[Congressional Record Volume 159, Number 118 (Tuesday, September 10, 2013)]
[Senate]
[Pages S6329-S6333]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS
By Ms. LANDRIEU (for herself, Mr. Wyden, and Ms. Murkowski):
S. 1491. A bill to amend the Energy Independence and Security Act of
2007 to improve United States-Israel energy cooperation, and for other
purposes; to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.
Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, I come to the floor today to speak for a
few minutes about an exciting new area of collaboration between the
United States and Israel, our critical ally and friend in the Middle
East. Especially given the current state of affairs in the Middle East,
the United States' clear and unyielding support for Israel is more
important now than ever before. For the past few years, I have been a
leader in the effort to enhance US-Israel collaboration on energy
development, which is why I am excited today to introduce a bill that
will expand this critical relationship, along with Chairman Wyden and
Ranking Member Murkowski.
In December 2010, Israel made the largest natural gas discovery in
the world in the past decade off its coast in the Mediterranean. The
discovery, known as the Leviathan field, is estimated at 16 trillion
cubic feet of natural gas, bringing Israel's total natural gas reserves
to an estimated 30 trillion cubic feet. This will likely be able to
satisfy Israel's domestic gas demand with enough left over to export
for years to come--in fact, it is estimated that if only half of this
natural gas was produced, Israel would have 100 years of its natural
gas needs met.
Not only is the Leviathan discovery a game changer for Israel, both
economically and geopolitically, but it is also an incredible chance
for the U.S. to share our energy expertise to support a critical ally
while creating economic opportunities here at home. The Gulf Coast,
which provides one third of all domestically produced oil in the
nation, arguably has the most advanced offshore energy industry in the
world; Israel, until very recently has had almost none. With limited
domestic production capacity, a non-existent regulatory framework, and
a lack of related academic programs, Israel can greatly benefit from
collaboration with the U.S., and we are uniquely qualified to lead this
effort to help Israel successfully develop this natural resource. As
Israel is a leader in the research and development, hi-tech and startup
spaces, enhanced collaboration between the two countries can be
mutually beneficial.
The United States-Israel Energy Cooperation Enhancement Bill
recognizes the important relationship and potential for further
collaboration between the United States and Israel on energy
development, including natural gas and alternative fuels, and seeks to
bolster that relationship by encouraging increased cooperation in the
academic, business, governmental, and other sectors.
The bill first recognizes energy collaboration with Israel as a
strategic interest of the United States and officially encourages
collaboration between the U.S. National Science Foundation and the
Israel Science Foundation. It then further encourages cooperation
between both countries' academic communities in energy innovation
technology, technology transfer, and analysis of the geopolitical
implications of new natural resource development. It also urges
business development engagement in the private sectors and regular
engagement between the two countries' relevant agencies, departments
and ministries to share best practices.
Additionally, the United States-Israel Energy Cooperation Enhancement
Bill expands two already existing joint grant making programs, the
Binational Industrial Research and Development Program, BIRD, and the
Binational Science Foundation, BSF. Under the bill, these two programs
would now include projects focused on natural gas, which are expected
given Israel's recent discoveries, as well as entrepreneurial
development and the advanced hi-tech sector. The legislation also
reauthorizes the BIRD and BSF programs through fiscal year 2024.
Finally, the bill allows for the authorization of a United States-
Israel Offshore Technology Center to further academic and technology
research and development collaboration. This is the direct result of
numerous conversations, meetings, and visits I have had over the past
few years, and I am especially excited about the potential of this type
of formal academic collaboration. Israeli universities have some of the
world's leading engineering departments, but have no petroleum
engineering faculty. Imagine the synergy if we could combine Israeli
engineering expertise with our universities, who have the leading
petroleum engineering departments in the world.
