August 2, 2012 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE S5927 

evolving conditions and make our coastal 

areas more resilient. 

It is the Council’s policy to accommodate 

a base rate of expected 3–5 foot rise in sea 

level by the year 2100 in the siting, design, 

and implementation of public and private 

coastal activities and to insure proactive 

stewardship of coastal ecosystems under 

these changing conditions. It should be noted 

that the 3–5 foot rate of sea-level rise assumption embedded in this policy is relatively narrow and low. The Council recognizes that the lower the sea level rise estimate used, the greater the risk that policies 

and efforts to adapt sea-level rise and climate change will prove to be inadequate. 

This policy is already helping the 

State make smart decisions. For example, when a new pump station was 

needed at a sewage treatment plant, 

CRMC looked at sea-level rise models 

before determining where it should go, 

avoiding future relocation costs or 

malfunction in the face of flash flooding and sea level rise. 

In 2010, our general assembly created 

the Rhode Island Climate Change Commission to study the projected impacts 

of climate change on the State, develop 

strategies to adapt to those impacts, 

and determine mechanisms to incorporate climate adaptation into existing 

state and municipal programs. A draft 

progress report from the Commission 

lists many ways the state is planning 

to adapt to climate change, including: 

Creating a ‘‘Structural Concept and 

Contingency Plan to Inundation of the 

Ferry Terminals and Island Roadway 

Systems’’; creating the ‘‘Central Landfill Disaster Preparedness Plan’’; national grid, our electricity and natural 

gas utility, undertaking a ‘‘Statewide 

Substation Flooding Assessment’’; the 

Army Corps of Engineers, FEMA, and 

the Rhode Island Emergency Management Agency conducting a ‘‘Hurricane 

and Flooding Evacuation Study’’; and 

the list goes on and on. 

In the town of North Kingston, RI, 

they have taken the best elevation 

data available, and modeled 1, 3, and 5 

feet of sea-level rise, as well as 1 foot of 

sea-level rise plus 3 feet of storm surge. 

By overlaying these inundation models 

on top of maps identifying critical infrastructure such as roads, emergency 

routes, railroads, water treatment 

plans, and estuaries, the town will be 

able to prioritize transportation, conservation, and relocation projects. 

They are also able to quantify the 

costs of sea-level rise. In one small 

area of the town, 1 foot of sea-level rise 

would put two buildings, valued at $1.3 

million, underwater. Five feet of sealevel rise, however, jeopardizes 116 

buildings valued at $91 million. 

Similarly, by modeling how sea-level 

rise will impact estuaries, towns can 

preserve areas that will stay wetlands 

or undeveloped areas that will become 

wetlands in the future, as opposed to 

areas that will be lost. Estuaries act as 

nurseries for our hugely valuable fisheries, and protect our homes, buildings 

and communities from storm surge. 

There is already limited funding to 

protect these important ecosystems 

and this kind of planning promotes efficiency in spending. 

Let me close by saying that it is now 

well past time for us as a country to 

start making policy that helps us 

adapt to the emerging scientific reality 

that our actions indeed do affect our 

environment. For those of us who are 

ocean States, the state of our oceans 

and coastlines is particularly significant, and I urge my colleagues to support our National Endowment for the 

Oceans, which got all the way into the 

conference committee on the highway 

bill before it was taken out in an unfortunate, unwise, and, frankly, unfair 

maneuver. 

We are at a place now where nature 

could not be giving us clearer warnings. Whatever higher power there is— 

and we each have our own beliefs on 

that—that higher power that gave us 

our advanced human capacity for perception, for calculation, for analysis, 

for deduction, and for foresight has laid 

out before us more than enough information for us to make the right decisions. Only a wild and reckless greed or 

a fatal hubris could blind us to the distress signals coming from our oceans, 

our atmosphere, and our world. Fortunately, these human capacities still 

provide us everything we need to act 

responsibly but only if we will. 

