Congressional Record, Volume 159 Issue 118 (Tuesday, September 10, 2013)

[Congressional Record Volume 159, Number 118 (Tuesday, September 10, 2013)]
[Senate]
[Pages S6312-S6320]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

AUTHORIZING THE LIMITED AND SPECIFIED USE OF THE UNITED STATES ARMED
FORCES AGAINST SYRIA--MOTION TO PROCEED--Continued

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from California.
Mrs. BOXER. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the time
until 5 p.m. be equally divided and controlled between the two leaders
or their designees, with Senators permitted to speak therein for up to
10 minutes each.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mrs. BOXER. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to speak for up
to 20 minutes at this time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mrs. BOXER. Madam President, today there are hopeful signs that the
international community will act to secure Syria's chemical weapons
which have caused so much pain and so much suffering, including the
suffering of little infants and children. A peaceful resolution to the
Assad regime's use of these lethal, outlawed weapons would certainly be
the best outcome. I commend the resolve of President Obama, without
which we wouldn't be looking at a potential diplomatic solution.
I wish to lay out for the record why we must act in response to the
use of chemical weapons. Of course, I prefer it to be done through the
international community. But I wish to be clear: There are certain
norms, there are certain rules, there are certain laws that must be
respected and obeyed; otherwise, we lose our humanity, and this is an
example.
Famous leaders throughout history have called war various things.
They have called war a contagion. They have called war hell. They have
called war a scourge, murder, a crime, despicable. But even in the
chaos and in the darkness of war, there are rules. There are red lines.
There are boundaries. There are limits. There are norms and there are
laws. That is why in our Nation, as difficult and as painful as it has
been, we have held our servicemembers accountable when they acted
outside those norms. We did it just last month with the conviction of a
soldier for war crimes committed in Afghanistan.
The use of chemical weapons is way outside international laws, rules,
boundaries, limits, and norms, and has been so since the end of World
War I, when the world uniformly condemned them. We know--we know
without a shadow of a doubt--that they have been used by Syria in a big
way, and it is time for all Members of Congress and, frankly, all
members of civilized society to look into our hearts, to look into our
souls, and to look into our consciences. The painful way to do it is to
look at the shocking acts committed against innocent, men, women, and
children in Syria. Look at those videos, as difficult as it might be,
of children and their families dying horrible, ghastly deaths, writhing
in pain, gasping for air, foaming at the mouth as the gas attacks their
nervous systems.
Do we have a conscience? I pray we do. Albert Einstein once said:
``The world is a dangerous place not because of those who do evil, but
because of those who look on and do nothing.''
Let me repeat it. ``The world is a dangerous place not because of
those who do evil, but because of those who look on and do nothing.''
Doing nothing can sometimes be an attractive alternative. I
understand it. But each of us who looks at these videos, who reads
about what happened, each of us must ask ourselves, as human beings, as
citizens of our great Nation: Can we respond to these atrocities by
doing nothing? Can we sit back and do nothing in the face of Syria's
use of chemical weapons on its own people, its own children?

[[Page S6313]]

When the President said he had a red line on this, he wasn't speaking
for himself alone; he was speaking for the world that disavowed these
weapons. I have to say that, to me, the Senate has a red line on this.
Anyone who voted for the Syria Accountability Act in 2003, be it in the
House or Senate, drew a red line, because in it, we condemned and we
decried the development of chemical weapons by the Assad regime, and we
tied that program to our own national security. There is no way our
national security is unaffected when these weapons are used and no one
is held accountable.
Did we mean it when we voted for the Syria Accountability Act? Did we
mean it when we passed the Chemical Weapons Convention in 1997, which I
was proud to vote for. Did we mean it? Words are good, but tyrants do
not heed words. History is replete with tyrants who stood in the face
of the worst condemnation and annihilated people. If we stand by and do
nothing, what message do we send to those who have these weapons?
I mentioned the ratification of the Chemical Weapons Convention in
1997, and I will tell my colleagues, as we look at the world--and there
is a lot to complain about and be ashamed of and worry about--one of
the good things is that since we passed the Chemical Weapons Convention
and ratified it, 80 percent of the chemical weapons of the world have
been destroyed.
I think we should listen again to colleagues who spoke during the
Senate debate on the Chemical Weapons Convention. Here is what Joe
Biden, our Vice President, said:

Norms are created so that we have standards for civilized
conduct by which to judge others. Without them, we leave the
rogue countries to behave as free actors.

Our own Pat Leahy said:

We will advise and consent so the President can ratify this
treaty. I truly believe we will. It will show the moral
leadership that the Senate should show and the United States
should show. We will act as the conscience of this Nation,
and we will advise and consent to this treaty. We will show
the moral leadership because we began this by saying we would
act unilaterally, if need be, renouncing our own use of
chemical weapons with or without a treaty. That was true
leadership.

So we hear the words ``morality'' and ``conscience'' and
``leadership.'' These shouldn't be just words. We should show that
courage. Here are words from John Warner, our former colleague. He
said:

I first learned of chemical weapons at the knee of my
father who was a surgeon in the trenches in World War I. He
described to me in vivid detail how he cared for the helpless
victims of that weapon . . . we cannot turn back now from
that leadership role.

Sixteen years later, in this very Chamber where I stood and proudly
cast my vote for the Chemical Weapons Convention, we are facing a clear
violation of law and humanity.
How do we react? If we do nothing, what is the signal to Assad? What
is the signal to Kim Jong Un in North Korea, who has what has been
described as a massive array of chemical weapons in an area where we
have 28,000 American troops keeping the peace. The message we send if
we do nothing is not a good one. It will send a message that says we
don't mean what we say; We don't stand behind the laws we pass or the
conventions we ratify. These chemical weapons kill people like
cockroaches. When we read history, we know these weapons were used on
the Iranians by Saddam Hussein and one Iraqi military official called
these weapons an ``annihilation insecticide.''
That is what they have been called. These weapons cause excruciating
death. That is why a monster such as Hitler chose them to wipe out
millions of those he considered subhuman. We all know the history. He
didn't use them on troops; he used them on those groups that he
considered subhuman. Yet, while the rest of the world was eliminating
chemical weapons, Syria was stockpiling precursor chemicals and
building one of the largest chemical weapons arsenals in the world.
A Syrian Foreign Ministry spokesman said in 2012 that Syria reserved
the right to use these weapons against external forces. His statement
already is a violation of international law. He said: We reserve the
right to use these weapons against external forces. But he went on to
say--and we have his name: ``Any stock of WMD or unconventional weapons
that the Syrian Army possesses will never, never be used against the
Syrian people or civilians during this crisis, under any
circumstances.'' Remarkably, Syria violated its own red line.
Chris Miller is a U.S. Army veteran and he is an expert in the area
of chemical and biological weapons. Here is what he wrote in ``The
Guardian.'' He said we must: ``jealously guard what progress has been
made in working toward a more peaceful world.''
He added:

The steady worldwide reduction of chemical weapons is a
prime example of that progress--one that we cannot allow to
be eroded so easily.

