own campaign. That is unacceptable under the Constitution of the United States, which I remind my colleagues we are sworn to uphold and defend. I yield the floor.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from New Jersey (Mr. Booker), the Senator from California (Ms. Harris), the Senator from Alabama (Mr. Jones), the Senator from Vermont (Mr. Sanders), the Senator from Virginia (Mr. Warner), the Senator from Massachusetts (Ms. Warren), and the Senator from Rhode Island (Mr. Whitehouse) are necessarily absent.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from New Jersey (Mr. Booker), the Senator from California (Ms. Harris), the Senator from Alabama (Mr. Jones), the Senator from Vermont (Mr. Sanders), the Senator from Massachusetts (Ms. Warren), and the Senator from Rhode Island (Mr. Whitehouse) are necessarily absent.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from New Jersey (Mr. Booker), the Senator from California (Ms. Harris), the Senator from Alabama (Mr. Jones), the Senator from Vermont (Mr. Sanders), the Senator from Massachusetts (Ms. Warren), and the Senator from Rhode Island (Mr. Whitehouse) are necessarily absent.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from New Jersey (Mr. Booker), the Senator from California (Ms. Harris), the Senator from Alabama (Mr. Jones), the Senator from Vermont (Mr. Sanders), and the Senator from Rhode Island (Mr. Whitehouse) are necessarily absent.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from New Jersey (Mr. Booker), the Senator from California (Ms. Harris), the Senator from Alabama (Mr. Jones), the Senator from Vermont (Mr. Sanders), and the Senator from Rhode Island (Mr. Whitehouse) are necessarily absent.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from New Jersey (Mr. Booker), the Senator from California (Ms. Harris), the Senator from Alabama (Mr. Jones), the Senator from Vermont (Mr. Sanders), and the Senator from Rhode Island (Mr. Whitehouse) are necessarily absent.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from New Jersey (Mr. Booker), the Senator from California (Ms. Harris), the Senator from Alabama (Mr. Jones), the Senator from Vermont (Mr. Sanders), and the Senator from Rhode Island (Mr. Whitehouse) are necessarily absent.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Colorado (Mr. Bennet), the Senator from New Jersey (Mr. Booker), the Senator from California (Ms. Harris), the Senator from Vermont (Mr. Sanders), the Senator from Massachusetts (Ms. Warren), and the Senator from Rhode Island (Mr. Whitehouse) are necessarily absent.

Mr. DURBIN

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

Mr. DURBIN. Madam President, let me join the Senator from Maryland in expressing my frustration. Many of us worked long and hard to be elected to the U.S. Senate, not just to represent our States but to respond to the challenges that face us in the United States. The challenge of gun safety faces everyone. Thank you to the Senator from Maryland for making that point on the floor of the Senate. Many people come to the Senate Galleries, sit in the chairs, and wait for the Senate to act. It is a long waiting game because, unfortunately, the Senate does little or nothing under the leadership of Senator McConnell. I don't know why this Senator has not accepted the fact that the U.S. Senate has an important role to play. We speak for people not only in Illinois and in Maryland but for those all across the United States, and they are very concerned. In the recent trip home over the recess, I visited some of the areas around Chicago and in the city, and there were many conversations about the gun violence that we see across America. That gun violence has been punctuated by the horrible events in El Paso and Odessa, TX, and in other communities that have been affected by these mass killings. We have become numb, I am afraid, to the reality of gun violence in America. We have decided, I am afraid, that the Second Amendment to the Constitution is somehow holding us back--binding us and restraining us--from even doing the most basic things. Overwhelmingly, the people of America, by a factor of over 90 percent--Democrats and Republicans--believe that we should have background checks. We believe that the people who have been convicted of violent felonies shouldn't own guns--period. We believe, as well, that when it comes to those who have serious mental instability, they should also be precluded from gun ownership. The laws do not allow us to adequately ask the question or to test whether the buyer has been convicted of a felony or has such a background. In the city of Chicago, hardly a weekend goes by without there being dozens shot and 9 or 10 or more losing their lives. Most of them are young people, but not exclusively. Older people, as well, are caught in the crossfire. People say: Well, I thought Chicago had these tough gun laws. What is going on there? Why do you have so many gun deaths? The answer is obvious for those of us who spend time in that great city. We are about 20 minutes away from northwestern Indiana and from the gun shows that are held there, where people don't ask questions when they sell firearms. All you need to do is to have the money and the open trunk of your car to fill it up with guns and drive them back to the city of Chicago. That is why no State can solve this problem. We need Federal legislation. As I talk to people across this country, they tell me the heartbreaking stories of sitting down with their children who have gone through some drill or program at school to forewarn them of what would happen if an active shooter were to come onto the premises. As we know, that reality is not beyond reach. In Connecticut, we saw a beautiful first grade class that was attacked by a killer with a weapon who took the lives of those children. If that scandalous massacre of children in a first grade classroom didn't move this Congress and this President to act, what will? The President said to me in a conversation several weeks ago that we are going to have a background check bill and that it will be the best in the history of the world. Well, I was skeptical when he said it. I am even more skeptical today. I knew what would happen. When the President had a choice between the public interest of gun safety and the special interest of the National Rifle Association, the National Rifle Association prevailed. This President refuses to come forward with any proposal, and Senator McConnell believes his hands are tied and cannot bring this issue to the floor of the Senate. He cannot run the risk that his Members would have to be on the record as having taken a vote, as they were elected to do, on an issue of this importance.

