July 30, 2012 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE S5651 

Mr. HATCH (when his name was 

called). Present. 

Mr. INHOFE (when his named was 

called). Present. 

Mr. KYL. The following Senators are 

necessarily absent: the Senator from 

New Hampshire (Ms. AYOTTE), the Senator from South Carolina (Mr. 

DEMINT), the Senator from South Carolina (Mr. GRAHAM), the Senator from Illinois (Mr. KIRK), the Senator from 

Utah (Mr. LEE), the Senator from Arizona (Mr. MCCAIN), and the Senator 

from Alaska (Ms. MURKOWSKI). 

The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mrs. 

HAGAN). Are there any other Senators 

in the Chamber desiring to vote? 

The yeas and nays resulted—yeas 56, 

nays 34, as follows: 

[Rollcall Vote No. 186 Ex.] 

YEAS—56 

Akaka 

Baucus 

Begich 

Bennet 

Bingaman 

Blumenthal 

Boxer 

Brown (MA) 

Brown (OH) 

Cantwell 

Cardin 

Carper 

Casey 

Collins 

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 (NE) 

Nelson (FL) 

Pryor 

Reed 

Reid 

Rockefeller 

Sanders 

Schumer 

Shaheen 

Snowe 

Stabenow 

Tester 

Udall (CO) 

Udall (NM) 

Warner 

Webb 

Whitehouse 

Wyden 

NAYS—34 

Alexander 

Barrasso 

Blunt 

Boozman 

Burr 

Chambliss 

Coats 

Cochran 

Corker 

Cornyn 

Crapo 

Enzi 

Grassley 

Heller 

Hoeven 

Hutchison 

Isakson 

Johanns 

Johnson (WI) 

Kyl 

Lugar 

McConnell 

Moran 

Paul 

Portman 

Risch 

Roberts 

Rubio 

Sessions 

Shelby 

Thune 

Toomey 

Vitter 

Wicker 

ANSWERED ‘‘PRESENT’’—3 

Coburn Hatch Inhofe 

NOT VOTING—7 

Ayotte 

DeMint 

Graham 

Kirk 

Lee 

McCain 

Murkowski 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. On this 

vote, the yeas are 56, the nays are 34, 3 

Senators responded ‘‘present.’’ Threefifths of the Senators duly chosen and 

sworn not having voted in the affirmative, the motion is rejected. 

Mr. COBURN. We just disallowed one 

of the best candidates for the appellate 

court in my 8 years since I have been in 

the Senate. Magistrate Judge Bob 

Bacharach is a stellar individual rated 

‘‘very highly qualified’’ by the American Bar Association. What has happened is we are in the position today 

because of games that are being played, 

political games. 

Let me just put into the RECORD

what is going on. There are three 

judges ahead of Bob Bacharach in line. 

We have had a Leahy-Thurmond rule 

for some 20 years. I have been quoted 

saying I think it is a stupid rule. But 

the background is that protecting the 

prerogative of the Senate is one of the 

most important things the majority 

leader can do. 

What we have seen happen with the 

lack of agreement this last holiday 

season over the moving forward of 

judges and their approval was the unconstitutional usurpation of power by 

the President of the United States in 

the appointment, during our pro forma 

sessions, of four individuals, one to 

CFPB and three to the NLRB. 

Quite frankly, if we look at what 

Madison wrote in Federalist 51: 

The great security against a gradual concentration of the several powers in the same 

branch of government consists in giving to 

those who administer each branch the necessary constitutional means and personal 

motives to resist encroachment of the others. Ambition must made to counteract ambition. The interest of the man must be connected with the constitutional rights of the 

place. 

So started the saga in January of 

this past year, where the reaction of 

my colleagues on my side of the aisle 

was to shut down, in response to the 

President’s move, all circuit court confirmations. 

I stood in my caucus and fought that. 

I thought it was the wrong action then. 

I still think it would have been the 

wrong action. But I convinced my caucus not to go that direction. To do 

that, I agreed I would consent to the 

Leahy-Thurmond rule in this election 

cycle. But I hope this is the last election cycle we use the Leahy-Thurmond 

rule. 