This bill builds off of my previous efforts to enhance collaboration
between the United States and Israel on energy development and
exploration. For several years, I have been working to strengthen the
relationship between our two countries and to help our domestic energy
industry. In October 2011, with the help of the Department
[[Page S6330]]
of Commerce and the Southwest Louisiana Economic Development Alliance,
I organized the first ever oil and gas trade mission to Israel and
brought 12 Louisiana oil and gas companies to the region. The mission
was such a success that the Department of Commerce and I ran another
trip in October 2012 that brought 15 American companies and
universities. Additionally, in June of 2012, I hosted a delegation of
10 high-ranking Israeli officials in Washington and Louisiana to meet
with US industry experts and federal officials, including then
Secretary of the Interior Ken Salazar. The delegation also attended the
Central Gulf of Mexico oil and gas lease sale in New Orleans and
visited Port Fourchon and the Liquified Natural Gas, LNG, facility in
Cameron Parish. By seeing our work first-hand and learning about the US
regulatory framework, they left with a keener understanding of our
industry.
The United States-Israel Energy Cooperation Enhancement Bill will
continue to advance this important goal. Through energy collaboration,
academic cooperation, and continued government dialogue, we will create
jobs for our domestic oil and gas industry and support a critical ally
in the Middle East in its quest for energy independence and security. I
thank my colleagues Chairman Wyden and Ranking Member Murkowski for
their leadership on this issue and for cosponsoring the bill, and I
urge my colleagues to support this important piece of legislation.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the text of the bill be
printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the text of the bill was ordered to be
printed in the Record, as follows:
S. 1491
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. UNITED STATES-ISRAEL ENERGY COOPERATION.
(a) Findings.--Section 917(a) of the Energy Independence
and Security Act of 2007 (42 U.S.C. 17337(a)) is amended--
(1) in paragraph (1), by striking ``renewable'' and
inserting ``covered'';
(2) in paragraph (4)--
(A) by striking ``possible many'' and inserting
``possible--
``(A) many'';
(B) by inserting ``and'' after the semicolon at the end;
and
(C) by adding at the end the following:
``(B) significant contributions to the development of
renewable energy and energy efficiency through the
established programs of the United States-Israel Binational
Industrial Research and Development Foundation and the United
States-Israel Binational Science Foundation;'';
(3) in paragraph (6)--
(A) by striking ``renewable'' and inserting ``covered'';
and
(B) by striking ``and'' after the semicolon at the end;
(4) in paragraph (7)--
(A) by striking ``renewable'' and inserting ``covered'';
and
(B) by striking the period at the end and inserting a
semicolon; and
(5) by adding at the end the following:
``(8) United States-Israel energy cooperation, and the
development of natural resources by Israel, are strategic
interests of the United States;
``(9) Israel is a strategic partner of the United States in
water technology;
``(10) the United States can play a role in assisting
Israel with regional safety and security issues;
``(11) the National Science Foundation of the United States
should collaborate with the Israel Science Foundation;
``(12) the United States and Israel should strive to
develop more robust academic cooperation in energy innovation
technology and engineering, water science, technology
transfer, and analysis of geopolitical implications of new
natural resource development and associated areas;
``(13) the United States supports the goals of the
Alternative Fuels Administration of Israel;
``(14) the United States strongly urges open dialogue and
continued mechanisms for regular engagement and encourages
further cooperation between applicable departments, agencies,
ministries, institutions of higher education, and the private
sector of the United States and Israel on energy security
issues, including--
``(A) identifying policy priorities associated with the
development of natural resources of Israel;
``(B) discussing best practices to secure cyber energy
infrastructure;
``(C) best practice sharing;
``(D) leveraging natural gas to positively impact regional
stability;
``(E) improving energy efficiency and the overall
performance of water technologies through research and
development in water desalination, wastewater treatment and
reclamation, and other water treatment refiners;
``(F) technical and environmental management of deep-water
exploration and production;
``(G) coastal protection and restoration;
``(H) academic outreach and engagement;
``(I) private sector and business development engagement;
``(J) regulatory consultations;
``(K) leveraging alternative transportation fuels and
technologies; and
``(L) any other areas determined appropriate by United
States and Israel; and
``(15) the United States acknowledges the achievements and
importance of the Binational Industrial Research and
Development Foundation (BIRD) and the United States-Israel
Binational Science Foundation (BSF) and supports continued
multiyear funding to ensure the continuity of the programs of
the Foundations.''.