I can't underscore this enough. In a world full of challenges and
disappointments and for people such as the Presiding Officer and me who
believe so much that we can have a peaceful world, this is one of the
few areas we can point to--where 80 percent of the world's arsenal of
chemical weapons has been destroyed. If we turn our back on this tyrant
and on this use, clearly, the chemical weapons will go right back into
production. They will be marketing chemical weapons, and we know what
will happen when they get into certain hands. We should not ignore
history or we are doomed to repeat it.
The British soldier and poet Wilfred Owen wrote this in an effort to
depict the horrors of chemical warfare in World War I. This is what he
said: ``If you could hear, at every jolt, the blood / Come gargling
from the froth-corrupted lungs.''
He saw it firsthand in World War I, where 90,000 troops were killed
by these heinous weapons, including 6,000 French, British, Canadian,
and Belgian troops killed by German forces in one battle alone. Nations
flocked to sign the Geneva Protocol after World War I. Syria joined
them, and now more than 1,000 Syrian civilians lay dead due to Assad's
decision to bring back these horrors.
How will we react?
Our former colleague and respected national security leader Dick
Lugar says chemical weapons ``may be the greatest threat to our country
of any security risk that we have, much more than any other government,
for example, or another Nation because they can be used by terrorists,
by very small groups''--Dick Lugar, who played such a great role in
securing nuclear weapons after the Cold War; Dick Lugar, who
understands what could happen if we turn our back now.
I respectfully say to my colleagues: Don't look away. Don't
rationalize inaction. We cannot stay silent. If we fail to act in the
face of such a brazen violation of international norms, in the face of
an assault on conscience, then outlawing these weapons becomes
meaningless and we put the security of all of us at risk. If we fail to
act, we make it more likely that these weapons will be used again in
Syria and elsewhere. If we fail to act, we send a terrible message to
brutal regimes such as North Korea and Iran, which are seeking to
develop nuclear weapons. In the case of North Korea, they have what has
been described by Secretary Hagel as a massive amount of chemical
weapons. If we fail to act, we make it more likely that these horrific
weapons could be used against our allies such as Israel and our troops.
That is for sure. If we fail to act, we make it more likely that
chemical weapons will fall into the hands of terrorists and others who
would do us harm. If we fail to act, we send a message that the
civilized world will permit the use of these ghastly and inhumane
weapons, not just on the battlefield but against children and families
sleeping in their beds.
I ask my colleagues and the American people, do not look away. It is
easier to look away.
We had a chance to see some of the videos, Madam President, as you
know, during our luncheon meeting. We cannot sit by and do nothing in
the face of such horror. We cannot.
So here is the thing: We have a chance now--because of President
Obama's resolve, because of the resolve of the Senate Foreign Relations
Committee, because of the resolve of many people inside government and
outside government, we have the resolve to do something. And the best
something would be an international response.
I am proud of our President for making sure this alternative was in
Vladimir Putin's mind when they met. And

[[Page S6314]]