Because on the other side of the constitutional issues is that a duly elected 

President does have the right to have 

their nominees considered, whether I 

agree with them or not. To prove this, 

that this was a stunt rather than anything other than that, and Bob 

Bacharach becomes the pawn in that, 

is that we had an agreement on judges. 

Then we had cloture filed on fourteen 

district court judges, of which there 

was no real controversy. 

All of those district court judges, 

after that cloture was filed on them 

and then withdrawn, have henceforth 

been approved. To the American public, 

the game is politics and not policy for 

our country. To me, it saddens me. It 

frustrates me that we are at this state 

because it is not a whole lot different 

than what we see in the playground at 

a kindergarten. 

The person who most has spoken in 

favor of the Leahy-Thurmond rule is 

the chairman of the Judiciary Committee. Yet we find this impasse today. 

So what we ought to all do, every 

Member of the Senate and the Judiciary Committee during the break after 

this election, is work together to try to 

resolve this so this does not happen to 

any other President and does not do 

damage to the Senate and the integrity 

of the Senate and the game on judges. 

The President gets elected, with their 

home State Senators, they make a selection. We should not use the filibuster, unless a judge is highly questionable or biased in their viewpoint. 

I regret that we are in this position. 

I think this was just a vote to delay 

Bob Bacharach’s eventual confirmation. If President Obama wins the election, I fully expect Judge Bob 

Bacharach will be approved. If he does 

not win the election, I plan on standing 

and fighting for this judge for this 

same position under a Republican 

President because he is exactly what 

we want on a court, someone who is 

right down the middle in terms of what 

the law means, what the Constitution 

means. He has stellar intellectual capabilities, and he has the qualities we 

all would want, both from the right 

and the left, as a fair decider of the 

facts. That is what we want in judges. 

He will make an ideal appellate judge, 

regardless of his political affiliation. 

If we cannot get there then what that 

says is the partisan politics of today, 

as everybody outside Washington recognizes, is killing our country. 

f 

LEGISLATIVE SESSION 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under 

the previous order, the Senate will resume legislative session. 

f 

CYBERSECURITY ACT OF 2012 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under 

the previous order, the motion to proceed to S. 3414 is agreed to and the 

clerk will report the measure. 

The assistant legislative clerk read 

as follows: 

A bill (S. 3414) to enhance the security and 

resiliency of the cyber and communications 

infrastructure of the United States. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader. 

Mr. REID. Madam President, I ask 

unanimous consent that there now be a 

period of debate only on S. 3414, and 

that this will go forward until 2:15 p.m. 

on Tuesday, July 31; further, that at 

2:15 p.m. on that date, Tuesday, I be 

recognized. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there 

objection? 

Mr. COBURN. Madam President, reserving the right to object. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma. 

Mr. COBURN. Just a question 

through the Chair to the majority leader. I had planned to make a statement 

on Judge Bacharach, and the Senator 

is saying we will have debate only. Will 

that preclude a unanimous consent for 

speaking as in morning business? 

Mr. REID. The Senator can do that. 

It is totally appropriate. 

Mr. COBURN. I thank the Senator. 

I have no objection. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without 

objection, it is so ordered. 

The Senator from New Hampshire. 

Mrs. SHAHEEN. Madam President, if 

the majority leader is finished, I ask 

unanimous consent to speak as in 

morning business. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there 

objection? 

Without objection, it is so ordered. 

Mr. REID addressed the Chair. 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with SENATE
S5652 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE July 30, 2012 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader. 

Mr. REID. Madam President, if I 

could ask my friend to withhold for a 

brief moment. 

Mrs. SHAHEEN. That is fine. 

Mr. REID. It is my understanding 

that Senator COBURN has been waiting 

around for a while to talk. 

The Senator is OK waiting? 

Mr. COBURN. Yes. 

Mr. REID. OK. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Hampshire. 

Mrs. SHAHEEN. Thank you, Madam 

President. 

I come to the floor this evening to 

talk about an amendment I have filed 

to the Cybersecurity Act, S. 3414. This 

is the fourth time I have filed this 

amendment, and it is not on the Cybersecurity Act per se, although it does 

address energy use, which is one of the 

critical challenges we face as we are 

trying to address cybersecurity in this 

country. 

