[Congressional Record Volume 158, Number 117 (Thursday, August 2, 2012)]
[Senate]
[Pages S5930-S5931]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]



                             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 House-passed 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

[[Page 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.