August 2, 2012 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE S5931 

put them instead under consideration 

to be a judge with great objectivity. We 

have a broadly based commission. I 

think the best test of his fairness and 

objectivity and his ability to judge 

people not based on anything other 

than the merits of the case in front of 

him is testified more than anything to 

by the fact that the broadly based judicial advisory commission recommended his nomination to us as one 

of the people to be considered, and we 

recommended him to the President. 

The American Bar Association has 

also spoken on this issue. He has been 

recommended unanimously as qualified 

for the Federal bench by the Standing 

Committee on the Federal Judiciary of 

the American Bar Association. 

So we are in a position here where we 

have a judicial emergency on the Eastern District Court. We have a situation 

where the delays that result deprive 

Americans of what they are entitled to. 

We have a nominee who has been recommended by a broadly based commission that Senator STABENOW and I have 

appointed. He has been given a unanimous rating of ‘‘qualified’’ by the 

American Bar Association. And I think 

his commitment has been shown not 

just by his decades of service as a trial 

judge but by the way he answered the 

questions in his confirmation hearing. 

He said—and he has shown this in practice—that ‘‘my personal beliefs, both 

past and present, have no bearing on 

the decisions I make in court.’’ The notion that he would insert his own personal judgment in place of the law is 

contradicted by not just his testimony 

but by a record of decisions that indicate he abides by the concept of judge 

as impartial arbiter. 

Senator STABENOW and I strongly 

urge our colleagues to confirm Judge 

Drain. We hope that can happen in the 

next hour. 

Madam President, I yield the floor 

and ask that the time between now and 

the time for voting be equally divided 

between the majority and the minority. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without 

objection, it is so ordered. The quorum 

call will be equally divided. 

The clerk will call the roll. 

The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Jersey. 

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the 

order for the quorum call be rescinded. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without 

objection, it is so ordered. 

POLITICIZING ISRAEL

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Madam President, I rise today out of disbelief with 

the rhetoric coming from Republicans 

and their Presidential candidate concerning the U.S. relationship with 

Israel. Frankly, it pains me to see that 

a political trip to Israel is carried with 

a message to scare the Israelis that 

President Obama and this administration are not as fast and as complete as 

they are. 

I have had numerous trips to Israel. 

One was the 6-day war in 1967, when the 

Israelis had battled with the Egyptians, and I got there shortly after the 

guns stopped shooting. I went to the 

Sinai Desert and watched the Israelis 

on guard while the Egyptian soldiers 

were carrying necessary items, such as 

water and food, for their people. I was 

reminded then that the Israelis always 

have to be on guard. They are never 

free to go about their domestic interests and problems without having one 

eye open to make certain the rockets 

that are being aimed at them aren’t 

going to tear their people apart again, 

as their people have experienced—the 

worst of human relations, a blight on 

mankind which can never be forgotten, 

and the Israelis remember it very 

clearly. 

Unfortunately, Republicans want to 

use our relationship with Israel as a 

political game, which is terrible for 

America’s national security and bad 

for Israel. The implication that we are 

weak in our support for Israel is foul 

play and encourages Israel’s enemies to 

look and say: Well, maybe America is 

not as solid on its support of Israel, because Mr. Romney, when asked the 

question about what he would do differently with Israel, says he would do 

just the opposite of what President 

Obama has done. 

We have built a relationship between 

our countries that is firm and 

unshakable since 1948. To try to clumsily interfere with that is shameful. 

Republicans are distorting the state of 

U.S.-Israel relations for political gain 

and sending the wrong signal to the 

rest of the world. 

When you listen to the Republicans— 

especially their Presidential candidate, 

Mitt Romney discuss Israel, reality is 

often replaced with distortion and fantasy. Mitt Romney says President 

Obama has not been a friend of Israel. 

That couldn’t be any further from the 

truth. When we examine the record, it 

is clear that President Obama shares 

my convictions about the enduring 

bond between Israel and the United 

States. It is clear that there is no 

greater friend to Israel than this President. 

But you don’t have to take my word 

for it. Here is a chart that carries a 

message from a distinguished leader in 

Israel, the Israeli Defense Minister, 

Ehud Barak. He says very clearly: 

[T]his administration under President 

Obama is doing in regard to our security 

more than anything that I can remember in 

the past. 

He made certain that it is quite understood that the relationship with 

Israel and America is solid and wellbalanced. This is coming from, as I 

said, a distinguished, decorated military leader. He helped plan the historic 

raid on Entebbe to rescue Israelis who 

were held in a grounded airplane. He 

understands Israel’s security. 

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin 

Netanyahu has called the Obama administration’s security policy for 

Israel ‘‘unprecedented.’’ But if you listen to Republicans over here in the 

United States, they say we have all but 

abandoned Israel’s security. They are 

encouraging hostile neighbors with 

their misrepresentations. Shame on 

them. 