This is an amendment that is the 

substance of S. 1000, the Energy Savings and Industrial Competitiveness 

Act, of which the other sponsor is Senator ROB PORTMAN, and he is a cosponsor on this amendment. 

What the Energy Savings and Industrial Competitiveness Act and the 

amendment I filed does is create a national energy efficiency strategy for 

the United States. So this amendment 

is the same language Senator PORTMAN

and I filed to the Bring Jobs Home Act 

and the Middle Class Tax Cut Act, and 

it is one we are going to continue to 

file because we think it is important 

for this amendment and this legislation to have an opportunity for a vote 

from this entire Senate because we 

think this is bipartisan legislation that 

has broad support among our colleagues. 

This legislation is based on two important premises I have already spoken 

to in the Chamber: first, that the 

American public desperately wants 

Congress to work together in a bipartisan way to address this Nation’s energy needs; and, second, that energy efficiency is the fastest, cheapest way to 

meet our energy challenges. Not only 

does it help us develop a strategy 

around energy, but it is a strategy that 

can be supported whether you live in 

New England, as I do, whether you live 

in the West, whether you live in the 

South. It is a strategy that is important whether you support fossil fuels— 

oil and gas—whether you support nuclear, or whether you support wind and 

solar. We all benefit from energy efficiency. It is also a strategy that creates thousands of good jobs. 

There is evidence that the American 

public wants to see the Senate act on 

energy efficiency legislation. I think 

that evidence is overwhelming because 

last week I started an online campaign 

asking people to sign a petition calling 

on Senate leadership to bring this bill 

to the floor. The text of the petition is 

what we see here—small print so it is 

hard to read, but it asks people to support the Shaheen-Portman energy efficiency bill. 

I just wish to read a section of it. It 

says: 

The Shaheen-Portman Act would help 

make the United States a global leader in 

the fastest and cheapest method we have for 

addressing our energy needs, energy efficiency. Energy efficiency is within our grasp. 

It uses proven technology that we can manufacture here at home to lower energy costs 

across all sectors of our economy. 

In just a matter of days, we have already collected over 4,600 signatures 

from supporters across the country, 

and that number continues to grow. 

Anyone interested in signing the petition and in learning more about the 

many benefits of energy efficiency can 

easily do so by visiting my Web site at 

shaheen.senate.gov. 

While drafting the bill, Senator 

PORTMAN and I met with a number of 

stakeholders so we could better understand the obstacles the private sector 

faces when they are trying to deploy 

energy-efficient technology. So we had 

discussions with people from energy-intensive companies, from trade groups, 

from those representing the real estate 

community, from environmental advocates and from financing organizations. 

The feedback we received about ways 

to remove these barriers and drive the 

adoption of energy-efficient technologies became the basis for this legislation. As a result, we have a bill 

that provides a variety of low-cost 

tools that will speed this Nation’s transition to a more energy-efficient economy. 

The bill addresses three major areas 

of U.S. energy use: residential and 

commercial buildings, which consume 

40 percent of all energy used in the 

country; the industrial sector, which 

consumes more energy than any other 

sector of the U.S. economy; and the 

Federal Government, which is the 

country’s single biggest user of energy. 

Highlights of the bill include: establishing advanced building codes for voluntary residential and commercial 

buildings to cut energy use. I would 

emphasize that those codes are voluntary. We worked with the real estate 

and the building industries on those 

codes. 

Second, the legislation helps manufacturers finance and implement energy-efficient production technologies 

and practices because that is one of the 

biggest obstacles to retrofitting buildings for energy efficiency. 

Third, the legislation would require 

the Federal Government to adopt better building standards and smart metering technology. 

Our legislation is bipartisan. In addition to the thousands of signatures on 

this petition, it has support from well 

over 200 businesses, environmental 

groups, think tanks, and trade association. Those groups include: The National Association of Manufacturers, 

the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the 

Environmental Defense Fund, businesses such as Johnson Controls, Honeywell, United Technologies Corporation. 

This broad coalition of supporters 

recognizes that the legislation is an 

easy first step that will make our economy more competitive and our Nation 

more secure by reducing our dependence on foreign oil and still meeting 

the demand for energy saving technologies for individuals and businesses 

alike. 