I am glad Secretary Kerry said: Look, there is an alternative. Let them
hand over their weapons. Let's dismantle them and do it right and
verify it and hold them accountable, and we get past this. That is the
route I believe we all want to see happen. We want to see the world
stand up against this inhumanity, but let's not be naive about it. When
you are dealing with tyrants, you have to enforce that kind of a plan.
I am hopeful today but not sanguine. I am hopeful that the United
Nations will take this as an opportunity to stand firm, to say that the
outlawing of chemical weapons meant something in reality, not just on
paper. And when we said people should not die like cockroaches, we
meant it. So I am hopeful we will have a small pause here and we will
give diplomacy a chance to work between the nations, and I praise our
leadership in the Obama administration and France's leadership and
British leadership. I hope the Russians meant it when they said: Let's
try to resolve this in a way that will result in the absolute
destruction of the chemical weapons Syria has. I hope they mean it.
We cannot walk away from an inhumane act that caused innocent
children to die in unspeakable ways because, I will tell you, if we
walk away, then I think the message is that there are no limits on
gross violations of international norms, there are no limits on gross
violations of international laws, and there are no limits on violations
of human decency.
I am very pleased the President took this to the Congress. I think it
was right. But I want to be clear: The President, as our Commander in
Chief, has the authority--if he believes there is an imminent threat or
danger to us, he has the authority to act. And I think Richard Lugar is
sending us a very powerful message when he says one of our greatest
national security threats--he said even greater than a threat posed by
any nation--is the possibility that a small terrorist group could get
their hands on these weapons. I will tell you, Madam President, that is
an unacceptable situation, and I know the President worries about this
every day, and every night when he goes to sleep, it is on his mind.
One way to make sure the chance of that happening is lessened greatly
is to make sure one of the largest caches of these weapons is
controlled internationally and then destroyed. That will, in fact, mean
we will have a more peaceful world.
There is a civil war going on in Syria. No one wants to get in the
middle of it--least of all those of us who voted against the Iraq war
because we saw what would happen. And years and years and years later,
unfortunately, we were proven right. I was proud to vote no on that
war. I think I have a little credibility here for not wanting to go to
war, for making sure the intelligence is right, for making sure there
is a limited mission, for making sure this is well thought out.
I would say in closing that the best ending to this crisis is for the
international community to take hold of this--together, all of us--and
work to see that these weapons of mass destruction are first accounted
for, then controlled, and then destroyed. If we can do that, then the
horrifying deaths we have witnessed and we have seen on tape today and
the American people have been witnessing--at least there will be
something good that could come out of this because otherwise, if there
is no action, their deaths will not mean anything, they will be
forgotten.
So we need to keep a credible plan before us, which means we want to
see international rules apply, we want to see the international
community take hold of this and have a good outcome. But I will tell
you this--and I believe this with every fiber of my being--such a gross
violation of humanity cannot go unanswered.
Thank you very much.
I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mrs. BOXER. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mrs. BOXER. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that time during
all the quorum calls be charged equally to both sides.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mrs. BOXER. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. SANDERS. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. SANDERS. Madam President, I wanted to use this opportunity to say
a few words about the issue that is on everybody's minds; that is,
Syria. I want to tell you that approximately 95 percent of the
thousands of e-mails and phone calls my office has received are against
U.S. military intervention in the bloody and chaotic civil war in
Syria.
The truth is the numbers in Vermont may be higher than the national
average in terms of opposition to this war. But there is probably no
State in this country where U.S. military intervention in this bloody
and complicated civil war in Syria is being supported. It is an
interesting phenomenon.
We have a very divided Nation politically, but on this issue it
appears the vast majority of Democrats, Republicans, Independents, the
vast majority of progressives--I am a progressive--conservatives,
moderates, have all come together to express deep concern about the
United States being involved in the third military intervention in the
Middle East in 12 years.
Let me tell you why I believe the American people feel so strongly
against military involvement in Syria. Clearly, it has much to do with
the fact that the United States has already been at war for 12 years.
There are kids in this country who are halfway through primary school
who have never known an America that has not been at war.
What the American people also understand is these wars have been
enormously costly in many ways. Not only have these wars in Iraq and
Afghanistan cost us the lives of some 4,600 brave American men and
women who fought in Iraq and Afghanistan, but as chairman of the
Veterans Affairs' Committee I can tell you that today we have tens of
thousands of veterans from Iraq and Afghanistan who are dealing with
traumatic brain injury, who are dealing with post-traumatic stress
disorder, problems they are going to be carrying with them for the rest
of their lives.
The human cost of those wars has been enormous. But it is not only
the human cost, it is the financial cost as well. Today, at a time when
working families are struggling to keep their heads above water
economically, we are throwing thousands and thousands of little kids
who desperately need preschool education off of Head Start. We should
be expanding Head Start. But because of sequestration we are throwing
them off of Head Start. We are denying nutrition programs, the Meals on
Wheels Programs, that go to some of the most vulnerable and fragile
seniors in this country. We are throwing them off basic nutrition
programs.
We are forcing massive cuts through furloughs on tens of thousands of
Federal employees, including members of the Vermont National Guard. At
the end of the day, by the time we take care of the last servicemember
who served in Iraq and Afghanistan, those wars will have cost us at
least $3 trillion.
But it is not only the human cost of those wars that troubles the
American people. It is not only the financial cost of these wars that
troubles the American people. It is the deep sense that exists across
the political spectrum that foreign policy and going to war are a lot
more complicated and unpredictable and have unintended consequences,
far more so than many of our leaders in past years have believed.
Afghanistan is a small country that in 2001 virtually had no army
when the United States invaded it; no army against the most powerful
military force in the history of the world.
What is the problem? Twelve years later we are still in Afghanistan.
All of us remember President George W. Bush standing on an aircraft
carrier telling us that in Iraq the mission was accomplished. Mission
accomplished.
Well, it didn't turn out quite that way. Thousands of deaths later
for

[[Page S6315]]

American servicemembers, tens of thousands of deaths later for the
people of Iraq, peace and democracy in that country has not yet been
accomplished. It is a lot more complicated than people thought it would
be.
Today people worry what are the long-term implications and what are
the unforeseen consequences of the United States being involved in a
horrendous, bloody, and complicated war in Syria. All of us know Asad
is a ruthless dictator who has exploited his people terribly and used
chemical weapons against them. But not every American knows that some
20 to 25 percent of the opposition to Asad turns out to be Islamic
fundamentalists, some of them affiliated with Al Qaeda.
What are the long-term implications and unintended consequences of
being involved in a war in that area? I know the President has been
very clear about saying he is talking about strikes that are very
targeted, very minimal. But once you break the egg, once you get
involved, we have to bear and will bear a certain amount of
responsibility for what happens during the war and even after the war
if Asad is overthrown.
This is why the American people are extremely concerned about the
United States unilaterally going into Syria without the support of the
international community and without the support of the United Nations.
Having said all of that, in my mind there is another reason, a deeper
reason, as to why there is so much opposition to the President's
proposal and the proposal that came out of the Foreign Relations
Committee, which was more open-ended and spoke about regime change.
That has everything to do with the fact that the favorability rating of
the Congress is today somewhere between 8 and 15 percent.
The vast majority of the American people don't know. They don't care
who controls the Senate, whether it is the Democrats. They don't know
who controls the House, the Republicans. By and large, the American
people have given up believing that the Congress and the White House
are listening to their needs, which are very serious at this moment, or
are interested or capable of responding to their needs.
What the American people are saying, and they are saying it very
loudly, is we have a Congress and a White House which continues to
ignore the enormous crises facing the middle class and working families
of our country. What they are saying is: Yes, Mr. President, we agree
with you, what Asad is doing in Syria is unspeakable; that he is
gassing his own kids is beyond belief. We understand that. We want the
international community to address that.
But what they are also saying is: Mr. President, Members of Congress,
think about our children, the kids in West Virginia, the kids in
California, the kids in Detroit, the kids in Vermont. What about our
kids? What kind of future are they going to have in an economy in which
the middle class continues to disappear and poverty remains at an
almost all-time high for the last 60 years?
Today real unemployment in this country is not 7.4 percent, the
official unemployment rate. Real unemployment is close to 14 percent.
Youth unemployment is a tragedy. Kids are graduating high school,
going out and looking for jobs, and they want to get a sense of
independence. There are no jobs for them. Youth unemployment in this
country is close to 20 percent.
For minorities, the number is considerably higher. Black youth
unemployment in this country is close to 40 percent. Parents are
worried that their kids are graduating from high school and there are
no jobs available to them.
Before I came to Washington the other day, I talked to a physician in
the State of Vermont who said: Bernie, do you know what. In Vermont,
beautiful Vermont, rural Vermont, we are facing a heroin epidemic. Kids
are shooting up heroin in Vermont, not to mention the rest of the
country, because they don't see much of a future facing them.
Parents are worried that their kids are graduating college, often
deeply in debt, and that either they can't find a job or the jobs they
do obtain often do not require a college degree. The fact is most of
the new jobs being created in this country are part-time jobs with
minimal benefits, and they are often low-wage jobs.
What the Department of Labor is telling us is that, in fact, most of
the new jobs we see coming down the pike for our kids do not require a
college degree. They are low-wage jobs.
The people are saying from one end of this country, yes, we are
concerned about Syria, but we are also concerned about Los Angeles,
Detroit, and St. Johnsbury, VT. Please, Mr. President, create jobs for
the working families of this country. What they are begging the
Congress to do is to address the needs our people face.
What they understand, and I think this has a lot to do with why there
is so much opposition to getting involved in this war in Syria, is that
the Congress has virtually done nothing to improve the economy for
working families, and they worry very much that if all of our time,
energy, and resources are devoted to Syria, we are never going to
address the serious problems facing the working families of this
country.
Tens of millions of our fellow Americans today are working longer
hours for lower wages, and many of them are earning wages that are
simply too low to support a family. We have been happy to hear in
Michigan, for example, the automobile industry is doing better; more
people are being hired. That is the good news.
Do you know what the bad news is. The new jobs in the automobile
industry are barely more than 50 percent in pay of what the old jobs
were. All over this country the new jobs that are being created are not
paying what the jobs in this country used to pay. We have millions of
people working for a disgracefully low minimum wage of $7.25 an hour.
People are saying: Mr. President, Members of Congress, yes, we are
worried about Syria, but why don't you work to make sure every person
who has a job in this country can earn a wage which enables him or her
to take care of their family?
The media doesn't pay a lot of attention to it, Congress doesn't pay
a lot of attention, but the American people also understand it is not
only high unemployment and low wages, something else is going on in
this country. They know that while the middle class is disappearing and
46 million Americans are living in poverty, they understand the people
on top today, the people whose lobbyists surround this institution, the
people who make huge campaign contributions to the political parties,
are doing very well. They are doing extraordinarily well. Corporate
profits are at an all-time high. The people on Wall Street, whose
greed, recklessness, and illegal behavior caused the worst economic
downturn since the Great Depression, well, guess what. They are doing
phenomenally well. They are making record-breaking profits. The rich
are doing well and corporate America is doing well. They are making all
kinds of campaign contributions.

