mr. mcconnell: yesterday, the united states army and the commonwealth of kentucky both received some really great news. secretary of the army ryan mccarthy and army chief of staff general james mcconville announced that fort knox will be the headquarters for the new army corps. they stopped by my office last night to discuss the good news. the new fifth corps will support u.s. forces and operations in europe, helping fulfill requirements of the national defense strategy. it's expected to bring more than 600 additional soldiers to fort knox. along with congressman brett guthrie and senator paul, i had urged army leadership to select fort knox for this new corps

headquarters. and obviously, we think they made a great choice. now fifth corps will join the eight commands already stationed there, including the army's human resources, recruiting and cadet commands. i have worked for years to help ensure that fort knox receives the resources and national attention that it deserves. so it's really great to see the army agrees that its high-quality facilities are perfect for these new headquarters and the extraordinary work of the knox regional development alliance has made it a wonderful place both to live and to work, both for service members and for their families. last year, i was proud to host defense secretary mark esper in kentucky to meet with members of the fort knox community. i'm certainly grateful to him, secretary mccarthy, and general mcconville for recognizing our potential. now, on another matter, today the senate will consider a war powers resolution offered by the junior senator from virginia.

our colleague's resolution is deeply flawed on a number of levels. as i explained yesterday, it is too blunt and too broad. it is also an abuse of the war powers act which was designed to strike a balance between the president's constitutional war powers and congress' own war powers and oversight responsibilities. some of us believe the war powers act went too far in undermining the separation of powers and infringing upon the authorities of the commander in chief. but apart from that debate, everyone should acknowledge that it was designed to stop vietnam's, the deployment of thousands of troops into sustained combat without congressional authorization. not the one-off uses of limited force that presidents have carried out literally for centuries. until recently, most in this body recognized the need for presidents to have flexibility with respect to the threat of military force. they saw the deterrent effect

and diplomatic utility of keeping our options open. during president obama's tenure, democrats said frequently that when it comes to iran, we should never take the military option off the table. but now they seek to use this privileged resolution to do precisely that. the collateral institutional damage of this action would fall on our military, its ability to operate quickly and adaptively and emerging threats would be jeopardized. colleagues, if you want to take the truly significant step of preemptively taking options off the table for defending our troops, if you really want to remove troops from syria or iraq altogether, why don't you just be honest about it and make your case? find 60 votes to pass legislation. find 67 votes to override a presidential veto. don't use a blunt and imprecise war powers resolution to end run around the constitutional structures. it makes it a difficult

proposition by design. there is no ongoing, contracted combat with respect to iran. our troops are not mired in unending hostilities. the war powers act aims to impose a 60-day clock on combat operations. the strike that killed soleimani took maybe 60 seconds. let me say that again. the strike took about 60 seconds. clearly, this is the wrong tool for this subject. so, madam president, we have just come through an impeachment trial because house democrats rushed to use this serious tool as a political weapon of first resort rather than patiently conducting more normal oversight using the normal tools that congresses of both parties particular cally use. no patience for ordinary oversight. just rush to grab the bluntest tool available to make a political statement against the president. well, this war powers debate bears an eerie resemblance to

that pattern. to listen to some of the advocates of senator kaine's resolution, you would think that sweeping resolutions like this were the only means available to senators to express any discomfort with white house foreign policy. of course, that isn't so. if a senator's priority is genuine oversight, there are countless tools in their toolbox. they can hold hearings. they can engage the administration directly. they can ask questions and ravishes. they feel were not sufficiently addressed in interagency deliberations. instead, like impeachment, this war powers resolution cuts short that interplay between the branches. it short circuits the deliberation and debate. it is dangerously overbroad, an overbroad resolution that should not pass congress, that is certain to be vetoed if it does. if my colleagues want to make a real difference, this is not the way to go. the amendments my republican

colleagues and i have filed expose the shortcomes and unintended -- shortcomings and unintended risk of this approach. senator kaine has drafted a rule that tries to provide obstruction to u.s. troops to defend themselves against an attack if it is, quote, imminent. my amendment exposes the absurdity of this by simply removing the word imminent. how imminent exactly is imminent enough? when do our men and women in uniform get to defend themselves? i'd like to know. should our service members need to sit on intelligence until an attack is a week away, a day away, an hour away, until they see the whites of the enemy's eyes? and who makes the determination about imminence? 535 members of congress, the president, a pentagon lawyer, a battlefield commander, some young private? this resolution imposes a new constraint on the military

without answering any of those questions. if we have intelligence warning that an enemy is planning to attack our forces, can we not disrupt the plot until the attack is almost under way? senators cotton, rounds, and sullivan have also filed amendments. they propose sensible additions to give our troops and their commanders more confidence we aren't trying to tie their hands against precisely the threat they might face if iran were again to become emboldened enough to attack us. oh, and to make sure we can defend our diplomats and embassies, too, if they were to face renewed threats. so clearly, madam president, this resolution is not ready for prime time. i believe it is just an effort to broadcast a political message, but even that message can be harmful to our troops and to our national security. so what message will the senate send to american service members? should they doubt whether their own leaders are authorized to defend them?