Governor Romney in particular has 

demonstrated frightening ignorance 

about Israel and its security needs. The 

prime example of this behavior is the 

Republican Presidential nominee’s 

complete inability to articulate what 

exactly he would do differently than 

President Obama. When asked about 

what his policy regarding Israel would 

be, and I have to quote him here, he 

said: ‘‘I’d look at the things the President has done and do the opposite.’’ 

What a threatening statement that 

is. He said he wants to do the opposite 

of President Obama. So let’s look at 

what that would mean. Obama blocked 

Palestinian statehood when it was 

brought up in the U.N. He had a big 

fight on his hands to keep that from 

happening. So that means Romney, as 

President, would allow Palestinian 

statehood in the U.N. He said he is 

going to do the opposite. 

Record high U.S. aid for Israel? Romney is going to do the opposite. That 

means he has to lower the U.S. aid for 

Israel. 

Obama says all options on the table 

for dealing with Iran are there. That 

means that Mitt Romney, if President, 

would only use ‘‘containment’’ of a nuclear Iran as his yardstick for dealing 

with this incredible problem. 

So, everybody, beware. Israelis, beware. Don’t be taken in by this and 

don’t let people in America be taken in 

by this. They know that Israel is 

America’s best friend. 

Last September, when the Palestinian Authority aggressively pursued 

a U.N. vote on statehood, that is when 

President Obama stood strong and 

blocked it. If we are to believe Mitt 

Romney, however, as indicated here, he 

would have allowed this unilateral action on Palestinian statehood to proceed. 

Just a few days ago, President 

Obama signed into law a new bill that 

will strengthen U.S. security with 

Israel even further. But again, if we are 

to believe Mitt Romney, he would have 

lowered Israeli aid and weakened, thusly, Israel’s defenses against the threats 

it constantly faces. 

And last, President Obama has stood 

absolutely firm in his call to stop Iran 

from development of a nuclear weapon. 

The Obama administration has been 

clear that all options are on the table 

to prevent Iran from becoming a nuclear threat to its neighbors. President 

Obama has put in place the strongest 

sanctions ever against Iran, sanctions 

that have punished and isolated Iran 

more than ever before. If we are to believe Mitt Romney here as well, under 

President Romney America’s policy toward Iran would be one of accepting a 

nuclear-armed Iran that threatens 

Israel’s—and the world’s—very existence. 


bjneal on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with CONG-REC-ONLINE
S5932 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE August 2, 2012 

The bottom line is this: These are 

not simple problems and they will require real leadership to tackle. We cannot play games with America’s best 

friend. Israel continues to be threatened by rockets launched by Hamas 

from the Gaza Strip. Iran appears intent on developing a nuclear weapon 

and is the foremost state sponsor of 

terror. But instead of approaching 

these issues with the careful consideration they deserve, the Republicans 

seem intent on twisting reality for political gain. 

We see it on the domestic front, too. 

The Republican leader said—he said it 

here—his party’s top priority is to 

make President Obama a one-term 

President, and they are using any pretense they can to establish that. Their 

top priorities, then, clearly do not include helping everyday Americans by 

creating jobs, improving our schools, 

or strengthening our health care system. If we take Mitt Romney at his 

word, they are certainly not aimed at 

doing what is in Israel’s best interest. 

And when they simply wish for our 

President’s failure, they are hurting 

America’s chance for success. 

When they fail to put forth any ideas 

of their own, they show themselves to 

be unfit to govern, unable to lead. 

Their mission, their primary mission is 

to bring down the record that President Obama has established. We have 

recaptured a lot of jobs. Still, we have 

a long way to go to get our economy in 

better motion than it is, but everybody 

knows we are working on it. We have 

seen remarkable growth in jobs in the 

automobile industry, which looked as 

though it might have ended up being 

unable to function in this country of 

ours. 

The whole world knows that America’s leadership depends on its domestic strength and not on casual political 

rhetoric that challenges America’s loyalty to its friends. 

I yield the floor and I suggest the absence of a quorum. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The 

clerk will call the roll. 

The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll. 

Ms. STABENOW. Madam President, I 

ask unanimous consent the order for 

the quorum call be rescinded. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without 

objection, it is so ordered. The Senator 

from Michigan. 

Ms. STABENOW. Madam President, I 

rise today to strongly urge my colleagues to support the nomination of 

an outstanding judge, Gershwin Drain, 

to the United States District Court for 

the Eastern District of Michigan. We 

will have an opportunity to vote in a 

few minutes. Senator LEVIN and I join 

together in the strongest possible recommendation to our colleagues on this 

nomination. I have known Judge Drain 

for many years. I can tell you he is a 

very impressive individual with a long 

record of excellent public service. He 

has served in the district court, the Detroit Recorder’s Court and the Wayne 

County Circuit Court. 

He is active in the community. When 

I am in the community and have the 

opportunity to be at events that are 

important for people, for families, for 

communities, for children, for economic development, Judge Drain is always there, supporting the efforts of 

Detroit and of Michigan. 