(b) Types of Energy.--Section 917(b)(2) of the Energy
Independence and Security Act of 2007 (42 U.S.C. 17337(b)(2))
is amended--
(1) in subparagraph (F), by striking ``and'' after the
semicolon at the end;
(2) in subparagraph (G), by striking the period at the end
and inserting a semicolon; and
(3) by adding at the end the following:
``(H) natural gas energy, including natural gas projects
conducted by or in conjunction with the United States-Israel
Binational Science Foundation;
``(I) improvement of energy efficiency and the overall
performance of water technologies through research and
development in water desalination, wastewater treatment and
reclamation, and other water treatment refiners; and
``(J) conventional and unconventional oil and gas
technologies.''.
(c) Eligible Applicants.--Section 917(b)(3) of the Energy
Independence and Security Act of 2007 (42 U.S.C. 17337(b)(3))
is amended by striking ``energy efficiency or renewable'' and
inserting ``covered''.
(d) Authorization of Appropriations; International
Partnerships.--Section 917 of the Energy Independence and
Security Act of 2007 (42 U.S.C. 17337) is amended--
(1) by striking subsection (d);
(2) by redesignating subsection (c) as subsection (e); and
(3) by inserting after subsection (b) the following:
``(c) International Partnerships.--
``(1) In general.--The Secretary may, subject to
appropriations, enter into cooperative agreements supporting
and enhancing dialogue and planning involving international
partnerships between the Department, including National
Laboratories of the Department, and the Government of Israel
and its ministries, offices, and institutions.
``(2) Federal share.--The Secretary may not pay more than
50 percent of Federal share of the costs described in
paragraph (1).
``(3) Annual reports.--The Secretary may submit to the
appropriate committees of Congress an annual report that
describes--
``(A) actions taken to carry out this subsection; and
``(B) any projects under this subsection for which the
Secretary requests funding.
``(d) United States-Israel Center.--The Secretary may
establish a joint United States-Israel Center based in an
area of the United States with the experience, knowledge, and
expertise in offshore energy development to further dialogue
and collaboration to develop more robust academic cooperation
in energy innovation technology and engineering, water
science, technology transfer, and analysis of geopolitical
implications of new natural resource development and
associated areas.''.
(e) Termination.--Subsection (e) of section 917 of the
Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 (42 U.S.C.
17337) (as redesignated by subsection (d)(2)) is amended by
striking ``the date that is 7 years after the date of
enactment of this Act'' and inserting ``September 30, 2024''.
______
By Mr. MANCHIN (for himself and Ms. Heitkamp):
S.J. Res. 22. A joint resolution to promote a diplomatic solution in
Syria, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Foreign Relations.
Mr. MANCHIN. Mr. President, approximately 9 days ago most of us were
on call and being briefed by the administration on what was evolving
and how desperate and dire the situation was. At the time it was being
proposed as an imminent strike that had to be done for the defense of
this Nation, and we listened to that.
Immediately after that conversation we had with many Senators and
Secretary Kerry, my dear friend Senator Heitkamp called me and said: I
would hope we have another option. We were looking for an option. The
only thing we had before us was a vote to either support an imminent
strike or not support a strike. It has been proposed if we don't show
the strength of this great country of ours that it could weaken our
standing in the world and our intentions might not be taken seriously
the next time and also weaken the Presidency, which none of us want to
do, no matter what side of the fence you might be on.
So we kept looking and talking. I canceled all my appointments in
West
[[Page S6331]]
Virginia and Senator Heitkamp did the same in North Dakota and we came
back as soon as possible. We attended every meeting, every briefing. I
went to my Armed Services Committee meeting and also the Foreign
Relations Committee meeting to hear the testimony from all of the
people in the administration who were making their case.
At the end of the day, it still did not rise to the level, in my mind
and I think in the mind of Senator Heitkamp as well, that we were at a
point to where it would be of imminent danger to the United States. So
with that, we brought all the people together, and Senator Heitkamp--
and I want her to chime in here--and myself kept pushing and pushing
the people who had the knowledge and who had been down that road
before--military leaders, past and present, diplomats, and also think
tanks--and we finally came up with something that could be done.
I would defer to Senator Heitkamp on this, but we kept saying if the
problem is chemical weapons, why haven't we addressed that? All we knew
was there was an imminent strike. We were not going to be able to take
out, nor did we intend to take out or change the regime. We could not
put boots on the ground, nor did we have a desire--nobody had a
desire--for our military men and women to go back in. So we couldn't
secure those weapons.