The American people are looking around and saying, What are you doing
for us? What are you doing to protect the seniors and their Social
Security? What are you doing to protect the children of this country,
to make sure they get a decent education? What are you doing to make
sure the United States joins the rest of the industrialized world so
all of our people have health care as a right?
One of the reasons I think there is so much lack of support for this
war is the American people feel it is high time for us to pay attention
to their needs.
We have recently heard, and the news is being updated almost
momentarily, that Russia, for whatever reasons, has decided finally to
play a positive role in this crisis. They are urging Syria to allow the
international community to take possession of their chemical weapons.
We believe that France right now is prepared to go to the Security
Council with a resolution similar to what the Russians are talking
about.
I can't tell you how honest the Russians are being in this effort,
what their ulterior plans may be. But I think now is the opportunity to
work with Russia, to work with China, to work with the Security Council
and the United Nations. It would be an extraordinary victory, in my
view, for the people of Syria, who are going through horror after
horror right now,

[[Page S6316]]

for the entire world, and for the future of the world, if we could take
those terrible chemical weapons out of Asad's hands and destroy them. I
would hope very much the President and our Secretary of State will be
working with the international community to make that happen.
Let me conclude. I think we are in a very interesting and, in fact,
momentous moment in the history of the United States of America. The
people are coming together to say we have enormous crises in our own
country and if we don't get our act together, we are going to see the
decline of a once-great Nation. We are going to see, for the first time
in the modern history of our country, our children having a lower
standard of living than we do.
I would hope the lesson we learned of this entire episode is the
American people do not want us unilaterally getting involved in another
war in the Middle East. I would hope also the lesson we learned is the
American people are saying very loudly and clearly this country faces
enormous crises: economically, global warming, health care, education,
income and wealth inequality, and they want us to start addressing
those needs. I hope that out of this very difficult moment the silver
lining is we learn something from what the American people want and we
begin to do what they say.
I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Manchin.) The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. UDALL of New Mexico. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that
the order for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. UDALL of New Mexico. Mr. President, I rise today to speak about
the very serious vote before us--the vote to authorize force against
Syria. Let's be clear: This is a vote to authorize an act of war. The
American people are watching. They know what this is--a dilemma with no
easy answers. They know it could spiral out of control. It has happened
before and it could happen again.
The use of chemical weapons is an outrage. What happened in Syria was
despicable. The horror is clear. The world cannot look away. This crime
is a crime against humanity. It demands an international response--
strong and unequivocal. On this we can all agree. However, what should
that response be?
The President has presented a plan for military strikes on the Syrian
regime--an attack that has been presented to the American people as
limited in scope but with very great consequences. So we are confronted
with urgent appeals to strike, but I believe there are strong reasons
not to do so.
First, we should pursue all diplomatic and economic options to
pressure both Asad and his backers to change course. We have not yet
done that to the fullest extent.
We all know the Russian Government is aiding and abetting the
criminal regime in Syria, supplying military support, providing
diplomatic cover, and preventing an international response to this
atrocity. The world is rightly outraged. That outrage should be loud
and clear, and the full force of international condemnation must be
exerted, not just against Asad.
As of this week there are signs Russia may be getting the message. If
their proposal to help secure Syria's chemical weapons is sincere, then
we should welcome this opportunity. We should work with the
international community to make this a reality. The inability to use
chemical weapons in this conflict will restore the international norm
we seek to uphold and prevent a recurrence of the horrors we have seen.
If Russia aims to be a responsible world power and not a rogue
nation, they will seek solutions, not obstruction. They are a signatory
to the Chemical Weapons Convention. Let's hold their feet to the fire
to do what is right. The President's mandate is stronger with
congressional approval, and the mandate of the United States is
stronger with international support. I would urge Ambassador Power and
Secretary Kerry to keep up the pressure on Russia. Make the forceful
case to the Security Council. Continue to share the evidence with the
people of the world.
This situation will not be solved with Tomahawk cruise missiles fired
into Syria. It will require a concerted international effort to push
Asad and the various rebels to pursue a political solution. For us to
go it alone, to take unilateral action, will put us on shaky ground
legally and strategically.
Second, the proposal to use military force could embroil the United
States in a complex Middle Eastern civil war. There is a cancer in
Syria, from Asad to Al Qaeda. The civil war is a twilight zone
comprised of multiple players internationally, regionally, and within
Syria. Many of the rebels do not share our values. Some--we don't know
how many--are enemies of the United States and our allies. Many of
these rebel groups have also committed terrible atrocities. Tilting the
balance too far in their favor is not in our Nation's interest and will
not leave Syria safer for innocent civilians.
These strikes have been presented as limited and targeted, but last
week there were reports about expanding military targets, of regime
change. Even the resolution we are considering today includes veiled
language--the language that could make it the policy of the United
States to tilt the momentum in the civil war and endorse the policy of
arming the Syrian rebels--a policy I and others believe is very
dangerous--about whom we know too little.
Third, there is a real risk that even limited U.S. military
involvement may make Asad feel more desperate, putting our allies--
Israel, Turkey, and Jordan--at risk of attack. This could spark a
regional war, creating a situation on the ground where Asad may be
more, not less, inclined to use chemical weapons.
As with so many elements here, the question occurs, what then? Here
is the reality. There is no simple solution, and the American people
know this. I understand there is a natural instinct to want to
retaliate, to strike out. No one can forget the horrific images, the
terrible suffering of the victims. But we need a clear strategy that
will not mire the United States in a bloody and uncertain civil war. I
remain unconvinced that we have such a strategy in place.