I thank the Presiding Officer, and I 

yield the floor. 

f 

EXECUTIVE SESSION 

NOMINATION OF GERSHWIN A. 

DRAIN TO BE UNITED STATES 

DISTRICT JUDGE FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN 

The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mrs. 

MCCASKILL). Under the previous order, 

the Senate will proceed to executive 

session to consider the following nomination, which the clerk will report. 

The assistant bill clerk read the 

nomination of Gershwin A. Drain, of 

Michigan, to be United States District 

Judge for the Eastern District of 

Michigan. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. There 

will be 1 hour of debate equally divided. 

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, earlier 

this week, Senate Republicans followed 

through on their partisan opposition to 

the President by slamming the door on 

a highly qualified, consensus circuit 

court nominee with bipartisan support. 

It was the first time in history that a 

circuit court nominee reported with bipartisan support from the Judiciary 

Committee was successfully filibustered. Judge Robert Bacharach, who 

was nominated to the Tenth Circuit 

Court of Appeals, had had the strong 

support of his Republican home State 

Senators, Senator COBURN and Senator 

INHOFE. Unfortunately, they chose not 

to vote to end the unprecedented filibuster of his nomination and cloture 

fell just short. This deprived the people 

of Oklahoma and the Tenth Circuit of 

an outstanding judge who could today 

be serving the American people as an 

appellate judge. The Bacharach nomination is one of the many judicial 

nominees ready for final action by the 

Senate but being delayed by Republican opposition. 

There was an article in the Washington Post this morning entitled ‘‘A 

Bench with Plenty of Room’’ about the 

judicial vacancies being perpetuated by 

partisanship all to the detriment of 

those seeking justice in our Federal 

courts. It notes that a lower percentage of President Obama’s nominees 

have been confirmed than had been 

during the Bush administration and 

that at this point during the Bush 

Presidency there were only 28 judicial 

vacancies. It observes that ‘‘Obama, 

with 78 vacancies, may be the first 

president in decades to end his first 

term with more judicial vacancies than 

when he began.’’ We can change that if 

Senate Republicans will cooperate in 

the consideration of the 23 judicial 

nominees on the Senate Executive Calendar awaiting a final, up-or-down confirmation vote. I ask that a copy of 

that article be printed in the RECORD. 

There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in the 

RECORD, as follows: 

[From the Washington Post, Aug. 1, 2012] 

A BENCH WITH PLENTY OF ROOM

The Senate’s rejection Monday of Oklahoma Magistrate Judge Robert Bacharach 

for a U.S. Court of Appeals seat sent a clear 

message to the three other appellate nominees hoping for a vote on the Senate floor: 

Fuhgeddaboudit. 

Ditto for 16 U.S. District Court nominees 

also pending in committee. The odds of judicial confirmations after this August recess 

are exceptionally slim—at best. The Cubs 

will win the pennant before you’ll be putting 

on the black robes. 

No nominees were confirmed after the August recess when President Bill Clinton was 

running for reelection in 1996 and only three 

when President George W. Bush was running 

for a second term in 2004—although five got 

in during the lame-duck session. 

Still, a whopping 13 George H.W. Bush 

nominees, including two for appellate seats, 

were confirmed after the August recess in 

1992, according to Senate Judiciary Committee statistics. 

Four Clinton judicial picks were confirmed 

after the recess in 2000, when Bush II and Al 

Gore were running, and 10 Bush judges were 

confirmed during the race between Barack 

Obama and John McCain, the committee reports. 

So with the numbers pretty much set, let’s 

recap. 

President Barack Obama, who started off 

slowly in getting nominations up to the Senate, never fully caught up. He’s nominated 

fewer judges (200) than either Bush (228) or 

Clinton (245) on Aug. 1 of their fourth year in 

office, according to committee statistics. 

At the same time, the Senate has confirmed a smaller percentage of Obama nominees than Clinton nominees—78 percent, 

compared with 80.8 percent—and a much 

smaller percentage than in the Bush administration (86.4). 