Mr. DURBIN

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

Mr. DURBIN

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

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

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

Mr. DURBIN

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

Mr. DURBIN

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

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, it started sounding too familiar to me. For a long time on Capitol Hill, I have been involved in public policy debates about Big Tobacco, about nicotine and cigarettes, and about the public health consequences of smoking. It is a personal issue, of course, for me and for so many of us. Our families have been touched by tobacco-related disease and death. I lost my father to lung cancer. He was 53 years old. He smoked two packs of Camels a day. I stood by his bedside when I was just a high school student and saw what tobacco could do. When I was elected to Congress, I decided to try to take on Big Tobacco. It was not an easy task. Those in Big Tobacco had very many friends in high places, and they made it clear in both political parties in the House of Representatives that tobacco was untouchable. I offered an amendment, quite a few years ago now, to ban smoking on airplanes. It was really because of my irritation and strong feelings that the people who were on the plane who were nonsmokers shouldn't have to breathe in secondhand smoke. To my surprise, we passed it in the House by a handful of votes even though the leadership of both political parties opposed it. Then it came over here, and Senator Frank Lautenberg, of New Jersey, passed it as well. It became the law of the land. Neither Frank nor I could have predicted what would happen next, but as the American people noticed that secondhand smoke was taken off of airplanes, they started asking a lot of these questions about why you wouldn't take it off of trains and buses and out of offices, hospitals, restaurants, and on and on. The net result was that of a change across America when it came to standards for smoking and tobacco cigarettes. Then I enlisted a group that was showing extraordinary leadership in Washington. It was called the Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids. Matt Myers, the director, still works for that organization. We went to the heart of the issue, and that was the fact that Big Tobacco was doing its best to make teenagers its customers. It had to. It was losing too many of its best customers because they were dying from Big Tobacco's product. It tried to addict children, and it was successful with ad campaigns. The Joe Camel ads, the Marlboro cowboy, and all sorts of cartoon figures were really appealing to children. It worked. It was able to replenish its smokers with kids who started smoking at earlier and earlier ages. We went after them. Eventually, there was a national lawsuit against the tobacco companies. We changed the standards for selling tobacco in America. We made it much more difficult for kids to get their hands on cigarettes, and, over time, we reduced the percentage of kids who were using these tobacco products. The tobacco companies faced a dilemma. They were losing their best customers--the kids. What were they going to do to maintain their profits? Several years ago, it became pretty obvious that they had found an alternative product called e-cigarettes and vaping. What was good about this was they could make health claims about e-cigarettes and vaping. They could argue that since you were taking tobacco out of the equation, merely sucking in some form of nicotine vapor was preferable from a health perspective. Yet, when it came right down to it, there was no proof of that whatsoever. JUUL is the biggest e-cigarette/e-vapor device maker in America. Its full-paged ads in newspaper after newspaper have made these health claims that, in fact, e-vaping is a healthy alternative to tobacco cigarettes. Yet there is no proof--none. Then something else started happening. We started noticing that all across America, kids--the same kids who once used to be the targets of Big Tobacco--were now the targets of Big Vaping. Vaping targets kids. The numbers tell the story. As of 2 years ago, 11 percent of high school students in America were vaping. A year later, there were 20 percent, and there are 27 percent today. More than one out of four high school students is using e-cigarettes and vaping today. Even worse, 10 percent of middle school students--10-, 11-, and 12-year-olds--are vaping. The numbers are growing, and you wonder why. The people in the vaping industry know how to target kids. They target them with flavors that are designed just for kids--Razzleberry, Gummy Bears, Bubble Gum, Unicorn Milk. How many 50-year-old chain smokers can't wait to get Unicorn Milk flavoring for their vaping devices? It is all about kids. The vaping industry, despite all of its public denials, has targeted these kids and has, effectively, recruited our children to be the next generation of vaporers for life. How much nicotine is in that little vaping device, the one that looks like it is a flash drive for your computer? There is an equivalent amount of nicotine in vaping as in a total pack of cigarettes. You get 20 cigarettes in one hit on a vaping device. Nicotine is a very addictive chemical. I know from my family experience, and we all know, from those who try for long, long times to quit using tobacco cigarettes, that the nicotine draws them back time and again. This addiction was underway, and I started writing letters, which Senators do. I protested to the Food and Drug Administration, to the Surgeon General, and to anyone else who would listen that this vaping epidemic was dangerous--dangerous for our kids and dangerous for our future. It took the longest time to get their attention. In fact, with those in this new Trump administration, they initially postponed any action against vaping until the year 2022, which would be beyond the President's first term. Well, I went to Dr. Gottlieb, who then was head of the FDA, and said: You can't wait 4 years. You have to do something right now about vaping. He resisted for a while, but then he came around. He held a press conference, and do you know what he called this vaping situation? An epidemic. The head of the Food and Drug Administration, a medical doctor, Dr. Gottlieb, called it an epidemic. So then he left for family reasons, and he had a successor, Dr. Ned Sharpless, Acting Commissioner of the Food and Drug Administration. I appealed to him, saying: Do something. You have the power right now to take all of these children's flavors off of the market for vaping. You could do it today. Secondly, you could ban most of the vaping devices, which have never been approved by the government. He didn't want to do it. He dragged his feet. It went on for months. I will have to say, in all candor and honesty, last week there was a breakthrough. Last week, the Trump administration addressed this issue directly. Last Monday, the Food and Drug Administration