The Iraq war, which I voted against, began as an international effort
to kick Saddam Hussein out of Kuwait. There followed years of a no-fly
zone and airstrikes to prevent Saddam from threatening his neighbors or
reconstituting his arsenal of chemical weapons. As we all know, these
limited military actions led to one of the biggest blunders in U.S.
history.
Americans are understandably skeptical after the fiasco of Iraq. They
want to know if we are going down the same path in Syria, into a civil
war that is more complex and potentially damaging to the United States
and its interests. Limited attack or broader, there is no easy way out
of the quicksand. Have we not learned at least that after 12 years of
war?
I have listened to the administration's arguments closely, as well as
the opinions of New Mexicans. The American people do not believe a
limited strike will deter Asad; they fear this strike will just lead us
further toward direct involvement. They rightly ask, for what purpose
and to what end? Public officials should not always let polls be their
guide before making important decisions for our country, but I agree
with the majority of Americans and New Mexicans--we must exhaust our
political, diplomatic, and economic options first. This is not a lack
of resolve. America has the greatest military on Earth. No one should
doubt that we will defend our interests and our allies. But a military
strike in Syria is the wrong response in the wrong place at the wrong
time.
I come to the floor not to push my colleagues one way or another.
Each of us must make up his or her own mind. I come here simply to
explain my reasons for voting no on this authorization for the use of
military force in Syria.
I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.

[[Page S6317]]

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, make no mistake about it, the resolution
before us, in my judgment, is one of the most difficult decisions a
Member of the Senate will ever have to make. The authorization of force
is an awesome responsibility that each of us has. None of us wants to
see American troops in harm's way. None of us wants to see the need for
the use of military force. This is a difficult judgment for us to make.
The Constitution envisions that both the President and Congress are
involved in the deploying of U.S. military. Certainly the President, as
Commander in Chief, and the Congress, under the War Powers Act, have a
responsibility to authorize the use of force. Today in this country
Americans are tired of war. We have been involved in Iraq and
Afghanistan for way too long. We thought these campaigns would be short
campaigns. They turned out to be very long. There has been a tremendous
loss in human life and fiscal resources as a result of the wars in
which the United States has participated. But the public also
understands that we have a responsibility to use our military to
protect the national interests of the people of this country. They
understand that America's military strength keeps the people in this
country safe, and they expect that the President and the Congress will
use that military force in order to protect the national security of
the people of this country.
What is in our national security interest and why would the President
come to Congress asking us to consider the use of military force in the
current circumstances in Syria? People understand, they recognize that
if we are about to be attacked, there is a need to use force.
The United States plays a unique role in the international community,
for we understand that standing up for basic internationally recognized
human rights is a responsibility we all have. I supported President
Clinton when he asked for the authorization of force for the United
States, along with the international community, to be involved in
restoring order in the republics of the former Yugoslavia, where there
was ethnic cleansing in Bosnia and Kosovo. But for the leadership of
the United States additional communities would have been destroyed and
people would have lost their lives. We stood up because it was in the
interests of the United States to stand up for the enforcement of basic
internationally established human rights.
Let's evaluate what is happening in Syria today and understand that
although what is happening there may be far from our shores, the impact
very much could be felt here in the United States. I serve on the
Senate Foreign Relations Committee. We were called back into session
last week because of the President's request for the Congress to act on
his request for the use of force. We held hearings that were open to
the public, and we held classified hearings in order to better
understand what had happened in Syria.