As a result, Obama, with 78 vacancies, may 

be the first president in decades to end his 

first term with more judicial vacancies than 

when he started. 

At this point in their first terms, Clinton 

had 58 judicial vacancies and Bush had 28. 

(The latter figure is pretty much full employment.) 


bjneal on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with CONG-REC-ONLINE
S5928 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE August 2, 2012 

Liberals have criticized Obama for not 

having pushed harder for his nominees, noting that Bush issued a lengthy statement at 

a 2002 news conference blasting ‘‘a handful’’ 

of Senate Democrats for holding up his judicial nominees because they ‘‘fear the outcome of a fair vote in the full Senate.’’ 

‘‘The Senate has an obligation to provide 

fair hearings and prompt votes to all nominees,’’ Bush said, ‘‘no matter who controls 

the Senate or who controls the White 

House.’’ Obama did, however, mention Senate delays in a State of the Union address 

and in a Saturday radio address, we were 

told. And Senate Judiciary Chairman Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.) intends to keep moving 

nominees this fall. Well, who knows? Deals 

are always possible. 

But, after those recess appointments of the 

consumer finance watchdog and some labor 

folks in January, furious Republicans are 

not feeling particularly cooperative on appointments. 

Mr. LEAHY. The Senate Republicans 

who took the floor earlier this week relied on their distorted application of 

the Thurmond rule in seeking to justify their unprecedented filibuster of 

Judge Bacharach’s nomination. The 

truth is that Senate Republicans are 

trying to find an excuse for their partisan inaction that is stalling almost 

two dozen judicial nominees. 

We now have a President who has 

worked with home State Senators to 

select moderate, superbly qualified judicial nominees. Yet Republicans who 

support these nominees will not vote to 

end filibusters against them and will 

not stand up to the partisan obstruction. I am proud of my record of working to lower vacancies and to move 

nominations whether there is a Republican or Democratic President and of 

my role ensuring that nominees are 

treated fairly and that the rights of 

every Senator are protected in the Judiciary Committee. But this is not 

about me. This is about the American 

people. This is about ensuring that 

they have functioning courts so they 

have access to justice. 

With our Federal courts still severely 

overburdened, I hope that Senate Republicans will consider the needs of the 

American people. We need to do better, 

filling vacancies to ensure a functioning democracy, functioning courts, 

and do our job for the American people. 

There are currently 19 district court 

nominees who have been reported favorably by the Judiciary Committee 

who can be voted on right now, almost 

all of them completely noncontroversial with significant bipartisan support. Of the 19 district court nominees 

currently pending on the floor, 16 were 

supported by nearly all Republicans on 

the committee. All have the support of 

their home State Senators, including 

eight with Republican home State Senators. 

The reason for this extensive backlog 

of nominees is that Senate Republicans 

have allowed for votes on just one district court nominee per week for the 

last 7 weeks. We cannot allow this slow 

pace of confirmations to continue with 

the judicial vacancy crisis that we 

face. There are currently 78 vacancies. 

Judicial vacancies during the last few 

years have been at historically high 

levels and have remained near or above 

80 for 31⁄2 years. Nearly 1 out of every 11 

Federal judgeships is currently vacant. 

Vacancies on the Federal courts are 

more than 21⁄2 times as many as they 

were on this date during the first term 

of President Bush. 

In contrast to the dramatic reduction 

in judicial vacancies during President 

Bush’s first term, judicial vacancies 

are higher than they were when President Obama came into office—another 

sad first. 

We have heard lots of excuses from 

Senate Republicans, who have tried to 

shift the blame for the judicial vacancy 

crisis to the President. They claim 

that the President has not made 

enough nominations. However, there 

are 19 outstanding district court nominees who can be confirmed right now 

who are being stalled. Let’s act on 

them. Let’s vote them up or down. 

The Senate should proceed to confirm all 19 district court nominees who 

are ready for final confirmation votes. 