Senator Heitkamp might want to say how we came to the position we
came to and why we felt it was so important.
Ms. HEITKAMP. I think the first thing to talk about is the ability,
first and foremost, to look at the mission and look at the event that
led to the need for a discussion in this body and a discussion in this
country about our relationship in Syria, and that was the use of
chemical weapons by the Asad regime in their own home country against
their own people.
We know that activity is not only a crime against the Syrian people,
but it is a crime against humanity. It is a crime against an
international standard that has been in place since World War I and has
been greatly honored because of the devastating effects of using
chemical weapons.
So when Senator Manchin and I looked at this--and we had long
discussions with experts in the region--our first concern was securing
those chemical weapons and what we could do to make sure those weapons
would never again be used on any citizen of Syria and that we would not
encourage or in any way give permission to another country to engage in
that activity. That is fundamentally the greatest interest we have in
securing some kind of resolution in the Congress--to address that
concern.
Unfortunately, what we saw was not a targeted resolution that
addressed that specific problem. Plus, what we were presented with when
we returned were two options: Do nothing, which both of us concluded we
could not let an attack such as this go unresponded to. So do nothing
or agree to imminent strikes, and that was not an option either of us
saw as appropriate, nor was that an option we could agree to, so we
looked for common ground, listening not only to the experts in the
administration--the diplomats, the military experts, the national
security folks--but also bringing a broader group of people together to
discuss what is our mission, how do we accomplish this. The result of
all of that is the resolution the Senator has before him, the
resolution he and I have advanced for a discussion in this body.
It seems critical to me that 1 week ago the interjecting of the
chemical weapons ban and the Chemical Weapons Convention into this
discussion in a very meaningful way, looking at what is in fact
international law, was absolutely critical. Today, we have a very fluid
and much different landscape diplomatically. We would like to think
these kinds of discussions that have occurred all across the country
have driven this, along with the President's discussion with Putin,
along with the administration's efforts.
So today we have a situation where we are glad to see some
involvement, we are glad to see some movement, but it is absolutely
critical we remind everyone that actions speak louder than words. We
cannot trust, I don't think, agreements between Russia or Syria until
we actually see Syria surrendering these weapons. But today we have an
option on the table that is what we call the Manchin-Heitkamp
alternative resolution, which can in fact engage us in a broader
discussion, engage the international community.
I would say that truly was the motivation behind our work. I think
the Senator would agree with that.
Mr. MANCHIN. I sure do. First of all, we all applaud President Obama
for bringing it to Congress. We think this is the right place for these
types of decisions, with the consequences we are facing and what the
repercussions could be. But we have come to a conclusion that any type
of imminent strike and the reaction from that would be greater than
inaction right now. But doing nothing is unacceptable, which is how we
came to this.
Basically, we call this the Chemical Weapons Control Act. The thing
about the Chemical Weapons Convention, we felt--and we have heard from
diplomats on this--this was the proper course. It was basically giving
the Asad regime 45 days. Our resolution is very straightforward. The
Asad regime has 45 days to sign and comply, and that means to identify,
to secure, and to start eliminating and destroying. He cannot use, nor
can he continue to produce, these types of weapons.
Also, in that 45-day period, we have asked the administration and the
President to lay forth a plan for Congress to evaluate what Syria would
look like at the end. If they do not sign, what are we to do and how
would Syria look? If they do sign and that still hasn't brought any
peace and an end to a civil war, that needs to be looked at also.
We have all heard from our constituents. In talking to our colleagues
we have even heard a lot more. We have had some who have said: Listen,
we don't want a strike under any circumstances. No way on God's green
Earth do we believe a strike will produce anything but repercussions.
I have said this, and the Senator and I have talked about this: If
you believe that money or military might would change the course and
direction of that part of the world, which we define as the Middle East
or North Africa, then we would have had success by now. We have spent
12 years--the longest war in our history--and we have spent over $1.6
trillion and the results have not been beneficial whatsoever and we
have lost thousands of lives.
