Floor Statements

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to a period of morning business, with Senators permitted to speak therein for up to 10 minutes each.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Kevin Reed, a fellow in Senator Mark Udall's office, be granted floor privileges during the Senate's session for the week of November 26, 2012, through November 30, 2012.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Judiciary Committee be discharged from further consideration of H.R. 6063 and the Senate proceed to its consideration.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the bill be read a third time and passed, the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table, with no intervening action or debate, and any statements relating to the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I understand that S. 3637, introduced earlier today by Senator Reid, is at the desk, and I ask for its first reading.

Mr. President, I now ask for its second reading and object to my own request.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate completes its business today, it adjourn until 10 a.m. tomorrow, Tuesday, November 27; that following the prayer and pledge, the Journal of proceedings be approved to date, the morning hour be deemed expired, the time for the two leaders be reserved for their use later in the day; that the majority leader be recognized and that the first hour be equally divided and controlled between the two leaders or their designees, with the Republicans controlling the first half and the majority controlling the final half; that the Senate recess from 12:30 p.m. until 2:15 p.m. to allow for the weekly caucus meetings.

Mr. President, we hope to consider the disabilities treaty during tomorrow's session.

Mr. President, if there is no further business to come before the Senate, I ask unanimous consent that it adjourn under the previous order.

Mr. President, on Oct. 27, many of my fellow Michiganians gathered to recognize an event of enormous historical and cultural significance to our State: the 150th anniversary of Congregation Shaarey Zedek in the City of Southfield, just outside my hometown of Detroit.

For a century and a half, from its humble beginnings in Detroit to its emergence as one of the most important and influential institutions in the American Jewish community, Shaarey Zedek has played a vital role, not just for Michigan Jews, but for the community at large. Even more important than its high profile events with high-level speakers and guests is Shaarey Zedek's 150 years of day-in, day-out service to faith, community and humanity.

Shaarey Zedek has played a vital role in Jewish cultural and political life. It is no coincidence that, as the threat of Nazi Germany rose, Shaarey Zedek hosted one of the most important meetings of American Jews in the May of 1938, warning Americans about Hitler's threat to European Jews and to international security and strongly advocating for Jewish emigration to Palestine to escape Hitler's clutches. And in later years, Shaarey Zedek was one of America's leading voices in support of oppressed Jews in the Soviet Union.

It was Shaarey Zedek where Detroit Tigers slugger Hank Greenberg attended services on Yom Kippur of 1934, in the midst of the American League pennant race, receiving a standing ovation from the congregation, serving as a powerful symbol of Jewish identity, and, as he later put it in his autobiography, pleasing his relieved parents.

Like any religious institution, Shaarey Zedek has first and foremost been a touchstone of faith. Congregation Shaarey Zedek is one of America's most respected synagogues.

Of particular importance to me is the congregation's longstanding dedication to tolerance, not just in matters of faith, but in all matters of conscience. At times of strife and conflict in Michigan and the Nation, and in the face of discrimination or oppression, Shaarey Zedek has consistently served as a voice of reason, peace, understanding and equality.

So this anniversary is important to the Jewish community, and the larger community. But it also means a lot to me personally. Congregation Shaarey Zedek is where my brother and I were bar mitzvahed. It is the spiritual home of many who are dear to me, and to the community of which I am a proud member. I know my colleagues will want to join me in congratulating all those who have made Congregation Shaarey Zedek such an important institution for 150 years, and who will carry that tradition forward in the decades to come.

Mr. President, the institution of the Senate is unique in its robust protections of the rights of the minority. In establishing our democracy, our Founders warned of the dangers of a tyrannical majority, and through our history as a country the Senate has stood, often alone, against that threat. One of the essential aspects of the Senate is the ability of 41 Senators, a minority, to defeat a measure if they are willing to talk and there are not 60 Senators who will vote to end the talking. Throughout the history of the Senate, the minority has usually used its right to thwart the will of the majority judiciously and only on measures of the greatest importance. Without that self-restraint, we would be exchanging a tyranny of the majority for a tyranny of the minority, and, indeed, that could mean a tiny minority.