I know we can do this because we have 

done this before. On November 14, 2002, 

the Senate proceeded to confirm 18 judicial nominees on 1 day, and vacancies 

went down to 60 throughout the country. If we confirm the 19 district nominees ready for final Senate action 

today, we can reduce vacancies down to 

60 as well. I hope that Senate Republicans will not extend their wrongheaded Thurmond rule shutdown to the 

confirmation of consensus, well-qualified district court nominees. Given our 

overburdened Federal courts and the 

need to provide all Americans with 

prompt justice, we should all be working in a bipartisan fashion to confirm 

these nominees. 

Today, the Senate will vote on the 

nomination of Gershwin Drain to fill a 

judicial emergency vacancy in the U.S. 

District Court for the Eastern District 

of Michigan. Judge Drain has the 

strong support of his home State Senators, Senator LEVIN and Senator STABENOW. His nomination was reported 

favorably by the Judiciary Committee 

4 months ago. 

Judge Drain has been a State and 

local trial court judge in Michigan for 

over 25 years, with jurisdiction over 

both civil and criminal matters. In 

that time, he has presided over approximately 600 cases that have gone 

to verdict or judgment after trial. The 

ABA Standing Committee on the Federal Judiciary has unanimously rated 

Judge Drain as ‘‘qualified’’ to serve on 

the U.S. district court. 

Currently a trial judge on the third 

Circuit Court of Michigan, where he 

has been presiding since 1997, Judge 

Drain has also served on the Recorder’s 

Court for the City of Detroit for a decade. Prior to that, he served briefly as 

a judge for the 36th District Court of 

Michigan. Before becoming a judge, he 

was a trial attorney for the Federal Defenders Office for nearly a dozen years, 

where he tried over 140 cases to verdict 

or judgment. Judge Drain’s vast experience as both a judge and a litigator 

makes him well prepared to take the 

Federal bench. 

There are some Senators who have 

expressed concerns about Judge Drain’s 

views based on a few isolated public 

statements that Judge Drain made 

more than a decade ago. However, 

Judge Drain’s 25 years on the bench 

demonstrate that he is more than capable of being a fair and neutral judge 

who faithfully applies the law. His experience presiding over 600 civil and 

criminal matters provides further assurance that he makes his decision 

based on the law and nothing more. 

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I rise 

in opposition to the nomination of 

Gershwin A. Drain, to be U.S. district 

judge for the Eastern District of Michigan. Judge Drain, currently serving as 

a Michigan State court judge, was reported out of committee on a 10 to 8 

vote. He could hardly be described as a 

consensus nominee. 

Even as we turn to the 155th nominee 

of this President to be confirmed to the 

district and circuit courts, we continue 

to hear unsubstantiated charges of obstructionism. The fact is, we have confirmed over 80 percent of President 

Obama’s District nominees. That exceeds the percentage for President 

Bush at this stage in his Presidency. 

During the last Presidential election 

year, 2008, the Senate confirmed a total 

of 28 judges—24 district and 4 circuit. 

This Presidential election year we have 

already exceeded those numbers. We 

have confirmed 5 circuit nominees, and 

Judge Drain would be the 28th district 

judge confirmed. That is a total of 33 

judges this year versus 28 in the last 

Presidential election year. Again, there 

is no credible basis to argue that this 

President is being treated differently. 

With regard to Judge Drain, I will 

not take the time to mention every aspect of his record that I find troubling, 

but I do want to highlight some of my 

concerns. 

In 1994, Judge Drain wrote an article 

that was published in the Michigan 

Chronicle concerning the second 

amendment and the right of American 

citizens to own and possess firearms. 

Judge Drain wrote that he ‘‘envisions a 

day when the National Rifle Association with its lobby will not be feared, 

and that legislators and congressman 

will stand up strong against them instead of bowing down to them.’’ He also 

wrote that he ‘‘looks forward to the 

time when a person with a gun will be 

viewed as a coward or a chicken.’’ 