I have also said being a superpower means more than showing the rest
of the world we have the super might to use whenever we feel it is
necessary. Being a superpower comes with not only having the super
military power, it comes with having the super negotiation ability, the
super diplomacy, the super patience, and the super humanitarian aid, as
needed. We have the ability to do all of that.
That is what we have asked for. Now we are seeing an evolving
situation--not only in 24 hours, but with every 24 minutes it seems
like something is changing. The Russians have said they would ask
Asad's regime in Syria to sign or be involved. Syria says they have
accepted. We have heard now they have said they will comply and join
the CWC. These are the changes we have to continue to try to bring to
fruition.
On that, we are very happy. I know the Senator and I have spoken
about that--and our colleagues are looking at different options--that
we didn't have different options as of Monday morning. There were no
options. It was are you going to vote to strike or not vote to strike.
I am pleased we are moving and I think cooler heads will prevail.
I believe the President is open to making sure the players are
sincere and real, meaning what they are saying. I believe now that they
have announced to the entire world, the international world, that we
will sign and be honest brokers, let's put them on the spot and see if
they will sign that and be part of this and become part of the 21st
century, if you will.
I have and I will continue to work with my colleague. I think the
Geneva Protocol of 1925 prohibits the use of chemical and biological
weapons in conflict, but it did not go far enough. We know that. Syria
signed the Geneva Protocol in December of 1969. They signed that one,
but then they would not and have not been a signatory of the Chemical
Weapons Convention of 1993. That is what we are speaking of. That one
is the modern-day equivalent of the Geneva Protocol. The international
community began negotiating
[[Page S6332]]
the CWC in 1980 to close the loopholes of the Geneva Protocol. The CWC
opened for signature in 1963 and after the required 65 ratifications
were received, entered into force in 1997. We have, I think, five
countries that have not signed. Most countries, 191, have signed. That
is what we are asking for them to comply with, which we think is the
best way, because there is an implementation organization which
oversees it and it is not the United States or Russia or not any other
country taking the lead but basically it is a way to have the entire
international community come back into play.
Ms. HEITKAMP. To add another point to what Senator Manchin has spoken
about, which is that the results have not been satisfactory--I think
the other point we need to make is the results of all that interaction
over this decade-plus of activity in this region have not been what was
promised. It has made the American people perhaps cynical and very
hesitant to rely on what is being said today.
As one of the great honors, but also amazing pieces of sadness in my
first days of being a Senator-elect, I attended two funerals for two
National Guardsmen who were killed in action in Afghanistan. I remember
sitting at the funerals and remember telling myself: Before you vote
ever to engage in that kind of conflict, you absolutely need to look at
alternatives. You owe it to our men and women in uniform. You owe it to
the people of this country who have lost not only the lives of their
brothers and sisters and family and friends but the people who have
also invested American treasure.
What we are seeking is a discussion, a broader discussion beyond two
opposite and unacceptable alternatives. What we are seeing this week--
much to our appreciation--is in fact not just our proposal but other
proposals coming forth, a broader discussion about what all the options
are, and taking a look at how we can work together as a United States
government, speak with one voice, and walk together to resolve this
conflict.
We cannot ignore that we have a national security interest in working
together. We have a national security interest in addressing and
resolving the current issues in front of us. That discussion cannot be
done among a small group of Senators. It cannot be done in back rooms
with a promise of ``trust us,'' because some of that trust has been
broken over time. So a broad, open discussion as we are having here
today I think is absolutely critical to reestablishing Americans' trust
that we can in fact make the right decision in their interests and
really in the interests of protecting our servicemen from chemical
weapon attacks.
That is obviously a great concern of ours. We need to continue to
have this dialog and we need some kind of response. The question is how
measured and what that response should be.
I have very much appreciated the Senator's willingness to work with
me and I thank the rest of the Members who have approached us who want
to talk about this proposal and other proposals for their willingness
to broaden their thinking about what those options are.
Mr. MANCHIN. I am so proud to be working on this with the Senator.
Our staffs have worked well together. They are most competent and they
have done a yeoman job. The resolution we have come with basically is
the only one out there, an option today that basically controls the
chemical weapons. It actually controls these chemical weapons from ever
being used on another human being--which we all deplore. With that,
maybe we can help, now, move on to trying to help resolve this civil
war. The carnage is unbelievable.