said to JUUL, the major manufacturer: Stop making health claims you can't prove. Stop telling people your product is a healthy alternative to tobacco cigarettes. There are no clinical trials. There is no proof, no credible medical study you can point to, to make that claim, so stop saying it. Then, just a couple days later, they went even further, banning the use of these flavors that have enticed children into vaping and e- cigarettes. They have announced that probably within 30 days, as their estimate, these are all going to have to come off the market, and in May of next year, the companies that make them can apply to bring them back on the market if they can prove they are good for public health. Well, Senator Lisa Murkowski of Alaska, a Republican, and I have had a bill for several months now on this issue. I thank her for her bipartisan cooperation in this effort. It is great to have her by my side. She is a terrific ally. She and I believe none of these flavors should come back on the market until it is proven they are not dangerous to children and that they in fact do help adults stop smoking and can show positive results. I think that is a hard measure, a hard standard for them to meet, and it should be because the alternative is unacceptable--more children addicted to e-cigarettes and vaping. There may be a place for e-cigarettes at some point in the future. I am not sure where it will be, but as long as they are endangering our children with their products and their flavors, I am going to continue to fight their efforts. I want to say something else. Even in the midst of my battles against Big Tobacco, I still remember what my dad went through when he tried to stop smoking--dying of lung cancer, trying to stop smoking. It was so hard and painful, and I watched him as a young boy and saw the struggle he went through. I have always said we have to show some caring and compassion for the people who were once tobacco users and want to quit, and today we have to show the same level of caring when it comes to all of these high school students--5 million American high school students--who are vaping and using e-cigarettes and should quit. We need to give them a path, a recommendation. I wrote to the Surgeon General last week and asked him to come up with a plan, an educational approach, to allow these young people to get off this nicotine addiction before it is too late. What has happened in the past, sadly, is that many of the high schoolers who were using e-cigarettes didn't quit completely from anything; they moved to tobacco cigarettes with the nicotine they were seeking in a different form. So that is the challenge we face. After years of inaction and a lot of telephone calls and letters and meetings, the Food and Drug Administration has done the right thing. I hope by the end of this year, these flavors will be off the shelf, and I hope the Food and Drug Administration truly enforces what they announced last week. It has been 10 years since Congress gave the Food and Drug Administration the legal authority to regulate all tobacco products, including e-cigarettes. There is no doubt about their legal authority. Last year, 4 million children under the age of 18 were vaping in America. As I mentioned, today the number is 5 million. Over the last 2 years, we have seen a 135-percent increase in America's children using e-cigarettes. Ask any public health official what this means. If we didn't do something, the numbers would continue to grow unchecked. Schools are taking doors off of toilet stalls so kids can't sneak in and use e- cigarettes and vape between classes. Some kids are bold enough to try to do it in class. We have now linked e-cigarettes and vaping to over 380 cases of confirmed and severe respiratory illness nationwide. As of last night, in California, the seventh young person has died from vaping. We have 52 confirmed cases and 1 reported death in Illinois, but I can tell you that on Monday morning, one of my friends, a doctor in Chicago, told me in private that he had visited a major hospital, and three young people who had been vaping were hanging on by a thread to life. Kids as young as 15 have been hospitalized. There is no specific device or substance that has been linked to all of these cases, but the one common denominator is e-cigarettes. This nicotine addiction and what it leads to--especially JUUL's devices, which are extraordinarily popular, with the highest levels of nicotine we have seen in products legally sold in America. Nicotine is both toxic and highly addictive. It raises blood pressure, spikes adrenaline, and increases the risk of heart disease. It can have short- and long-term negative health impacts on the developing brain, particularly, including increased risk of addiction, mood disorder, and permanent lowering of impulse control. Kids who use e-cigarettes are three times more likely than their peers to transition to traditional tobacco cigarettes, and they, of course, kill almost half a million Americans a year. So that is our problem. That is our challenge. I would add, too, that it is time for us to start taxing this product. For years, I have been sounding the alarm that the vaping industry is following Big Tobacco's playbook when it comes to appealing to our children. I have learned over the years, in all my battles against Big Tobacco, that the single most effective tool to prevent children from starting the use of tobacco cigarettes is to price it out of their range. That is why we passed cigarette taxes years ago--and many States and localities followed suit--and why later this week I will be introducing the Tobacco Tax Equity Act. This legislation will establish the first Federal e-cigarette tax. It will close loopholes exploited by Big Tobacco to avoid the taxes, and it will double the Federal Government tax rate and peg it to inflation so it remains an effective public health tool in the future. Studies have shown that even a 10-percent tax lowers tobacco use by as much as 5 percent. The Surgeon General and World Health Organization have called it the most effective way to reduce tobacco use. I think the same will be true for e-cigarettes. The FDA's flavor ban announcement was an important first step. Now we need to make sure the ban is implemented quickly and that it is enforced strictly. We need the FDA to better regulate e-cigarette devices, many of which are easily tampered with and being used in conjunction with adulterated and counterfeit products. We need the Surgeon General to come up with a plan to help the millions of kids who are now addicted, and we need to start taxing e- cigarette companies who have created today's youth vaping epidemic. A movie we have seen before of Big Tobacco exploiting kids, finally-- finally--resulted in public action against those tobacco companies, and the rate of teen tobacco cigarette smoking went down dramatically. Let's not sit through that same movie again. When it comes to vaping and e-cigarettes, let's move quickly to protect our children. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. DURBIN