I would note that it is not as if Judge 

Drain was a young and inexperienced 

lawyer when he took this view. On the 

contrary, he wrote this article after he 

had been serving as a judge for approximately 7 years. I recognize that Judge 

Drain told Senator LEE at his hearing 

that, if confirmed, he would follow the 

precedent in McDonald and Heller. But, 

I also know that when individual has 

such strong and well-established views 

on a particular subject, it can be very 


bjneal on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with CONG-REC-ONLINE
August 2, 2012 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE S5929 

difficult for them to set aside those 

strongly held views. 

Judge Drain also has very strong 

views regarding his opposition to the 

death penalty. In an article he authored in the Detroit News, he referred 

to the death penalty as a ‘‘primitive 

punishment that is brutal and barbaric.’’ He also said that deterrence 

was ‘‘the only reasonably legitimate 

argument for killing the convicted,’’ 

but he said deterrence was actually a 

‘‘myth.’’ Now, at his hearing, Judge 

Drain said that he wrote that article 

many years ago and he no longer holds 

to that position. But again, given how 

Judge Drain appears to have held very 

strong views on this issue, I am concerned that he would not be able to 

completely set those views aside. 

His views on criminal sentencing 

concern me as well. Judge Drain has 

been strident in his opposition to mandatory sentences. He once wrote that, 

as a judge, ‘‘one of my unpleasant 

tasks on occasion is to impose mandatory sentences.’’ On another occasion, 

he expressed admiration for judges who 

refuse to hear drug cases where the law 

would require them to impose mandatory sentences. He called the judges 

who refuse such cases ‘‘courageous.’’ In 

my view, judges should accept the 

cases that are assigned to them, and it 

is their duty to do what the law requires of them. If they are unable to do 

that, then they should not be a judge. 

At the State level, he urged his legislature to eliminate mandatory sentencing. At the Federal level, he criticized President Clinton’s ‘‘three strikes 

and you’re out’’ legislation. 

At his hearing, I asked him about his 

views on sentencing. I appreciate that 

he acknowledged that his obligation is 

to follow the law. And then he added, 

‘‘The fact that I wrote some side comments about [sentencing], really 

shouldn’t have anything to do with my 

decision-making, and is really kind of 

irrelevant or unimportant to me.’’ 

However, Judge Drain’s articles and 

comments are not irrelevant. As I 

evaluate the nominee, I have to be 

comfortable that he will be able to set 

aside his strongly held personal views 

and do what the law requires. Unfortunately, I am unable to reach that conclusion. I am sure Judge Drain is an 

admirable man, but I am unable to support him for the Federal bench. 

Judge Drain received his B.S. from 

Western Michigan University in 1970 

and his J.D. from the University of 

Michigan Law School in 1972. Upon 

graduation, he clerked for the Michigan Third Circuit Court judges. In 1973, 

Judge Drain worked as an attorney for 

a year in the department of transportation in Detroit. There, he handled 

property damage and minor personal 

injury cases. From 1974 to 1986, he 

worked as a Federal public defender in 

Detroit on felony cases. He handled 

cases where defendants were charged 

with a variety of crimes, including 

drug violations, bank robberies, counterfeiting, mail theft, interstate transportation of stolen property, and gun 

charges. 

In 1986, Judge Drain was appointed to 

the 36th District Court for the city of 

Detroit. There, he had jurisdiction over 

traffic violations, landlord-tenant disputes, misdemeanors, and civil cases 

where the amount in controversy was 

less than $25,000. In 1987, he was appointed to the Recorder’s Court for the 

city of Detroit, where he presided over 

felony prosecutions. 

Judge Drain was elected to the Third 

Circuit Court of Michigan in 1997, 

where he presided over felony prosecutions in Wayne County until 2000. In 

2000, he became a civil judge in the 

Third Circuit and presides over State 

civil cases where the amount in controversy exceeds $25,000. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Missouri. 