I think it is now clear beyond any doubt that the Asad regime in
Syria used chemical weapons. The evidence is clear. It was not the
first occasion they used chemical weapons. They had used chemical
weapons in the past but not to the magnitude they did on August 21 of
this year which resulted in more than 1,400 deaths, many of whom were
children. The videos of that image are now available publicly. People
can see the horrific act that was imposed upon the people of Syria by
its President, President Asad.
The action of Syria on August 21 violated international norm. Since
chemical weapons were used in World War I, the international community
has come together and said: Even in war we will not permit the use of
chemical weapons. It is so horrific, so indiscriminate in its killing
and in its maiming that as an international community we will stand and
say: No, you cannot use chemical weapons.
The evidence is clear that President Asad of Syria used chemical
weapons in a mass way and killed over 1,400 people. That action
requires the response of the international community, for if it goes
unchallenged it is more likely President Asad will continue to use
chemical weapons. He just considers it one of the weapons in his
toolbox, and he will call it out more and more if it goes unchallenged
by the international community.
The people of Syria are not the only ones at risk. These chemical
weapons could easily be used against American allies in that region. It
could be used against Turkey. It could be used against Jordan. It could
be used against Israel.
If the use of weapons of mass destruction in Syria goes unchallenged
and if President Asad can get away with the use of chemical weapons,
what message does that send to the regime in Iran and its ambition to
become a nuclear weapons state and perhaps use nuclear weapons? What
message does it send to the Government of North Korea, which is openly
testing the use of nuclear weapons?
We have a direct interest in preventing the use of weapons of mass
destruction, and we have to work with the international community to
say this will not go unchallenged. We not only have a moral
imperative--and we do have a moral imperative--but we also have an
issue of our national security interest. If these weapons of mass
destruction get in the hands of terrorist organizations and groups, it
threatens the security of Americans and it threatens the security of
our allies. We have a responsibility to protect the national security
of the people of this country.
I have engaged many people in Maryland who have talked to me about
their concerns about the use of the American military in Syria. They
recall what happened when the Congress authorized the use of force in
Iraq where there was evidence of chemical weapons, and then we went in
and found no chemical weapons. There were statements made about how
this would be a limited operation. Our troops were there for a decade.
So there is obviously concern about the information being made
available to us and what is being asked of the Congress of the United
States.
When force was authorized against Iraq and that resolution was
pending on the floor, I served in the other body, in the House of
Representatives. I had a chance to see firsthand the information about
Iraq and its risk factors to the interest of the United States. Some
may recall that the popular sentiment was for America to authorize the
use of force--for Congress to authorize the use of force. I voted no on
that resolution because I was convinced America did not have a national
security interest to use military force. So I will explain the
difference between the circumstances in Iraq over a decade ago and what
we are facing today in Syria.
The original justification for the United States entering its combat
troops in Iraq was that Iraq was deeply involved with the then-
government of Afghanistan and the attack on our country on September
11. I looked for that information, and I saw no information between the
Iraqi Government and the attack on our government. Yet those statements
were made and it was used as justification for the use of military
force.
Here the justification is the use by Syria of chemical weapons, and
that has been established. I believe the international community has
now understood the evidence is clear that the Asad regime used chemical
weapons in contravention to international norm.
When we were authorizing the Iraq use of force, there were no
restrictions on the U.S. military. As everyone knows, we used ground
troops. We used hundreds of thousands of ground troops in our campaign
in Iraq. American lives were put directly at risk, and it put America
directly in harm's way.
The request made by the President of the United States for military
action in Syria does not include--and, in fact, the resolution that has
come out of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee makes it clear that
there will be no ground combat troops from the United States of
America. We will not be drawn into a ground war.
The Iraqi resolution that was approved over a decade ago had no time
limit on that authorization. As we saw with that authorization and with
the Afghanistan authorization, those campaigns went for over a decade,
with American troops at risk.
The authorization that has come out of the Senate Foreign Relations
Committee contains a 60-day limitation on the authorization of the use
of force. It can be extended once for an additional

[[Page S6318]]

30 days. This is a limited campaign. It is very clear this
authorization is restricted to the specific objective to degrade and
deter the use of chemical weapons by the Syrian regime and to prevent
the transfer of chemical weapons to terrorist organizations.
The Senate Foreign Relations Committee recommended resolution is
limited. It is limited to that mission. It is limited in the type of
military operation--no ground troops. It is limited in time and is not
to exceed 60 to 90 days. It is limited to the fact that use of force
should be the last option--not the first but the last option.
I have said many times on the floor of the House, and now on the
floor of the Senate, that the use of military should be the last
resort. There are other options that need to be explored first. So the
resolution that has come out of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee
requires the President to pursue diplomatic ways to resolve the issue
before he can use force. He must certify to Congress that he has done
that before he can use force.

Mr. President, you understand this directly because you raised some
of these issues. We now have an opportunity that we hope will work. We
now have the attention of Russia and Syria since they know America is
serious about reacting to Syria's use of chemical weapons. They know we
will not stand by.
They have now acknowledged that chemical weapons in great numbers
exist in Syria. And, quite frankly, I think they have acknowledged the
use of chemical weapons in Syria. Of course, the videos speak for
themselves and the physical evidence is overwhelming.
Now the suggestion is they will turn over those chemical weapons to
the international community. If that is done, we have achieved our
objective in the resolution that is before us. The resolution before us
is to degrade and deter the use of chemical weapons by Syria. If they
turn their chemical weapons over to the international community, we
have achieved our objective. However, any such plan must be verifiable,
enforceable, and timely.
Excuse me if I seem a little bit suspicious of the suggestions made
by Russia and Syria. I want to make sure they are verifiable, they are
enforceable, and that they are timely. We anticipated a diplomatic
effort when the Senate Foreign Relations Committee recommended this
resolution to the floor of the Senate.
There are many Members of the Senate, including the Presiding
Officer, who are looking at ways we can come together to support the
President's effort to stand up against the use of chemical weapons. I
hope we will be able to come together with language in this resolution
that will allow the Syrian Government to turn over its chemical weapons
in a timely and enforceable way so military force will not be
necessary.
Make no mistake about it, but for the leadership of President Obama
and their fear of the use of American military force, we would never be
at this opportunity right now where we have a viable diplomatic channel
we can pursue. I wanted to acknowledge that we anticipated diplomacy
would be used, as it always should be, before the use of our military.
We hope our military will not be necessary, but we have to react to the
use of chemical weapons.
Let me explain some of what we don't want to see happen. Earlier I
referenced the hearings we had in the Senate Foreign Relations
Committee. I congratulate Senator Menendez and Senator Corker, the
chairman and ranking Republican on our committee. We had a very open
hearing, we had access to classified information, and then we had an
open discussion in our committee where all views were heard.
We tried to recommend a resolution we thought was responsible for the
Congress to weigh in on. It was not the resolution the President
submitted to us. It was one that was much more limited to the
authorization we thought was appropriate. I think it has served its
purpose from the point of view of putting Syria on notice that the
United States is prepared to join the international community to say:
Chemical weapons will not be allowed to be used. We also made it clear
we will not be drawn into a civil war.
President Asad has done some horrible things in that country. In my
view, he has lost the legitimacy of leading the country, but it is up
to the Syrians to solve their civil conflict. American troops will not
be drawn into the civil problems within Syria itself. They are going to
have to resolve that issue.
As the United States has said, and as the international community has
said, there needs to be a political solution to the future of Syria.
Yes, there are some good people in the opposition and there are some
people we are concerned about in the opposition. At the end of the day,
it is up to the Syrians, through a political process, to determine
their own government. What we should expect is a government that will
respect the human rights of all the people of Syria and will respect
the right of Syrians to determine who their leader should be. All
ethnic communities should be able to live in peace in Syria, and that
is our objective, to get to that political solution. We will not be
drawn into a broader conflict.
As I said earlier, the people I have talked to in Maryland don't want
war. The people I have talked to in this Nation do not want the United
States drawn into another war, and neither do I.
One more point about the response to the use of chemical
weapons. Yes, our first priority is to make sure these chemical weapons
aren't used again. The best way to do that is to get control of the
weapons and make sure they are not used and, hopefully, destroyed.

