[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 159 (2013), Part 9]
[Senate]
[Pages 13292-13296]
[From the U.S. 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 U.S.-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 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

[[Page 13293]]

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 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

[[Page 13294]]

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 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

[[Page 13295]]

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 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

[[Page 13296]]

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.

                          ____________________