Mr. BLUNT. Madam President, I 

don’t intend to talk about the nomination, but I have talked to my friend 

from Michigan about this, and I would 

ask unanimous consent that my time 

come from the Republican time on the 

nomination discussion. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without 

objection, it is so ordered. 

CYBER SECURITY

Mr. BLUNT. I rise today on two topics. One, I want to say that while I 

don’t agree with everything my good 

friend from Rhode Island just said 

about the issue he was talking about, 

the two of us have worked all this year 

to try to bring people together on the 

issue we failed to deal with today on 

cyber security. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE and I, along 

with Senators KYL and MIKULSKI, at 

the very first of the year began to create opportunities for Senators to sit 

down together and talk about the 

threat we face and talk about what we 

need to do to deal with it. I am convinced and I believe all the people I 

just mentioned are equally convinced 

that two things will happen: No. 1, we 

will eventually have a cyber attack on 

our country that will be successful in 

some way that many Americans will 

understand the danger we face from the 

cyber threat and, No. 2, that we will 

eventually pass a bill. My strong belief 

is that will be a better bill if we pass it 

before that event rather than after 

that event. 

Mr. WHITEHOUSE. Madam President, may I simply interject, with the 

Senator’s permission, to say how much 

of a pleasure it has been to work with 

him on this issue and to say that I 

think a great number of Senators on 

both sides of the aisle have worked in 

very good faith to get to a point where 

we can pass a bill. And I pledge to him, 

despite the unfortunate outcome of today’s cloture vote, that I am committed to continuing to work with 

him, Senator KYL, Senator GRAHAM, 

Senator MCCAIN, and others—I guess 

Senator CHAMBLISS—on the other side 

of the aisle so we can indeed take the 

necessary steps to protect our Nation 

from this threat. But I say this with a 

strong consciousness of the very good 

will and the very hard work Senator 

BLUNT put into this effort and with 

great appreciation to him personally. 

I yield the floor. 

Mr. BLUNT. I thank my friend from 

Rhode Island, and I think we can move 

forward. I think there is good faith. 

As I said, we started—the four of us— 

beginning to get people together. That 

group was quickly joined by Senators 

COLLINS and LIEBERMAN, so then six of 

us began to get people together. There 

were any number of meetings this week 

with about two dozen Senators, about 

equally divided between both parties, 

trying to find a way forward. I didn’t 

think we found that in the cloture motion today. The motion said: Here is 

how we are going to proceed to finish 

the bill, and so we didn’t move forward 

today. But I hope we can continue to 

work with Senator REID and others to 

create the sense that Senator WHITEHOUSE just expressed, that there is 

great bipartisan effort being made to 

find a solution that not only would 

pass a Senate bill but would wind up 

with a bill on the President’s desk 

sometime this year. 

You don’t have to look very far to 

find people who will say that the greatest threat we face at this moment is 

the threat of some kind of cyber attack. At the highest levels of our military structure, of our intelligence 

structure, they quickly come to that 

conclusion. And leaving here for the 

work period in August that Congress 

has had since the beginning of Congresses without having this done on 

the Senate side is disappointing to me. 

On the other hand, there wouldn’t 

have been a bill even if we had passed 

a bill today because we have to work 

with the House to have a bill that 

winds up with a piece of paper on the 

President’s desk—a relatively small 

stack of paper—that he can sign and 

that then becomes the law that allows 

us to either minimize or hopefully 

avoid the current certainty that someone will eventually begin to get to our 

critical infrastructure in a way that 

makes it hard for the country to get 

water, to get electricity, to communicate, or to address the financial network. You know, 3 or 4 days anywhere 

in the country where the electricity is 

out, suddenly you begin to see all of 

the things that are dependent on just 

the electrical grid alone. 

