Executive Session

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. DURBIN. Madam President, last week the Senate concluded the impeachment proceeding. I heard one of my colleagues say it is the most serious thing that the U.S. Senate has the constitutional authority to do. That argument can be made, but I would disagree.

I think the most serious thing we are assigned under the Constitution is the declaration of war because, you see, it isn't just a matter of the political fate of any individual; it is the matter of the lives of many good people in America who serve in our Armed Forces, who may be in danger if we decide to go to war. Even under the best circumstances, a quick and effective war can lead to the deaths of brave and innocent Americans who are simply serving their country. That is why the comments made by the majority leader this morning need to be responded to.

His suggestion that Senator Kaine's War Powers Resolution is a mistake, I think, really ignores the obvious. It has been 18 years-- almost 18 years--since Congress and the Senate had an active debate about the United States engaging in war. I remember that debate in 2002 very well because it was a debate that consumed the attention of the Senate, the House, and the Nation over whether we would invade Iraq and whether we would invade Afghanistan.

Most of us remember the argument made by the Bush administration for the invasion of Iraq. We were told there were weapons of mass destruction in that country that could threaten the neighbors of Iraq, our allies, and even the United States. Over and over again we heard that phrase, ``weapons of mass destruction,'' ``weapons of mass destruction.''

I was serving on the Senate Intelligence Committee at that time. I remember the classified testimony behind closed doors. I had serious doubts in my mind as to whether they had established that weapons of mass destruction actually existed and whether authorizing a war meant we would just use that as a device to force Iraq into better conduct or we would actually invade their country.

As a consequence, I joined 22 other Senators in voting against the invasion of Iraq, which we voted on the floor of the Senate in 2002. Twenty-two Democrats and one Republican all voted against that invasion of Iraq. Obviously, we did not prevail. A majority gave that authority to President George W. Bush, and the invasion was underway. I can still remember it.

I can remember the unfolding events as our troops arrived, made their impact on that nation, and eventually took control of Iraq.

Then the search was on for the weapons of mass destruction, which led to our invasion of Iraq. The search continued for days and weeks and months without any evidence of weapons of mass destruction. It was a farce. It was a fraud on the American public. Almost 5,000 Americans lost their lives because of our invasion of Iraq, but the premise, the pretense that led to that invasion was misleading information from the administration. But at least I will say this: There was a debate. There was a vote on the floor of the Senate. Did anyone at that time believe, 18 years ago, that we were voting for a war in Iraq that would continue for 18 years?

On the invasion of Afghanistan, the argument was made to convince me and virtually every Member of Congress that the parties responsible for the tragedy and terror of 9/11 were somehow camped in Afghanistan, and we needed to go after ISIS and all those responsible for that 9/11 invasion of the United States. I voted for that, but I have to say as well, there wasn't a single Senator or Member of the House who really believed that 18 years later, we would still be at war in Afghanistan. Yet we are.

The President is now talking about removing more troops from Afghanistan. We will see. We have heard these promises before, but perhaps it will lead to such a decision by the administration.

The point I am getting to is, the Kaine War Powers Resolution--I see Senator Kaine has come to the floor--really addresses the most fundamental question of our constitutional authority and responsibility to declare war. As Senator Kaine says in this resolution, which I am happy to cosponsor, Congress has the sole power to declare war under article I, section 8, clause 11, of the U.S. Constitution.

When I heard Senator McConnell come to the floor this morning and argue against the Senate stepping forward and asserting its constitutional authority, I wondered, how does he explain in the Commonwealth of Kentucky that we are still engaged in a war 18 years after there was any vote for an authorization for use of military force in Iraq and Afghanistan?

The larger question Senator Kaine and I tried to raise in this resolution is, What does this mean in terms of our future relationship with Iran and their neighbor, Iraq? We know we have had a rocky and contentious relationship with that country. We know they have engaged in acts of terrorism that cost American lives. There has been tension between our countries for decades. We know that full well.