President Asad needs to be held accountable. He has committed war
crimes. He has committed crimes against humanity. He needs to be held
accountable for the criminal actions he has perpetrated on the people
of Syria. As we know, over 100,000 have lost their lives, many of whom
were civilians who were put in harm's way by the Syrian Government
against international norms. I encourage my colleagues to join me in
the effort of calling on an international tribunal to take President
Asad, in this case, and establish the international justice so that he
is held accountable for his actions.
One last point about the resolution before us. It is important to
work with the international community. I hope we will find more
countries standing up for the importance of international participation
regarding condemning the use of chemical weapons. One of the hopes we
have in this new opportunity for a diplomatic solution is for the
United Nations to assume its appropriate role. The United Nations
Security Council will have an opportunity as early as today to pass an
enforceable resolution condemning what happened in Syria and accepting
the offer to take control of all of its chemical weapons and do it in a
way that is enforceable and in a way that accomplishes its goal. I hope
the United Nations Security Council will act. I hope the international
community will join us. United States leadership is needed, and
President Obama is providing it. But the key point is we must respond
to the use of chemical weapons.
I think this debate is strengthening our country. I understand there
are different views. I urge my colleagues to come together to support a
resolution that puts America on record supporting President Obama in
saying we will not permit the use of chemical weapons to go
unchallenged, that our objective is to make sure the world is safer,
and we are prepared to work with the international community in order
to achieve those objectives.
With that, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. MANCHIN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Ms. Warren). Without objection, it is so
ordered.
Mr. MANCHIN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent the time until
7 p.m. be equally divided and controlled between the two leaders or
their designees, with Senators permitted to speak therein for up to 10
minutes each.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. MANCHIN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to enter into a
colloquy with my dear friend Senator

[[Page S6319]]

Heitkamp of North Dakota so we can talk about the serious situation we
have before us.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from West Virginia is recognized.
Mr. MANCHIN. I thank the Chair.
(The remarks of Mr. Manchin and Ms. Heitkamp pertaining to the
introduction of S.J. Res. 22 are located in today's Record under
``Statements on Introduced Bills and Joint Resolutions.'')
Mr. MANCHIN. I thank the Senator and note the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Ms. BALDWIN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Ms. BALDWIN. Madam President, I come to speak to the important debate
we are having about the most sobering issue I face as a Senator, as a
Wisconsinite, and as an American--the issue of military action by the
United States.
Let me start by saying that the Asad regime's use of chemical weapons
against the Syrian people is morally reprehensible and a serious
violation of longstanding international law. The various treaties and
conventions addressing these issues have been ratified by most of the
world's nations. There is a reason why almost the entire world has
gathered under the Chemical Weapons Convention to ban these weapons. It
is because chemical weapons are truly barbaric in nature. They are a
global threat, and they therefore require a global response.
The President has made the right choice to seek congressional
authorization for any potential military action in Syria. The gravity
of these issues before us is significant and they deserve a full
debate. President Obama should be praised for understanding and
appreciating that fact. We must demand that all Presidents--not just
this President--come to Congress to get approval before taking military
action in another country in instances where we are not facing an
imminent threat. I have made that case with both Democratic and
Republican Presidents.
I strongly believe our response to this situation must not be a
unilateral military action. This is not America's responsibility alone,
and it is not in our interest to set the precedent that it is our
responsibility alone.
Syria violated international laws and should be held accountable by
the international community. America must not act alone. The use of
chemical weapons is a global atrocity that demands a global response,
and that is why I oppose going to war in Syria and I oppose authorizing
military involvement in Syria's civil war--not for 1 day, not for 60
days, not for a decade. I do not believe we should involve ourselves
militarily in the middle of a brutal years-long civil war. That would
not strengthen America's national security. But the answer is not to do
nothing. The answer, rather, is to create a situation where these
violations of humanitarian norms and crimes against humanity can be
dealt with effectively by the U.N. and other international
institutions.
We must continue to focus on building a global coalition to support
the encouraging developments in the past few days and to resolve this
crisis without the use of unilateral military engagement in Syria. By
working through the United Nations and its institutions, we strengthen
international frameworks that can help resolve the conflict in Syria
and build a safer and stronger international community moving forward.
I firmly believe that the recent potential for progress in today's
U.N. discussions is a testament to American democracy. By President
Obama fulfilling his constitutional duties to come to Congress and by
our serious debate here on Capitol Hill, I believe America has helped
drive a more constructive international debate and engagement on Asad's
regime's atrocities. We must now give the opportunity of a path forward
without military involvement in Syria a chance to succeed.
Madam President, I yield back my time and suggest the absence of a
quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. WHITEHOUSE. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the
order for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

Climate Change

Mr. WHITEHOUSE. Madam President, we are back from the August recess,
and I am here now for the 42nd time to try to awaken this body to the
threat of climate change. Today I have come to talk about some of what
went on during the recess while we were away in my home State of Rhode
Island and around the globe.
Here is some of what happened in Rhode Island.
On August 14, Nancy Sutley, Chair of the White House Council on
Environmental Quality, joined me in Rhode Island to deliver a clear
message. As she said: ``Climate change poses a very real threat to
public health, both now and in the future.''
Warmer temperatures in the Northeast mean harmful ozone can form very
quickly. That leads to the bad air days we hear about on the news, when
children with asthma and other vulnerable citizens are urged to stay
indoors, often on what appear to be beautiful, sunny, summer days.
Nancy Sutley and I heard from Nick Friend, a 15-year-old from East
Providence, and Kenyatta Richards, an 8-year-old from Warwick, about
the six Rhode Island bad air days we have had already this year that
threatened Nick's and Kenyatta's health, and thousands more children.
In Narragansett, a lovely Rhode Island beach town, I visited two
sites that sustained significant damage during Hurricane Sandy to see
how that town is using recovery aid to repair roads and public housing.
People in Narragansett realize rebuilding is not enough; that we need
to start adapting for future storms.
The oceans are warming, undeniably, and as they warm they expand. So
sea levels rise, leading to more erosion and flooding. Tide gauges in
Newport show an average sea level increase of nearly 10 inches since
1930. So storm surges such as the damaging surge last year from
Hurricane Sandy will batter our shores further inland, and we have to
adapt to that.
In Westerly, RI, town officials and the University of Rhode Island's
Coastal Resources Center held an informational meeting about the
effects of sea level rise on the town's coastal wetlands, planning for
1, 3, and 5 feet of coastal sea level rise, so Westerly can create a
communitywide adaptation plan.
Cranston, RI, was hit hard by the floods of 2010. In August, during
this recess, demolition crews began tearing down homes in a
neighborhood near the Pawtuxet River to buffer the surrounding homes to
protect against future flooding. Cranston also announced a series of
climate change workshops to increase awareness about the threats facing
city residents and to help them plan ahead. So that is some of what
happened in Rhode Island.
Nationally, in August the Rim Fire burned in California near Yosemite
National Park, the third largest wildfire on record in California. No
one can say climate change caused this fire. Wildfires have been
happening forever. But hotter, drier years make for worse wildfire
seasons. Spring and summer temperatures are edging up, snow is melting
earlier, wildfire season is lengthening, and the intensity of the
wildfire season is increasing, as State and Federal fire and forest
managers forewarned our bicameral task force in a hearing just before
the recess.
During August, nearly all of New Mexico experienced drought, with the
majority of that State in severe, extreme or exceptional drought. In
late August, the Bureau of Reclamation announced the first reduction of
outflows from Lake Powell since the reservoir was filled in the early
1960s. Tens of millions of people who rely on the Colorado River for
water will be affected.
Reports are that a late August heat wave in the Midwest caused school
closures in Minnesota, and students were released early from schools in
Colorado, Illinois, Iowa, Nebraska, North Dakota, and South Dakota.
Again, it is the loaded dice phenomenon. We can't