I think it is important to point out 

that there are real economic benefits. 

A recent study by policy experts at the 

American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy found that the legislation will achieve savings for consumers 

and businesses. Specifically, their 

study found that by 2020, the bill could 

save consumers $4 billion a year once it 

is enacted. It would add 80,000 jobs to 

the economy. 

In a time when we are worried about 

growing the economy, when we are 

worried about the fragile recovery, this 

is the kind of legislation that will 

allow us to create good jobs with offthe-shelf technologies. With the Shaheen-Portman energy efficiency bill, 

the Senate has an opportunity to provide the American people with exactly 

what they want, an effective bipartisan 

approach to addressing this Nation’s 

energy needs that also creates jobs and 

grows the economy. I hope we will be 

able to persuade leadership and my colleagues that this is legislation that 

merits full debate and a vote on the 

floor and that we will be able to bring 

S. 1000 or this amendment to the floor 

for a vote. 

I yield the floor. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma. 

Mr. COBURN. Madam President, I 

ask unanimous consent to speak as in 

morning business for such time as I 

may consume, and that when I finish, 

the Senator from Ohio be recognized 

for 10 minutes. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without 

objection, it is so ordered. 

APOLOGY

Mr. COBURN. Madam President, I 

wished to come to the floor to talk 

about two or three subjects. The first 

is to issue an apology to the majority 

leader. I do not apologize for my frustration with this place, but occasionally my words are harsh and inaccurate. This past week, I used words 

that were inappropriate in describing 

his actions in the Senate, and for that 

I offer a public apology. 

I do not apologize for how I think the 

Senate is being run and the damage 

that I think is being done to the country, but as an individual, he has a very 

difficult time and I understand that 

and to him I ask his forgiveness. 

FISCAL CLIFF

Madam President, if I was coming to 

the floor with intelligence about an imminent threat to our national security, 

Americans would demand that our government and this body take immediate 

action. If an Army was on our border, 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with SENATE
July 30, 2012 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE S5653 

if missiles were about to be launched at 

our territory or if there were a terrorist plot in motion, doing anything 

less than us uniting in the face of that 

threat and taking decisive action 

would be seen as cowardice and foolishness. 

Yet that is precisely where we are 

today, which brings me to my frustration with the majority leader. The 

threat, though, does not come from 

traditional armies or terrorists, the 

threat comes from our unsustainable 

spending and this body’s refusal to 

unite and take action. It is not just the 

conservatives who are sounding the 

alarm, the warnings are coming from 

our military leaders, diplomats, and 

statesmen on both sides of the aisle, as 

well as the international financial 

community. 

ADM Mike Mullen, the retired Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, while 

he was still Chairman, said the greatest threat to this Nation is its debt. We 

have done not one thing since January 

to address that problem. We are having 

spats over judges. We are having spats 

over all the small things. But the 

greatest imminent danger to our country, we are doing nothing about. I believe we have less than 2 to 5 years to 

act to make a significant change in our 

path. 

No one knows when this Nation will 

cross the point of no return. We may 

have already. But there is a point 

where we will lose control of our own 

destiny. It is coming. The fact that the 

Senate, this year, has had fewer votes 

than at any time since 1947, according 

to the Congressional Research Service—why is that? Because we have a 

political year. We don’t want to take 

votes. We don’t want to have to explain 

to our constituencies why we voted yea 

or nay on something. So the whole goal 

is to not vote. 

Ultimately, the whole goal is to not 

address the very pressing issues facing 

this country. What do you think is 

going to happen to the Defense Department with no Defense authorization 

bill? They are in la-la land. Where do 

they go? We are not going to give them 

the direction with which to spend the 

largest discretionary amount of money 

in our government—$600 billion. They 

are going to be coasting, flying by the 

seat of their pants. They are not going 

to have radar or anything. There is not 

going to be any stealth. Yet we refuse 

to do that. 

We have spent a larger amount of 

time in quorum calls—37 percent of the 

time this year—nothing but quorum 

calls. Less than one-third an amount of 

the time available to the Senate has 

actually been on the business associated with the country, and most of the 

business we have addressed isn’t this 

critical risk in front of our country. 