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

Mr. DURBIN

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

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Colorado (Mr. Bennet), the Senator from New Jersey (Mr. Booker), the Senator from Minnesota (Ms. Klobucher), 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 Minnesota (Ms. Klobuchar), and the Senator from Vermont (Mr. Sanders) are necessarily absent.

Mr. DURBIN

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

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, Members of the U.S. Senate and House of Representatives face many votes on many subjects. Most of them you vote on and forget very quickly. There are some you will never forget. At least two votes that I cast here 18 years ago are on that list in terms of my Senate service. It was 18 years ago, and just shortly after the 9/11 attack in 2001, in which 3,000 innocent Americans lost their lives. President George W. Bush came to Congress and asked for authority under our Constitution to wage a war--in fact, to wage two wars. He wanted authority from the U.S. Senate and Congress to invade Iraq and to invade Afghanistan. There was a long debate leading up to it about why it would be necessary for us to start a war with those two nations. In the case of Iraq, the argument was made that Saddam Hussein, their leader, had weapons of mass destruction that were dangerous to the region and, ultimately, dangerous to the United States. He was a tyrant and everyone knew it, but those threats were the ones that led many people to conclude that the invasion of Iraq was necessary. I disagreed. We cast that vote on the floor of the U.S. Senate, and 23 of us voted no--1 Republican and 22 Democrats. It turned out, after we invaded Iraq and took a close look, there were no weapons of mass destruction. The real basis for the war did not exist. Eighteen years later, having lost almost 5,000 American lives and spent trillions of dollars, we are still in Iraq. I don't know how this will ever end or when our troops will finally be able to come home. Hussein is gone, for sure, but the situation in that country is certainly not dramatically better than it was when we invaded it. We couldn't guarantee tomorrow what is going to happen there, whether it will be stable or friendly to the United States after all we have invested in, all we have lost in that invasion. At the same time, we were debating a war in Afghanistan. To me, it was a different proposition. The administration said: We know the terrorists responsible for 9/11 are in Afghanistan. What is our message to those who turn around and attack the United States and kill so many innocent people? So I saw Afghanistan different than Iraq, and I voted for the military effort that was undertaken to go after the terrorist organization responsible for 9/11, the al-Qaida organization. It took us years to find Osama bin Laden, who was responsible for masterminding that deadly day in our history, and to finally bring him to justice. The fact is, 18 years later, we are still in Afghanistan today. It is hard to explain. Thousands of American lives have been lost there. Millions, billions, maybe even trillions of dollars have been spent. And most people agree, the day after we leave, whenever it is, the country will revert to what it was before we walked in. There have been 18 years of sacrifice, 18 years of suffering, and even death, for America's patriotic soldiers. It is a reminder about these wars that seem like such a good idea, so necessary, the right way to respond, and here we sit with two of the longest wars in the history of the United States. Now the question is, Are we preparing for another war? I hate to say those words, but I have to be honest. What this President has done in our relationship with Iran has brought us to the moment where we have to ask that question: Is the President preparing to ask us to go to war against Iran? The first thing he did--one of the first things--was to disparage the Iran nuclear agreement, an agreement entered into under President Obama to stop the development of nuclear weapons in Iran. I thought it was a good agreement. I supported it and still do. I am not making any excuses for Iran. They