President Obama tried to at least bring some sanity to the relationship by limiting the ability of the Iranians to develop nuclear weapons. He felt, I felt, and most Americans felt that was a step in the right direction, to take the nuclear weapons out of the hands of Iraq so that even if they are engaged in conduct we find reprehensible, it would not reach that horrible level of a nuclear confrontation.

I thought the President was right. I supported President Obama's efforts to develop this inspection mechanism where international inspectors would come into Iran and see if they were developing weapons and report to the world.

We engaged countries around the world to join us in this effort to stop the development of nuclear weapons in Iran. It was an incredible coalition that included Russia and China and the European nations that joined with us to impose this limitation of nuclear weapons in Iran. I thought it was a move in the right direction to have this kind of international support.

Yet, when President Trump took office, sadly, he kept his promise to eliminate that nuclear control agreement between the United States, Iran, and the other parties. By eliminating it, he basically gave permission to the Iranians to continue development of nuclear weapons. Yet he warned the Iranians that if they did, there would be a price to pay.

This is the very reason why this resolution by Senator Kaine is relevant and why we need to consider what the next step will be, because if we are going to stop the Iranians from developing nuclear weapons--and I pray they will not--how are we going to do it and how much force will we use in response? Will it be authorized by the Constitution and by Congress?

I listened to Senator McConnell this morning, and he has basically said to do nothing. Do nothing. Don't assert the constitutional authority of the Congress under the Constitution when it comes to any declaration of war against Iran or any future military endeavors. He described this as a one-off situation, a one-off use of force that we have currently seen in the targeting of General Soleimani. Perhaps it was, but we don't know the answer to that. When it happened a few weeks ago, there was real uncertainty about what would follow, and I suppose that uncertainty is still here to this day.

This morning, the majority leader said that he thought the impeachment effort that came to the Senate over the last week would not have occurred if we had been patient, and he said this is another example of impatience where we are setting up this constitutional responsibility of the administration.

Well, I disagree with him on two counts. If Senator McConnell is counseling patience, patience in an impeachment trial would certainly have involved evidence, documents, and witnesses. Yet he was impatient to get it over with without any evidence coming before the Senate.

I also would say that patience is a good virtue when it comes to most of life's experiences, and it certainly is if there is a prospect of war.

What Senator Kaine is doing is asserting the authority of Congress to step up and be party to discussions about whether we move beyond the current situation to one that involves troops or any type of invasion of territory in Iran.

I see Senator Kaine is on the floor, and I will defer to him in a moment, but I will tell you this before I sit down: As long as I have been a Member of the House and Senate, I have felt that Congress has a responsibility under the Constitution to declare war. It is a responsibility that most Members of Congress talk about a lot but, frankly, don't want to face. They don't want to be on the record for or against war for fear they will guess wrong in terms of certain foreign policy decisions.

Regardless, I think the Framers of our Constitution understood full well that if we are going to ask American families to potentially sacrifice the lives of their sons and daughters in combat, in a war, they should have a voice in the decision on going to war. That is what this article in the Constitution provides--a voice for the U.S. public that comes through the Congress as to whether we are going to engage in a war. Otherwise, we find ourselves in a situation like today, 18 years after an authorization of use of military force--and part of it under false pretenses--continuing a military effort that was never truly authorized.

I support Senator Kaine's effort. I am glad it is a bipartisan resolution.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. DURBIN. Madam President, we are likely to postpone a vote this week that had been scheduled on a Congressional Review Act resolution of disapproval relative to Education Secretary Betsy DeVos's new borrower defense rule. I would like to explain the background behind this procedure. Although it is likely it will be postponed until after our 1-week President's Day recess, I still think Members should reflect on the importance of this measure.