That important quality of self-restraint is essential for the proper functioning of the Senate. With this quality, the Senate can debate, negotiate, and compromise; and without it, the result is gridlock. In a legislative body where extended debate is a central principle, self- restraint is what allows the gears of government to eventually turn. The Senate cannot operate without it.

It is that self-restraint that is too often missing in today's Senate. It is one reason for the low public approval of Congress. In fact, scholars of the Congress have noted an unprecedented change in the functioning of the Senate. In his testimony before the Senate Rules Committee on May 19, 2010, Norm Ornstein said:

The sharp increase in cloture motions reflects the

routinization of the filibuster; it's used not as a tool of

last resort for a minority that feels intensely about a major

issue but as a weapon to delay and obstruct on nearly all

matters, including routine and widely supported ones. It is

fair to say that this has never happened before in the

history of the Senate.

Wait, some might say, the Senate seems to have plenty of debate, perhaps too much. But the sad fact is, in today's Senate, a small minority of Senators routinely block the Senate from even beginning debate on legislation by filibustering or more accurately, perhaps, threaten to filibuster the motion to proceed to legislation. Without 60 votes to end debate on the motion to proceed, the Senate is routinely blocked from even beginning debate on critical legislation, making negotiation and compromise on legislation far more difficult.

Mr. Ornstein is right. The routine threat of a filibuster is an abuse of the rules. Just consider the number of filibusters of the motions to proceed. From the time the cloture rule was first extended to cover the motion to proceed in 1949 to 1990, 41 years, the Senate saw a total of 53 filibusters on the motion to proceed. During those years, Senate minorities would filibuster no more than a handful of motions to proceed during any single Congress. In recent years, the numbers of filibusters have exploded. Now, it is not uncommon for the Senate to see dozens of filibusters of the motions to proceed during any single Congress, as has been the case in the last 2 years. Where is the self- restraint?

Why is this so important? Why should the country care if a small group of Senators block the Senate from doing its work? What is at stake? In my opinion, the stakes could not be higher.

Over and over again, the Senate is forced to waste time just on the question of whether to begin debate on a bill. The process of threatening a filibuster and requiring cloture on every motion to proceed, including the mandatory postcloture debate time of 30 hours under the Senate rules, can consume a week of the Senate's time. That is a full week of the Senate's time consumed just by the question of whether to begin debate on a bill. Where is the self-restraint?

Does self-restraint mean that Senators must abandon long-held positions or violate principle? Of course not. Throughout the history of the Senate, Senators have fought fiercely for their positions and beliefs. Still, at some point, the fighting stopped and agreements were struck. That is the way of every legislative body. The majority's ability to act is what allows other legislative bodies to function. Self-restraint is what separates a functioning U.S. Senate from a broken one. It is what separates a Senate that is capable of doing the Nation's business from a Senate that is prevented from even beginning a debate on that business. The lack of self-restraint is the root of the problem the Senate faces.

In the Senate, a tension has always existed between the majority that wishes to enact legislation and the minority that wishes to amend or defeat it. That tension is not unique to today's Senate. The rules of the Senate have always provided the minority with an arsenal of parliamentary weapons to counter a determined majority. For instance, if a majority leader blocks the minority from offering amendments to a bill, then the minority can filibuster the legislation and deny it passage if it lacks 60 votes. The ability to extend debate and deny cloture are powerful tools that the minority can use to prevent the Senate from acting.

On the other hand, short of 60 votes, Senate rules do not provide a tool for the majority to counter an obstructionist minority. The majority leader could offer a minority days, weeks, or months of debate and endless amendments to a bill, but nothing in the rules of this body would allow the majority to even begin debate if a unified minority filibusters the motion to proceed, which it does now routinely.