are engaged in conduct around the world that is inspiring terrorism and threatening our allies and friends. I am making no excuses for that. But to make certain that Iran did not have nuclear weapons in the future was the right thing to do. We entered into this agreement under President Obama. China, Russia, European nations, and others joined us, and we sent international inspectors into that country. They reported back to us regularly that there was no evidence of the development of nuclear weapons, and every door was open to them. We had surveillance on the ground in a country that has been largely secretive and isolated. I thought that was the right thing to do, and I still do. President Trump disagreed, and the United States withdrew from the Iran nuclear agreement. Since then, there has been an escalation of tension between our two nations, between Iran and the United States. Some of it is, clearly, a reaction by the Iranians to sanctions that we have imposed, which have caused great problems with Iran and their oil supply. They have answered in kind by threatening oil tankers from other countries. It is the kind of escalation you would expect two countries that are leading up to a confrontation to engage in. Now the questions are, Will we, in fact, go to war, and if we are prepared to, will this President--Donald Trump--follow the Constitution of the United States? The votes I talked about 18 years ago gave the people of the United States, through their elected representatives, a decision-making part of the process. Their Members of Congress voted. The question is whether President Trump will follow his constitutional responsibility in coming to Congress for the authority to engage in a war in Iran. I certainly don't believe the vote I took 18 years ago, before many of the Members of the Senate were even here, has authorized him or any President to invade Iran. That was never even considered when we were in that debate. Now the question is, Will he come forward and give the American people a voice in this process in deciding whether we are going to war? I, for one, look at this with great skepticism and even negativity. A war is so much easier to get into than it is to get out of. We have proven that over and over again. Politicians who make the speeches and rationalize these wars are usually not the ones who face combat and death on the battlefield. That is turned over to our young women and men in uniform who bravely fight for the causes we identify as politicians. I would sincerely hope what Senator Udall has brought to the floor, to open a conversation and discussion, is really taken to heart by the American people and, more importantly, by the White House. As Senator Udall has reminded us, any President--this President--needs the constitutional authority to bring this Nation into a war. Without that authority, he cannot and should not move forward. They point to the recent attacks on Saudi Arabia and their oilfields. Of course, they were terrible. Whether they came from Houthi rebels in Yemen or whether they came from Iran itself, it is terrible, but the fact is, the United States has not signed an agreement saying we are prepared to defend Saudi Arabia, whoever attacks them. We want to have a good alliance with them--it is difficult with the current leadership--but we haven't entered into a mutual defense pact by any means. When Saudi Arabia is attacked, we are not required to muster our American troops in their defense. We should take care and be thoughtful and not escalate this situation. Senator Udall's amendment regarding Iran is a straightforward and timely reaffirmation of what is already in article I, section 8 of the U.S. Constitution--only the U.S. Congress can declare war. I am pleased to join him and others in this legislative effort to reaffirm that without the consent of Congress, no war with Iran is authorized. I hope the Defense authorization conferees will keep this in mind. This Congress has rubberstamped too many of the President's worst instincts. We must not do so again and march into another war in the Middle East. Two wars still going, still costing American lives, even to this day, are way too many. A third war at this point is unthinkable. I yield the floor.