[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.

                          ____________________