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
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