Republicans insist that they filibuster motions to proceed because the majority leader fills the amendment tree and blocks consideration of minority amendments. That rationale could justify a filibuster of a bill after the Senate begins its consideration and the leader fills the tree. It does not justify the routine filibusters of the motion to proceed.

The Senate must strike a balance between protecting the rights of the minority and the need of the Senate to function better. To limit the consideration of the motion to proceed would not stifle debate; in fact, it would help ensure Senators have the opportunity to have a debate.

As a practical matter, we will have little chance of ending the filibuster on the motion to proceed unless we, at the same time, assure the minority opportunities to offer and vote on amendments, forcing them to filibuster the bill itself in order to gain that assurance.

According to the Senate rules, any change to those rules can be adopted by a simple majority vote. However, rule XXII of the Standing Rules of the Senate requires an affirmative vote of two-thirds of the Senators present and voting in order to invoke cloture and end debate on a proposed change to the rules. This extraordinarily high threshold has prevented most attempts to amend the rules of the Senate.

Some of our colleagues believe the rules of the Senate can be changed outside the auspices of the Senate rules. They say the U.S. Constitution allows a simple majority to change the Senate rules. They call it ``the constitutional option;'' others call it ``the nuclear option.'' Supporters of the constitutional option point out that the Constitution endows each House of Congress with the authority to establish its own rules of proceedings. Accordingly, at the beginning of every Congress, the House of Representatives adopts rules by a majority vote. Those rules govern proceedings of the House for only the term of that Congress. Supporters of the constitutional option argue the Constitution empowers the Senate to do the same.

The mechanics of the constitutional option are fairly straightforward. One such approach to this option would occur as follows. At the beginning of a Congress, a Senator would offer a resolution adopting Senate rules. The resolution would be filibustered, and so cloture would be filed. Cloture would yield an affirmative vote of a simple majority, but not the two-thirds necessary to end debate as described in rule XXII. Supporters of the resolution would raise a constitutional point of order, which the Presiding Officer, presumably the Vice President, would sustain under this scenario. The chair's ruling would be appealed, and finally the appeal would be tabled by a simple majority vote. And just like that, the Senate could become a simple majoritarian body.

Historically, of course, the Senate has not adopted its rules at the beginning of a Congress as the House does. In fact, Senate rules explicitly address this. According to rule V of the Standing Rules of the Senate, ``The rules of the Senate shall continue from one Congress to the next Congress unless they are changed as provided in these rules.'' Rule V makes clear that the Senate is a continuing body. Indeed, only one-third of its membership is up for election every 2 years while the other two-thirds of its membership continue their service into the new Congress, which is why a quorum in the Senate is continuously in being from Congress to Congress.

Both supporters and opponents of the constitutional option have compelling arguments, but none of them are new. This question has been debated for decades. Confronting the same question in 1949, Senator Arthur Vandenberg, one of my predecessors from Michigan, said:

I continue to believe that the rules of the Senate are as

important to equity and order in the Senate as is the

Constitution to the life of the Republic, and that those

rules should never be changed except by the Senate itself, in

the direct fashion prescribed by the rules themselves. One of

the immutable truths in Washington's Farewell Address, which

cannot be altered even by changing events in a changing

world, is the following sentence: The Constitution, which at

any time exists, until changed by an explicit and authentic

act of the whole people, is sacredly obligatory upon all.' I

respectfully submit as a basic explanation of my attitude,

that I accept this admonition without reservation, and I

think it is equally applicable to the situation which

Senators here confront, though obviously the comparison

cannot be lit-

eral. . . . [T]he Father of his Country said to us, by

analogy, The rules of the Senate, which at any time exist,

until changed by an explicit and authentic act of the whole

Senate, are sacredly obligatory upon all.'