Last week, Vanguard, the largest private owner of U.S. bonds—$186 billion 

they own of U.S. bonds—said we have 

until 2016 to act. If we don’t act, we 

will go into a debt spiral. Bond investors will revolt, they will drive up 

prices—drive up interest rates and drop 

prices. We already know from CBO that 

the entitlement programs are on the 

brink of insolvency. Social Security 

disability—we have added 3.2 million 

people to those rolls since January 1, 

2009. That system will be bankrupt in 

less than 18 months; 81⁄2 million people 

depend on that. And there has not been 

a comment from the leadership in addressing a trust fund that will be out of 

money in less than 18 months. 

Our Founders believed that republics 

that lived beyond their means don’t 

survive. They talked about it. History 

is full of examples. Europe is reminding us of that today. The euro in Europe, as we know it, is on its deathbed. 

Every month, every week there is a 

new set of resuscitative efforts that are 

not working. What is the real problem? 

The real problem is they spent money 

they didn’t have on things they didn’t 

need. 

If you want to see what America will 

look like in 2 or 3 years, just look at 

Europe. Look at the demonstrations, 

look at the crying out of the masses to 

say: How did we get here? The pain of 

fixing it is too great. That is why we 

should be addressing our problems now. 

The reason America looks good is 

that we are the least wilted rose in the 

bud vase. The only reason we look good 

is because they look so bad. We are at 

103 percent debt to GDP. It is costing 

us at least 1.2 million jobs in new job 

creation every year. We are at historical interest rates. Our interest costs 

per year would be over $1 trillion. The 

interest rates are falsely low because of 

what the Federal Reserve has done. 

The price to pay for that is coming in 

the future. What is the contrast? I ask 

seniors all the time: Do you think we 

ought to save Medicare? 

They say: Yes. 

I say: Do you think we ought to save 

Medicare just like it is. 

They say: Yes. 

I say: If we save Medicare just like it 

is, do you know that your grandchildren will have a standard of living 

that will be one-third lower than yours 

was? 

Then they say: No. 

America is used to doing hard things. 

It is just that the Senate right now 

will not do the hard things, will not 

come together, will not make the sacrifices. We value our positions more 

than we value the country we live in. 

The consequences are showing. 

We have an 8.2-percent unemployment rate. If we use the same statistics 

we used in 1980, our unemployment 

rate is above 9.6 percent—just measuring it the same way we did it 32 

years ago. Now that we are measuring 

it differently, we don’t see the real impact. 

Today we are dangerously close to a 

global great depression. Let’s remember the last time the world saw a great 

depression. That depression was a leading cause of the global war that killed 

60 million people—2.5 percent of the 

world’s population. Do we dare go down 

that path by putting politics ahead of 

principle and policy? 

Fortunately, many of our leaders see 

this threat and are calling on us to 

take action. Consider this exchange between former Secretary of State James 

Baker and current Secretary of State 

Hillary Clinton last month on ‘‘The 

Charlie Rose Show’’: 

Secretary Baker: 

I know one thing. We are broke. We can’t 

afford wars anymore. We can’t afford a lot of 

things, and the biggest threat facing the 

country today is not some threat from the 

outside—Iran, nuclear weapons, or anything 

else—it’s our economy. We better darn well 

get our economic house in order because the 

strength of our Nation has always depended 

upon our economy. You can’t be strong politically, militarily, or diplomatically if you 

are not strong economically. 

He is giving us a foreshadow of what 

is coming. 

Secretary Clinton said this in response: 

Well, amen to that, because I have had to 

go around the world the last 31⁄2 years reassuring many leaders both in the governments and the business sectors of a lot of 

countries that the United States was moving 

forward economically, that we were not 

ceding our leadership position, and that we 

are as powerful as ever. But we recognized 

that we had to put our economic house in 

order. 

If former Secretary Baker and Secretary Clinton can agree, why can’t 

we? They both see the same thing. The 

only problem is we haven’t put our economic house in order. 