what message should we send to our regional allies and partners? can they count on continued solidarity from the united states? what would it say to a real great power and supports like russia and china if we cannot even remain united in the face of a lesser challenge, such as iran. let's send the right message with our votes. let's defeat this misguided resolution. now, madam president, i understand there is a bill at the desk due a second reading. the presiding officer: the clerk will read the title of the bill for the second time. the clerk: s. 3275, a bill to amend title 18, united states code, to protect pain-capable unborn children, and for other purposes. mr. mcconnell: in order to place the bill on the calendar under the provisions of rule 14, i would object to further proceeding. the presiding officer: objection having been heard, the bill will

be placed on the calendar. under the previous order, the leadership time is reserved. morning business is closed. under the previous order, the senate will proceed to executive session to resume consideration of the following nomination, which the clerk will report. the clerk: nomination, the judiciary, joshua m. kindred of alaska, to be united states district judge for the district of alaska. mr. durbin: madam president. the presiding officer: the minority leader from illinois. mr. durbin: last week, the senate concluded the impeachment proceeding. i heard one of my colleagues say it is the most serious thing that the united states senate has the constitutional authority to do. that argument could be made, but i would disagree. i think the most serious thing

that we are assigned under the constitution is the declaration of war, because, you see, it isn't just a matter of the fate, the political fate of any individual. it's the matter of the lives of many good people in america who serve in our armed forces who may be in danger in we decide to go to war. even under the best circumstances, quick and effective war can lead to the deaths of brave and innocent americans who are simply serving their country. and that's why the comments made by the majority leader this morning need to be responded to. his suggestion that the kaine -- 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 very well in 2002, because it was a debate which consumed the intention of the senate, the house, and the nation over whether or not we would invade iraq and whether or not we would invade afghanistan. most of us remember the argument made by the bush administration for the invasion of iraq. we were told that there were weapons of mass destruction in that country that could threaten our -- the neighbors of iraq, our allies, and even the united states. over and over gephardt, we heard that phrase, weapons of mass destruction, weapons of mass destruction. i was serving on the senate against committee at that time. i remember the testimony, 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 or not authorizing a war

meant that we would just use that as a device to force iraq into better conduct or 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. 22 democrats, one republican all voted against that invasion of iraq. obviously, we did not prevail. the majority gave that authority to president george w. bush, and the invasion was under way. 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, and 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 the invasion of iraq. but the premise that led to that invasion was misleading information from an administration. but at least i will say this, there was a debate, there was a vote on the floor of the united states 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, convinced me and virtually every other member of congress, that the parties responsible for the tragedy an terror of 9/11 were somehow camped in afghanistan and we needed to go after isis and all those responsible for the invasion of the united states.

i voted for that, but i'll 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's now talking about removing more troops from afghanistan. we'll see. we've heard these promises before. perhaps it will lead to such a decision by the administration. but the point i'm getting to is the kaine war powers resolution really addresses the most fundamental question of our constitutional authority and responsibility to declare war. as senator kaine says in this resolution, which i'm happy to cosponsor, congress has the sole power to declare war under article 1, section 8, clause 11, of the united states constitution. when i hear senator mcconnell come to the floor this morning and argue against the united

states senate stepping forward and asserting its constitutional authority, i wonder, 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 of the use of military force in iraq and in afghanistan? and the larger question, which senator kaine and i tried to raise in this resolution is, what does this mean in terms of our future relationship with iran, the neighbor of iraq? we know we've had a rocky and contentious relationship with that country. we know that they have engaged in acts of terrorism which have cost american lives. there has been tension between our countries for decades. we know that full well. but president obama tried to at least bring some sanity to the relationship by eliminating 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. take the nuclear weapons out of the hands of iran so that even if they are engaged in conduct which we find reprehensible it would not reach the horrible level of a nuclear confrontation. i thought the president was right, i supported the effort, 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 which included russia and china that joined with us and the european nations to impose this elimination 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 the nuclear control agreement between the united states, iran, and the other parties. by eliminating it, he basically gave permission to the iranians to continue their development of nuclear weapons, yet he warned the iranians if they did, there was a price to pay, 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 a nuclear weapon, and i pray that 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, 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 currently have seen in the targeting of general solemoni. perhaps it was. we don't know the answer to that. when it happened a few weeks ago, we don't know of what would follow. that uncertainty is still here today. the majority leader said he felt the impeachment effort which came before the senate in 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. i disagree with him on two accounts. if senator mcconnell was counseling patience, patience at an impeachment trial would have involved evidence, documents, and witnesses, yet he was impatient to get it over with without any evidence coming

before the united states senate. i also would say that patience a good virtue when it comes to most of life's experiences, and it certainly is if there's a prospect of war. what senator kaine is doing is asserting the authority of congress to step up and be party to the discussions about whether we move beyond the current situation to one which involves troops or any type of invasion of territory in iran. i see senator kaine is on the floor and i'm going to defer to him at this moment. i will tell you this before i sit down. as long as i've been a member of the house and the senate, i have felt that congress has a responsibility under the constitution to declare war. it's a responsibility which 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'll guess wrong in terms of certain foreign policy decisions. regardless, i think the framers of our constitution understood

full well that if we're going to ask american families to potentially sacrifice the lives of their sons and daughters in combat and in war, they should have a voice on the decision of going to war and that's what this article in the constitution provides, a voice for the united states public when it comes through their congress as to whether or not we're 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 in this now on war powers, later today the senate will debate, will begin debate on senator kaine's war powers resolution preventing president trump from unilaterally escalating military action against iran. the constitution is clear, congress alone has the power to

declare wars. the president has no authority