Senator Vandenberg continued:

I have heard it erroneously argued in the cloakrooms that

since the Senate rules themselves authorize a change in the

rules through due legislative process by a majority vote, it

is within the spirit of the rules when we reach the same net

result by a majority vote of the Senate upholding a

parliamentary ruling of the Vice President which, in effect,

changes the rules. This would appear to be some sort of

doctrine of amendment by proxy. It is argued that the Senate

itself makes the change in both instances by majority vote;

and it is asked, What is the difference? Of course, this is

really an argument that the end justifies the means.

Senator Vandenberg continued:

When a substantive change is made in the rules by

sustaining a ruling of the Presiding Officer of the Senate--

and that is what I contend is being undertaken here--it does

not mean that the rules are permanently changed. It simply

means that regardless of precedent or traditional practice,

the rules hereafter, mean whatever the Presiding Officer of

the Senate, plus a simple majority of Senators voting at the

time, want the rules to mean. We fit the rules to the

occasion, instead of fitting the occasion to the rules.

Therefore, in the final analysis, under such circumstances,

there are no rules except the transient, unregulated wishes

of a majority of whatever quorum is temporarily in control of

the Senate. That, Mr. President, is not my idea of the

greatest deliberative body in the world. . . . No matter how

important [the pending issue's] immediate incidence may seem

to many today, the integrity of the Senate's rules is our

paramount concern, today, tomorrow, and so long as this great

institution lives.

Mr. President, the November elections are upon us. I believe it is important to lay out my position on the constitutional option now, before we know the outcome of the election and the makeup of the Senate next year. I believe one's position on this question is so essential to the nature and the future of the Senate that it should not be dependent upon the outcome of an election but upon the best interests of this institution.

I believe the so-called constitutional option to change the rules of the Senate, if actually implemented, would turn the Senate into a legislative body where the majority can, whenever it wishes, run roughshod over the rights of the minority. My frustration with the recent abuses of the rules does not overwhelm my duty to defend the uniqueness and integrity of this great institution.

With that in mind, I suggest a change to the Senate rules that would provide the majority leader with an additional procedural option that preserves his ability to control the floor while maintaining the necessary 60-vote threshold to end debate. This alternative procedure would avoid the filibuster on the motion to proceed, preserve the ability of the majority leader to fill the amendment tree, but at the same time ensure all Senators have the ability to offer and have votes on relevant, timely filed amendments prior to a vote on final passage of a measure.

Using this procedure, the majority leader could move to proceed to the consideration of a measure with only

relevant amendments in order. When a motion to proceed is made in such form, the consideration of that motion would be limited to 2 hours. If the Senate adopted that motion, then Senators would have until 1 p.m. the following session day to file relevant, first-degree amendments and until 1 p.m. the session day after that to file relevant, second-degree amendments.

This procedure would guarantee that any Senator who has a timely filed, relevant amendment could offer that amendment prior to final passage, even if the amendment tree is filled. For example, if the Senate is considering a bill under this procedure and the amendment tree is filled, following disposition of all pending amendments but prior to the third reading, it would be in order for any Senator with a relevant, timely filed amendment to call up that amendment. Once pending, that amendment would need to be disposed of before final passage.

While this procedure would expedite the process to begin consideration of a bill, it would not abandon the essential principle that a supermajority is necessary to bring debate to a close on a bill in the Senate. Nothing under this procedure would deny Senators his or her right to extended debate on a bill, unless, of course, 60 or more Senators vote to invoke cloture. Aside from the filing deadlines, the only substantive change from the current cloture process would be the application of a relevancy standard rather than the conventional germaneness standard. Only relevant amendments would be in order only if the majority leader opted to use this alternative approach to moving to proceed.

This procedure would not be needed or even appropriate for every bill that is placed on the calendar. But for some bills, the majority leader might view this alternative procedure as a useful tool that could help both the majority and the minority achieve their aims. And should this alternative procedure prove to be ineffective, the majority leader could always abandon it for regular order, and if the right to get votes on relevant amendments is abused by filing a dilatory number of relevant amendments, the majority leader would simply not utilize the option.