They said there were 99,000 people killed in Syria with conventional
weapons and 1,000 with chemicals. To me, every person is a life we
could save, we ought to try to save. With that being said, we have to
give them a chance to come be involved, and that is what we have done.
At this time last week we never thought we would have been here. This
time 2 days ago we would not have thought we could be here. But we are
moving in the right direction.
Let me make it clear what the resolution the Senator and our staffs
have worked on does. The section, our title, is this, basically:
Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the
United States of America in Congress assembled,
The section of our coining, this section of our title
. . . may be cited as the ``Chemical Weapons Control and
Accountability Resolution of 2013.''
Basically exactly what it says. The statement of policy is this:
It is the policy of the United States that
(1) the Government of Syria must become a signatory to the
Chemical Weapons Convention and take concrete steps to comply
with the terms and conditions of the Convention;
(2) the failure by the government of Bashar al-Assad to
sign and comply with the Convention clearly demonstrates a
willful disregard of international norms on the use of
chemical weapons; and
(3) if the Government of Syria does not sign and comply
with the convention within 45 days after the date of the
enactment of this resolution, all elements of national power
will be considered by the United States Government.
That reaffirms the war powers the President has. I know there are
some who do not believe that is constitutional or do not believe it is
law, but we have checked it and researched it, and it is. We reconfirm
that. It does not say that imminent strikes will happen at the end of
45 days. It will be up to the President to determine whether
negotiations are moving in the right direction, if all players are
being sincere in coming on board, but it gives him the chance to be the
President, to do whatever he is elected to do. Whomever he or she may
be, you want the President's office to be able to exercise the powers
they have by law. That is what we have done here.
Everybody has a different approach. Some may say 45 days or you don't
need that. Fine. We are open to all that. We have said that before. But
the experts who helped us put this together put in timetables they
believed were reasonable and believed they were attainable.
Ms. HEITKAMP. There are some who may question whether this is
capitulation or whether in fact this is a lack of showing of American
unity. How would the Senator respond to those concerns?
Mr. MANCHIN. We have heard our colleagues and had some good
conversations with our colleagues. We have had other people saying for
real, all you are doing is trying to stall.
I said no. I don't believe anyone really questions the might of the
government. I don't think it weakens the U.S. Government, to show super
restraint, knowing the volatility of that part of the world.
Also, past experience in my State of West Virginia--and I know in the
great State of North Dakota--we know when you try something and put in
so much effort trying to change that part of the world and have not had
the success, nowhere near, and spent $1.6 trillion and the sacrifice of
Americans--maybe that is not something we should repeat. We all know
that. We get no support basically from our constituents.
Those of us who are privy to all these high-powered meetings, if you
will, have not been convinced that there will be change. With that
being said, I say to my friends, if you believe anyone would discount
the might of this Nation? I don't think so. The resolve of us to
protect our country and our Americans? I don't think so. Or to support
our allies, our true friends and allies? I don't think so.
But you know, back home we have a saying: Sometimes you don't have a
dog in the fight. We can't really find a friend in that fight. That is
the problem. That is the hard sell. With that being said--I have said
this before--the Arab League, they should step forward. That is in
their backyard. We should give all the support. We have humanitarian
aid. We will give all the support we possibly can, but they need to
take the lead. It cannot always be the Americans being the policemen of
the world and everyone saying: OK, call 911, which goes right to
Washington. They will take care of it.
I discount it when they start saying it doesn't show your strength,
we might not have that strength of reputation or it might weaken the
President. No, I don't think so. Not at all.
Ms. HEITKAMP. I think what we would say to the enemies of this
country: Do not take from this democratic process and discussion a lack
of resolve. We will stand together shoulder to shoulder. This is the
process the Constitution gave us and the President
[[Page S6333]]
has asked us to engage in. It shows the strength of this country, that
we can have open debate, open disagreements, but at the end of the day
we will stand together and stand strongly against our enemies. There
should be no comfort taken in any way, shape, or form by the enemies of
our country that it somehow weakens our country. In fact it strengthens
our country to have this discussion and then stand shoulder to shoulder
together.