Hopefully we can do this. I know 

work is being done. I will be involved 

in some of it later today. As I said, I 

am disappointed we didn’t get this 

done, but it has to be done. We can’t 

leave here this year with the House 

saying ‘‘we passed a bill’’ and the Senate saying either ‘‘we didn’t pass a bill 

because one side didn’t want to work 

with the other’’ or ‘‘we passed a bill, 

but the House wouldn’t agree to it.’’ 

This is not a problem that we just need 

to have a political answer to; this is a 

problem we need to have a real answer 

to. 


bjneal on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with CONG-REC-ONLINE
S5930 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE August 2, 2012 

IRAN SANCTIONS

What I also came to the floor to talk 

about today is something we actually 

managed to get done just a few days 

ago when the Senate passed the Housepassed Iran Threat Reduction and 

Syria Human Rights Act. This is one 

thing people who don’t agree on much 

of anything else in the House and Senate can figure out how to agree on. 

This bill, while I think it could have 

been a little stronger, was still a 

strong effort to reach a conclusion that 

hopefully the President will sign as 

soon as possible and send the right 

message to Iran that even amid our 

vigorous disagreements on all these 

other issues, including something as 

important as cyber security, Congress 

stands united against Iran developing 

nuclear capacity. 

Let me give some of the highlights of 

the bill. This would create strong new 

measures on any entity that invests in 

Iran’s petroleum, petrochemical, or 

natural gas sector, strong measures 

against any entity that provides goods, 

services, and infrastructure or technology to Iran’s oil and natural gas and 

any entity that provides refined petroleum products to Iran. 

Iran is an economic basket case. 

They have all this oil, but they can’t 

turn enough of it into gasoline for 

their own country because of the kind 

of government under which they are 

suffering. 

Again, this bill would create new, 

strong measures against any company 

or entity that insures or reinsures investments in Iran’s oil sector; that engages in joint ventures with the National Iranian Oil Company; that provides insurance or reinsurance to the 

National Iranian Oil Company or the 

National Iranian Tanker Company; 

that helps Iran evade oil sanctions 

through reflagging or some effort that 

tries to hide the real source of oil coming from Iran; that sells or leases or 

otherwise provides tankers to Iran; 

that transports crude oil from Iran 

concealing the origin of Iranian crude 

in any way. These are good measures 

that strengthen what we have been 

doing, and what we have been doing is 

having some impact. I believe we need 

to have more impact because the result 

would be so unacceptable if Iran successfully gets a nuclear weapon. 

The bill prevents Iran from bringing 

money back when it sells oil in other 

countries. Now, 80 percent of their hard 

currency comes into the country that 

way. So we would say that can’t happen. And 50 percent of all the money 

that runs the government comes in 

that way. When the President signs 

this bill, we are saying this shouldn’t 

be allowed to happen. It also prevents 

the purchasing of Iranian sovereign 

debt. 

I have been working on this issue for 

a long time. In 2006 I worked with my 

colleagues in the House and Senate and 

the administration to secure the first 

Iran Freedom Support Act, which updated the Iran sanctions law and put 

into law many of the things we have 

been doing. This bill, along with that 

bill, addresses problems we need to be 

concerned about as a country. 

Late last year the Senate passed an 

amendment to the Defense bill, 100 to 

0, to block Iran’s access to global capital markets. Foreign banks that do 

business with Iran’s banks won’t be 

able to do business with the U.S. financial system. 

Nobody disputes what a nuclear Iran 

would mean to the world. Iran is currently led by a man who has called for 

the destruction of our ally Israel. 

Iran’s government funds and supports 

terrorist organizations and regimes all 

over the Middle East that threaten 

American allies and interests and 

American citizens. The Iranian regime 

is dangerous, it is undemocratic, it 

treats its own people brutally, and it 

associates itself with other countries 

that do the same thing. North Korea, 

Venezuela, and Syria are allies of Iran. 