He is of course dedicated to his incredible family, who I know is very 

proud of him, as we are. But don’t take 

my word for it. The American Bar Association Standing Committee on the 

Federal Judiciary unanimously rated 

Judge Drain ‘‘qualified’’ to serve on the 

District Court. He was named a ‘‘Man 

Of Excellence’’ by the Michigan Chronicle newspaper, and the Detroit News 

named him ‘‘Michiganian of the 

Year’’—both very prestigious recognitions in Michigan. 

This is a very important judgeship 

that has been vacant for more than 2 

years. It is important for people in 

Michigan and throughout the eastern 

district to be able to have the full 

measure of justice they expect and deserve when coming before the court. It 

is very important that we fill this vacancy. 

I am appreciative and proud that the 

President of the United States has 

nominated him. I appreciate the support of the Judiciary Committee in 

bringing this nomination forward and 

the agreement to allow us to vote on 

this nominee. 

Judge Drain has the qualifications, 

the experience, and the temperament 

for this very important position. I 

strongly urge my colleagues to support 

his nomination and to vote yes when it 

comes before us in the next few minutes. 

I 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. LEVIN. Madam President, I ask 

unanimous consent that the order for 

the quorum call be rescinded. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without 

objection, it is so ordered. 

The question is, Will the Senate advise and consent to the nomination of 

Gershwin A. Drain, of Michigan, to be 

United States District Judge for the 

Eastern District of Michigan? 

Mr. LEVIN. Madam President, I ask 

for the yeas and nays. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a 

sufficient second? 

There appears to be a sufficient second. 

The clerk will call the roll. 

The bill clerk called the roll. 

Mr. KYL. The following Senators are 

necessarily absent: the Senator from 

Illinois (Mr. KIRK), the Senator from 

Kansas (Mr. MORAN), the Senator from 

Florida (Mr. RUBIO), and the Senator 

from Louisiana (Mr. VITTER). 

The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. 

SANDERS). Are there any other Senators in the Chamber desiring to vote? 

The result was announced—yeas 55, 

nays 41, as follows: 

[Rollcall Vote No. 189 Ex.] 

YEAS—55 

Akaka 

Baucus 

Begich 

Bennet 

Bingaman 

Blumenthal 

Boxer 

Brown (MA) 

Brown (OH) 

Cantwell 

Cardin 

Carper 

Casey 

Coats 

Conrad 

Coons 

Durbin 

Feinstein 

Franken 

Gillibrand 

Hagan 

Harkin 

Inouye 

Johnson (SD) 

Kerry 

Klobuchar 

Kohl 

Landrieu 

Lautenberg 

Leahy 

Levin 

Lieberman 

Manchin 

McCaskill 

Menendez 

Merkley 

Mikulski 

Murray 

Nelson (FL) 

Pryor 

Reed 

Reid 

Rockefeller 

Sanders 

Schumer 

Sessions 

Shaheen 

Stabenow 

Tester 

Udall (CO) 

Udall (NM) 

Warner 

Webb 

Whitehouse 

Wyden 

NAYS—41 

Alexander 

Ayotte 

Barrasso 

Blunt 

Boozman 

Burr 

Chambliss 

Coburn 

Cochran 

Collins 

Corker 

Cornyn 

Crapo 

DeMint 

Enzi 

Graham 

Grassley 

Hatch 

Heller 

Hoeven 

Hutchison 

Inhofe 

Isakson 

Johanns 

Johnson (WI) 

Kyl 

Lee 

Lugar 

McCain 

McConnell 

Murkowski 

Nelson (NE) 

Paul 

Portman 

Risch 

Roberts 

Shelby 

Snowe 

Thune 

Toomey 

Wicker 

NOT VOTING—4 

Kirk 

Moran 

Rubio 

Vitter 

The nomination was confirmed. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan. 

Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, I ask 

unanimous consent that the motion to 

reconsider be considered made and laid 

upon the table, that the President be 

immediately notified of the Senate’s 

action, and the Senate resume legislative session. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without 

objection, it is so ordered. 

BURMESE FREEDOM AND DEMOCRACY ACT

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I 

rise today to express my support for S. 

3326, a trade package that includes legislation sponsored by myself and Senator MCCONNELL to renew the import 

ban on Burma for another year. 

I have been involved in the struggle 

for freedom and democracy in Burma 

for 15 years. 

In 1997, former Senator William 

Cohen and I authored legislation requiring the President to ban new U.S. 

investment in Burma if he determined 

that the Government of Burma had 

physically harmed, rearrested or exiled 

Aung San Suu Kyi or committed largescale repression or violence against the 

democratic opposition. 

President Clinton issued the ban in a 

1997 Executive order. 

In 2003, after the regime attempted to 

assassinate Aung San Suu Kyi, Senator 

MCCONNELL and I introduced the Burmese Freedom and Democracy Act of 

2003, which placed a complete ban on 

imports from Burma. It allowed that 

ban to be renewed one year at a time. 

It was signed into law and has been 

renewed annually since then. 

It expired on July 26 which is why 

this legislation is before us today. 

In past years, the debate on renewing 

the import ban on Burma has focused 


bjneal on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with CONG-REC-ONLINE