I know it is the Senate majority 

leader’s position to try to protect both 

his incumbent President and his Members. I know that conventional wisdom 

says we cannot get anything done in an 

election year. But I want to tell you 

that isn’t good enough anymore—not 

good enough for the country. The country deserves better. 

By doing nothing, we are pushing our 

children and grandchildren off a fiscal 

cliff. By doing nothing, we are guaranteeing the very tax increases and cuts 

in entitlements that both sides say 

they want to avoid. 

If you are an unemployed American 

right now or someone struggling to 

make ends meet, when is the right 

time for us to act? Is it a perfect political moment that is always a mirage 

beyond the horizon of the next election 

or is it today or this week? The American people have lost their confidence 

in us because we refuse to act even as 

we call on others to do things that we 

will not do ourselves. 

Today we are asking our soldiers to 

risk their lives for our country. Why 

can’t we do the same? Why are we allowed to play it safe when we ask others to make the ultimate sacrifice—especially when we as elected leaders 

have so much less at stake. 

I believe the American people want 

us to do hard things and will actually 

reward us for demonstrating leadership 

and courage. The problems before us 

today can all be solved, but delay 

means the pain that comes with the solution is much greater. Yet to delay— 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with SENATE
S5654 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE July 30, 2012 

that is the path we have chosen in the 

Senate; that is the path the President 

has chosen—to not face the real issues, 

the coming and impending bankruptcy 

of Medicare, and the fact that the average Medicare couple will take three 

times more out of Medicare than what 

they put in, and the fact that the baby 

boom generation will overwhelm the 

trust fund that pays the hospital bills 

the worst-case scenario is that in 4 

years the Medicare trust fund will be 

bankrupt. I know that sounds like a lot 

of things. Let me show the American 

people some examples. 

We hear mindless, partisan rhetoric 

about which side is to blame, just like 

the debate we heard before the vote on 

Judge Bacharach. The truth is both 

sides are to blame, both Republicans 

and Democrats, when Republicans had 

the chance to restore limited government, and we helped double the size of 

government. 

Meanwhile, the leaders today—their 

chief complaint is we didn’t overspend 

enough. I know the Senate majority 

leader has a tough job and the burden 

of leadership, but he is refusing to accept the responsibility that is truly 

ours today. This Congress will be measured by our actions. 

At the end of this week, for 5 weeks, 

the Senate is going to take off, and we 

are going to be just like Rome. Actually, what should happen to every Senator as we leave this place at the end of 

the week, we should each be handed a 

fiddle so we can all fiddle while the 

government and the financial situation 

and the economic chaos that is ours 

today grows unabated. 

Real leadership isn’t about being 

right, it is about doing the right thing. 

We are not doing the right thing in the 

Senate today. We are not reforming the 

Tax Code that is 90,000 pages and takes 

110,000 IRS employees to administer. 

We are not addressing the impending 

bankruptcy of Medicare. We are not assuring the solvency of Social Security 

and increasing payments for those on 

the very low end of the totem pole. We 

are not addressing the key issues facing our country. 

Why are we here if we are not going 

to address those issues? We are addressing every issue but those. Again, 

it is evident my frustration is high. I 

want the Senate to return to the body 

it was when I first came here. I think 

we can do that. I think Senator REID

can lead us to do that. Every day we 

waste, every day we are not fixing the 

real problems, the disease that faces 

our country means we are responsible 

for a significant increase in the pain 

and disruption that is coming. Let it 

not be so. 

I yield the floor. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Ohio is recognized. 

OLYMPIC OMISSION

Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Madam President, I rise today because there was an 

obvious omission in the Olympic opening ceremony on Friday. 

Forty years after 11 Israeli Olympians and a German police officer were 

murdered in the 1972 Munich games, 

the London games opened with no acknowledgement of this tragedy. There 

was neither mention nor a moment of 

silence for those victims of the Munich 

massacre. 

Forty years ago, on September 4, five 

Palestinians stormed the apartments 

of the Israeli national team in the 

Olympic Village, murdering 11 Israeli 

team members. Yet, again and again, 

the IOC has rejected requests to hold a 

moment of silence for the Munich 11 at 

the opening ceremonies. 