In 1992 Congress added a provision to the Higher Education Act that allowed student borrowers who were defrauded by their schools to have their Federal student loans discharged. Here is what it boiled down to: The Federal Government recognizes the accreditation of colleges and universities. With that recognition, those colleges and universities can offer Federal loans to the students who attend. So there is a partnership that begins this process and this relationship, and the partnership is a seal of approval by the Federal Government in the authorization of Federal loans.

What we found was that some of the institutions that were given permission to authorize Federal student loans for those attending their institutions, in fact, were lying to their students. So the students were in a situation where they incurred a debt in student loans for promises made by a college or university that turned out to be false.

We said that under the law, that is not fair to the student and the student's family. Those students can be discharged from federal student debt if, in fact, that college or university defrauded them.

What would be a typical fraud? To invite students to enroll in your college with the promise that the courses they take in that college would be transferrable, that the credits are transferrable to another school, and then it turns out to be a lie; the promise that if you complete a certain number of courses in the school, you will have satisfied the requirements for licensure for nursing, for example, and that turns out to be a lie; or the possibility that you would finish the courses of this school and get a job in a certain field.

Great promises were made to the students, and it turns out they were lies. In those circumstances, students--many of whom are young and facing the first serious financial decision of their lives--were misled and defrauded. We said that under the law, those students should have an opportunity to discharge their student loan.

It is bad enough they were lied to, bad enough they wasted their time, and bad enough they had a college experience that didn't make life better for them, but to be saddled with debt because that school lied to them and defrauded them is unacceptable. The process for having their loans discharged is called borrower defense.

Under President Obama, we found that many schools--almost exclusively for-profit universities such as Corinthian, ITT, and others--lied to students about what their experience would be if they went there. So the students, saddled with debt, having been lied to, went to the Department of Education to have that debt discharged. There was some success in that, but then came the new President.

President Trump, with his Secretary of Education, Betsy DeVos, took a much different view and has ignored the claims of these students for discharge of their student loans. They started stacking up, and nearly 230,000 students from across the United States who were looking for this borrower defense relief from their student loans, after having been lied to and defrauded by these colleges and universities, just found no response whatsoever from the Trump administration and from Education Secretary DeVos. As a consequence, they asked Members of Congress to intervene, and we tried but with no success.

Then Secretary DeVos took this decisive step in changing the rules for future students. Do you know what she said? She said to these students: In the future, if you want relief from student debt from being defrauded, prove your case. Lawyer-up. Get your lawyer, and let's have a hearing.

Well, understand that these students--young and in debt to start with--are not likely to turn around and hire a lawyer to prove Corinthian, in its catalogues and representations to students, for example, misrepresented the education they were offering.

Under the previous administration, that could be established in evidence, and all the students affected by it could use that evidence. Under the DeVos administration, it is an individual burden of proof to qualify for borrower defense. So that will leave many students with no recourse. As a consequence, they will be stuck with the debt for a worthless education or one that didn't meet as promised.

More than 223,000 claims are pending before the Department. Many of them have been waiting for years. The claims come from every State in the Union--large, small, red, blue and purple--and they are not going to stop. These claims have led to this CRA, this Congressional Review Act resolution of disapproval.

I doubt that we are going to be taking it up this week, so I am going to withhold making a presentation on this until we return after the President's Day recess. But I want to make one last point. We are not just bringing this up on behalf of students; we are bringing this matter before the Senate on behalf of veterans. Student veterans.

The American Legion of the United States has stepped up and said to us that veterans have been defrauded just like the students we are talking about on the floor of the Senate.

If you believe in these veterans and these military families who are stuck with student loan debt because of lies from colleges and universities, I urge my colleagues to think twice and join us in this effort to stop the DeVos rules and give our veterans a fighting chance not to be burdened with this unfair debt.

Madam President, Recognition of the Minority Leader

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. DURBIN. Klobuchar), the Senator from Vermont (Mr. Sanders), and the Senator from Massachusetts (Ms. Warren) are necessarily absent.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source