I do want to mention that during those times last week when we were
attending the classified briefings, and a lot of those briefings were
bicameral as well as bipartisan--I know we have that reputation today
of being hyperpartisan and we cannot have meaningful and open
discussion, it degenerates into pettiness and partisanship. I can tell
you from my experience of sitting through every one of those briefings
what I heard was reasoned discussion. What I heard was rational
questioning. What I heard was an equal measure of restraint on both the
Democrat and the Republican side and a search for common answers and
commonality. It was that discussion that led us to introducing this
type of resolution.
For those who say this is just another example of dysfunctionality,
it is too bad they could not look in at those discussions because I
think they would have seen a Congress that was very engaged. They would
have seen individual Members who were not looking to score political
points but were looking for information so they could exercise the
judgment that their people, their districts, or their States elected
them to exercise.
That is the process going through. It is a critical process but it
cannot be done yes or no, no other options, and we are not going to
have a broader discussion. That is why we are grateful for what is
happening on the ground. We will wait to see if it is real. We will
wait to see. It is not enough--talk is never enough. We have to see
action.
But in the meantime we will continue to have these discussions about
what is in America's national security interests and how we exercise
our collective will with a resolution that reflects our values and our
commitment to this country and its national security.
Mr. MANCHIN. I believe that as the world watches what is unfolding
now, they are watching a superpower make a decision. We are using super
restraint. We are using super compassion, if you will. But we are super
resolved and we have the super might to do what we need to do. I don't
think anyone should take that lightly.
I do not think anyone would take for granted that we will not defend
this country and every citizen of this country with everything we have
and try to spread humanity, if you will, all over the world. But it
takes more than us as we move outside the borders of the United States
of America. We need an international community working with us. We need
some of them stepping to the plate; not just the rhetoric that we hear
but basic stuff. We need the United Nations to be functioning again, to
have a functioning role and have a strong support role and be able to
step to the plate and do it in a fashion that protects the civilized
world. Those are the things we have asked for.
I think this gives it a chance. Today we have seen a breakthrough, if
President Asad has said: I will sign and I will be a member and I will
comply and I will have inspectors come in and I will make sure these
weapons are secure and we will start destroying them, taking them off
the shelf. Russia can play a part in that. They can pull their ships
up, load them up, take them out, take them to a secured area. That is
getting them out of that part of the world, and then hopefully we can
get people working together to stop the war we have, to stop the
carnage, too.
It starts here. People are looking to the United States and I think
they have been looking for the leadership we have been able to give,
not just in the military and not just in financial, but in some good,
solid, concrete decisions that bring this suffering that is going on in
Syria to an end.
I am very proud to work with the Senator from North Dakota on this
issue. We are asking all of our colleagues to be involved in any way,
shape, or form. We will work with them. If there is anyone who has
ideas that can make this better and an even more perfect document, then
we are all for that. I know the Senator from North Dakota feels that
way, and I know her team feels that way also.
I thank Senator Heitkamp for the work she has done and also the
friend she has been. I believe we are close to getting this in the
right direction where cooler heads prevail, and I think the world will
be safer.
Ms. HEITKAMP. I thank the Senator from West Virginia for the work he
has done and the leadership he has shown. I believe that when we work
together, collaborate, and actually begin the discussion about what is
in America's national security interest and how we can fashion a
position and a resolution that reflects that national security interest
and open the opportunity for a broader dialog--not just two choices but
a broader dialog--we can build consensus in this body. If we can build
consensus in this body and if we can work forward to build consensus in
America, we can, in fact, move this issue forward, and it might be an
example of what we can do with our future.
Again, I thank the Senator from West Virginia for his participation,
inclusion, and the work he has done. I believe it has not only offered
a very significant alternative, but it has also set an example of where
we can go.
Mr. MANCHIN. I don't believe military action is going to correct what
is going on with Syria. It is going to be diplomacy and democracy that
will hopefully work there. We are trying to put that forward first.
More people are coming on board, and we appreciate that. We thank all
of our colleagues on both sides of the aisle.
This is not a partisan issue. It truly has not been a partisan issue,
and it won't be a partisan issue. This is an American issue that
involves all of us, and it is a world issue. The world has great
interest, but they also have to have participation.
____________________