I thank Senator GILLIBRAND for her 

resolution calling on the IOC to hold a 

moment of silence at the opening ceremonies to remember the 1972 Munich 

massacre. 

I remind the International Olympic 

Committee that it is not too late. We 

can still pay tribute to these Olympians. These athletes were not random 

victims. They were targeted because of 

the country they represented and the 

beliefs they held. 

Jacques Rogge, the IOC President, 

has said: 

We feel that the opening ceremony is an 

atmosphere that is not fit to remember such 

a tragic incident. 

That is the best he can do. 

On the 40th anniversary, I cannot 

think of a more appropriate moment to 

remember and honor these 11 Olympians. 

The Munich massacre is part of the 

Olympic story. We can’t erase it, and 

we should not overlook it. After all, we 

know what happens when we avoid the 

past. Of course, we cannot afford to repeat it. 

I ask we all do everything we can to 

convince the IOC to step up and do the 

right thing. 

Let me explain why this especially 

matters for people in my home State of 

Ohio—in greater Cleveland, the part of 

Ohio which I call home. In Beachwood, 

OH, a suburb east of Cleveland, there is 

a national memorial to David Berger, 

an American citizen and one of the 11 

Israeli team members killed in Munich. 

As a Nation, we honor his memory 

and the memory of his Israeli teammates, but we also have a moral responsibility to hold accountable those 

responsible for his death. Holding them 

responsible includes those who supported and financed the terrorists who 

perpetrated these actions. 

We had the chance to hold Libya accountable. Yet during negotiations 

that led to the 2008 U.S.-Libya claims 

settlement agreement, Mr. Berger was 

not included, despite widely accepted 

evidence that Libya played an important role in the massacre. 

We know the Qadhafi regime financially supported terrorist groups such 

as the Black September organization. 

It supported them and it welcomed the 

bodies of the dead terrorists from the 

Munich massacre back to a hero’s tribute. 

Seeking justice and compensation for 

victims of global terrorism sends a 

powerful message to those who may be 

seeking to do further harm. The window of opportunity to engage the new 

Libyan Government has never been 

greater. Libyan Ambassador Ali 

Suleiman Aujali said earlier this 

month in an op-ed in the Washington 

Post that he hopes ‘‘that Washington 

considers an enterprise fund for Libya’’ 

and that ‘‘we would work closely with 

the U.S. Government on its creation.’’ 

Those are the words of the Libyan 

Ambassador. Such a fund should include all those who deserve restitution 

for the losses they suffered. This includes the Berger family. 

This is about letting violent extremists know they and their supporters 

will be pursued until justice is served— 

sending a clear signal to those contemplating terrorism as a political tool. 

As we all cheer on the American athletes in the next couple of weeks, I ask 

that we all take a moment to think 

about the Munich massacre, about 

David Berger, and about what more we 

can do to preserve their legacy and resolve to thwart those who by their use 

of terror and violence would undermine 

all that the Olympic games are supposed to represent. 

Madam President, I suggest the absence of a quorum. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The 

clerk will call the roll. 

The legislative clerk proceeded to 

call the roll. 

Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the 

order for the quorum call be rescinded. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without 

objection, it is so ordered. 

f 

MORNING BUSINESS 

Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the 

Senate proceed to a period of morning 

business, with Senators permitted to 

speak therein up to 10 minutes each. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without 

objection, it is so ordered. 

f 

REMEMBERING REPRESENTATIVE 

DEWAYNE BUNCH 

Mr. MCCONNELL. Madam President, 

with sadness I rise today to mark the 

passing on July 11, 2012, of former Kentucky State Representative Dewayne 

Bunch. As a teacher and State representative, Dewayne served the people 

of the Commonwealth, especially those 

in Whitley and Laurel Counties, with 

distinction. He also proudly served our 

country in Iraq as a member of the 

Kentucky National Guard. Elaine and I 

send our condolences to his wife Regina, his family, his many friends, and 

all those at Whitley County High 

School who knew and loved him. 

A Corbin resident, Representative 

Bunch died at age 50. He is survived by 

his wife Representative Regina Bunch, 

and he was the father of three daughters. Though his life was cut short, it 

was characterized by a dedication to 

serving others in his community, 

State, and country. Representative 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with SENATE