[[Page S6320]]

assign specific blame for this heat wave to climate change, but on a
planet with hotter summers, we can expect worse and more frequent heat
waves. So that is nationally.
Globally, NOAA announced that July 2013 was the sixth warmest July on
record.
I was traveling in Asia during the recess with Senator John McCain
immediately following record-setting heat. In mid-August temperatures
passed 105 degrees Fahrenheit in Shanghai, China, the hottest
temperature measured in the city since records began to be kept about
140 years ago. The temperature in Shimanto, Japan, hit 105 degrees
Fahrenheit, the hottest ever recorded in that Nation.
South Korea's President Park talked with us about climate change and
its importance in Northeast Asia. While we were there in South Korea,
the Ministry of Trade, Industry, and Energy had warned of power
shortages due to high temperatures, and we met with public officials in
rooms with air-conditioners shut off to save power.
Senator McCain and I heard from China's leading climate official,
Vice Chairman Xie, about China's plan to invest almost $475 billion on
clean energy and emissions-reducing projects through 2015--nearly $500
billion between now and 2015 and about seven regional cap-and-trade
programs that will eventually include other large cities such as
Shanghai, Beijing, and Tianjin. For my colleagues who say China must
act first on climate change: They are acting, and we should not look to
them for an excuse to delay action here at home.
Indeed, a report recently by the Pew Charitable Trusts described
China as--let me quote this--China: ``The epicenter of clean energy
finance, attracting $65.1 billion in investment . . . it garnered 25
percent of all solar energy investment . . . 37 percent of all wind
energy investment . . . and 47 percent of the investment in the `other
renewable energy category.' ''
That is what the Pew Report said about China.
The report compared that to the ``disappointing U.S. performance in
the worldwide race for clean energy jobs, manufacturing, and market
share.'' That is not a race we want to lose. Yet we are exhibiting
disappointing performance against China.
August was also a month for the usual climate denial. One of our
Senate colleagues reportedly self-declared that he was a global warming
denier and said he believes evidence points to the Earth entering a
mini ice age.
One California Representative told constituents: ``Just so you know,
global warming is a total fraud.''
A conservative Representative from Iowa told his constituents:

[Climate change] is not science. It's more of a religion
than science.

A Representative from Florida said: ``Our climate will continue to
change because of the way God formed the Earth.''
August even brought a climate denier opinion piece to my home State
``Providence Journal:'' ``Climate science is in turmoil,'' the piece
said, ``because global surface temperatures have been flat for 16
years.''
Rhode Island's PolitiFact unit quickly determined that this claim
``cherry-picked numbers and leaves out important details that would
give a very different impression.''
In truth, there have been steps in the upward march of global surface
temperature before. My skeptical colleagues should read about these
steps and what may cause them in mainstream news outlets, which explain
that while these pauses do happen, they have not and do not herald the
end of climate change. Setting aside surface temperature for a moment,
we continue to see warming, rising, and acidifying oceans.
The recess brought the latest issue, for instance, of ``National
Geographic,'' whose cover story is ``Rising Seas.'' Let me read two
excerpts:

A profoundly altered planet is what our fossil-fuel-driven
civilization is creating, a planet where Sandy-scale flooding
will become more common and more destructive for the world's
coastal cities. By releasing carbon dioxide and other heat-
trapping gases into the atmosphere, we have warmed the Earth
by more than a full degree Fahrenheit over the past century
and raised sea level by about eight inches. Even if we
stopped burning all fossil fuels tomorrow, the existing
greenhouse gases would continue to warm the Earth for
centuries. We have irreversibly committed future generations
to a hotter world and rising seas.

Here, focusing on a specific location:

Among the most vulnerable cities is Miami. I cannot
envision southeastern Florida having many people at the end
of this century, says Hal Wanless, chairman of the department
of geological sciences at the University of Miami. We're
sitting in his basement office, looking at maps of Florida on
his computer. At each click of the mouse, the years pass, the
ocean rises, and the peninsula shrinks. Freshwater wetlands
and mangrove swamps collapse--a death spiral that has already
started on the southern tip of the peninsula. With seas four
feet higher than they are today--a distinct possibility by
2100--about two-thirds of southeastern Florida is inundated.
The Florida Keys have almost vanished. Miami is an island.

That is from that extremist publication National Geographic.
August also brought news that the IPCC will announce that it is now
more certain than ever that human activity is the main cause of recent
climate change. Let me be very clear about this: There is a broad and
strong scientific consensus that climate change is ongoing and that
human actions are a cause. It is a consensus of a breadth and strength
that it is disgraceful and stupid for us to ignore it. That consensus
should come as no surprise because the science behind it--behind the
proposition that carbon dioxide in the atmosphere warms the Earth--
dates back to the Civil War. It ain't news. We have known it for more
than a century. Even the contrarian scientists brought in by the
deniers to testify in Congress agree that carbon dioxide is a
greenhouse gas that warms the Earth.
The science is credible. The danger is credible. Now it is about time
for Congress to become credible. It is time to wake up. It is time to
do our duty here in Congress to our country and to our fellow man. It
is time for us to get serious and protect Americans from the looming
harms of climate change.
I yield the floor.
I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. REID. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

____________________