What does that tell us? We can sometimes tell a lot about a country by the 

few friends it has left in the world. Iran 

bankrolls Hezbollah and has strong financial ties with Hamas. Remember, 

this is a country that can’t even 

produce their own gasoline, even 

though they send oil out every day, because they are focusing on nuclear activities when they have so many other 

needs. So there is no reason to believe 

a nuclear Iran would not be a threat to 

the United States. 

Some of our country partners in that 

region, such as Turkey, feel they have 

to develop nuclear programs if Iran 

does. 

The Iranian people, many of whom 

advocate for freedom and demonstrated 

their bravery in the 2009 uprisings, are 

not our enemies. This government, 

however, is our enemy, and this government should not be allowed to have 

a nuclear weapon. 

We are going to have to work together to more vigorously persuade 

countries such as Russia and China 

that their ties with Iran aren’t in the 

best interest of the world. We have to 

work to encourage our European allies 

to accept some further risk as they 

also continue on the path they are on 

to make these sanctions work better. 

I understand there is some risk here, 

but the Senate—which doesn’t agree on 

a lot of things—agrees that an unacceptable conclusion to what is going on 

in Iran right now would be a nuclear 

Iran. 

I urge the President to sign this bill 

to implement the provisions as quickly 

as possible and to work with other 

countries in the world to see that we 

all advance the interests of peace by 

insisting that Iran not continue on the 

course it is on. 

Madam President, I yield the floor. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan. 

Mr. LEVIN. Madam President, I am 

very pleased that the Senate is now 

taking up the nomination of Gershwin 

Drain to be a judge on the Eastern District Court of Michigan. 

Judge Drain has an impressive legal 

career. He graduated from the University of Michigan Law School and then 

went on to earn a master’s of judicial 

studies degree in 1991. He has served 

with distinction as a trial judge for 

over two decades in all three of our 

trial courts, from the lowest court, 

which is a so-called district court, to 

the recorder’s court and the circuit 

court. 

He has demonstrated a career-long 

dedication to helping the people understand how our legal system works. As a 

longtime columnist for the Michigan 

Chronicle newspaper, he has explained 

often-complex legal issues in language 

accessible to lay readers, broadening 

understanding of and appreciation for 

our courts. Beyond his writing, Judge 

Drain has been very active in the community, including membership on the 

education committee of the Southfield 

Christian School Board. 

It is important to note that the confirmation of Judge Drain would help to 

remedy the judicial emergency in the 

Eastern District of Michigan. Vacancies and caseloads in the Eastern District meet the Federal judicial system’s definition of an emergency. 

These judicial emergencies lead to 

delays and, even worse, to the risk of 

rushed judgments that could deprive 

Americans of the impartial justice that 

is so much a necessary component of 

our democratic system of government. 

Judge Drain was asked about some of 

his past writings and statements during his confirmation hearing at the Judiciary Committee on such issues as 

capital punishment and mandatory 

minimum sentences. He indicated that 

some of those views—some of them decades ago—have evolved. He was candid 

in saying where they have changed. I 

don’t agree with everything Judge 

Drain said 20 years ago, but nonetheless, without the slightest hesitancy, 

Senator STABENOW and I have recommended him to be a judge on the 

Eastern District Court for Michigan. 

The test of his fairness has been 

shown by the fact that he has served 

with distinction for over two decades 

on trial courts. Another test of his fairness is how the legal community feels 

about Judge Drain. 

Senator STABENOW and I have appointed a judicial advisory commission 

to make recommendations to us for the 

judicial positions we have on the Federal district courts. His nomination 

was the result of an examination by 

and consideration of a host of people 

interested in being Federal court 

judges in the Eastern District. His 

competition was great. There are literally dozens of qualified people whom 

we considered—more accurately, our 

judicial advisory commission considered—to recommend to the President 

for nomination. He was one of the persons they recommended. This is a commission we have appointed in order to 

remove the nominees whom we recommend to the President, as much as 

we can, from partisan politics and to 


bjneal on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with CONG-REC-ONLINE