As I said, an election season is upon us. We will soon recess, and only after November 6 will we know who will hold a majority in this body. My support for ending the current motion to proceed process will be there after the election, regardless which party controls the Senate in the next Congress. My goal is not to gain partisan advantage but to protect the unique role of the Senate. Increasingly, after facing years of excessive obstruction, some Members on my side of the aisle see the filibuster as an archaic procedure that prevents the Senate from addressing the pressing needs of the Nation. I suspect that some of my friends in the minority today, if in the majority sometime in the future, will find the filibuster equally frustrating to their own efforts. We face an increasing danger that, in order to end the gridlock that prevents either side from offering solutions to the challenges we face, pressure to severely reduce minority rights will become irresistible.

If we are to preserve the Senate's function as a check on haste, as a haven for minority views, we must ensure that protection of minority rights is no longer a barrier to any and all action. Limiting excessive filibusters on the motion to proceed is one modest change we can make that addresses this crisis without changing the Senate's fundamental character. I ask my colleagues to consider carefully whether a change in the present might be necessary to avoid more radical change in the future.

Mr. President, a moving 11-day journey recently came to an end. Nearly 4,300 athletes from 166 countries traveled to London, England, to fulfill their dream of representing their country at the 2012 Paralympic games. I congratulate each of these athletes on a job well done and for their hard work, determination and triumph. Their accomplishments inspired us all and help to broaden our sense of what is possible for individuals living with a disability.

Shortly after the 2012 Olympic games concluded, Olympic officials worked feverishly to transform the Olympic venues for the upcoming Paralympic games. Their task was formidable, and their work was impressive. And once again, London proved to be an exceedingly welcoming host. In fact, more than 2.7 million spectators attended the games, shattering the previous mark and making these games the best attended in history. Many venues were filled to capacity. The energy and excitement of the fans was impressive and a wonderful inspiration for these athletes to showcase their talents. While the world watched with joy and amazement, the athletes competed fiercely, setting an astonishing 251 world records in the process.

Those in attendance and audiences around the world were treated to many dazzling performances and were introduced to some truly inspiring personal stories. One such story is that of LT. Brad Synder. Almost 1 year ago to the day, Lieutenant Synder was bravely serving his country in Afghanistan when a bomb exploded, rendering him blind. One year later, he stood in London, again representing his country, with two gold medals and a silver in swimming around his neck and a world record in his grasp. In the face of such a tragic and life-altering injury, this brave soldier refused to let this injury define him and forged ahead, setting his sights on a new goal. There is also LCDR Steven Peace who began cycling during rehabilitation from a stroke he suffered during Active Duty and competed for Team USA in that event. And there is Scot Severn, another former soldier, who won bronze in shot put at these games after recovering from injuries sustained from a lighting strike while on duty. These are but a few of the seemingly endless stories of perseverance and strength that define the lives of these athletes and enrich the lives of all of us.

It was in 1948 that the seed of what would grow to become the second largest sporting event in the world was planted in London. Sir Ludwig Guttman sought to inspire recently wounded World War II veterans by organizing a sporting event to raise their spirits and aid their rehabilitation. After years of increasing participation and awareness, this sporting event, which was conceived to parallel the Olympic games, would formally become known as the Paralympic games in 1960. In 2012, 227 athletes represented the United States in London.

There were many Paralympic athletes with ties to Michigan on Team USA. They represented their Nation and Michigan admirably. They include Steve Peace in cycling, Asya Miller in goalball, Robin Theryoung in goalball, Tucker Dupree in swimming, Scott Severn in track and field, Bryan Barten in wheelchair tennis, and Mackenzie Soldan in wheelchair tennis. Along with these impressive athletes, I also congratulate the legions of coaches, trainers, officials, support staff, family and friends who played indispensable roles for these athletes and helped to make their performances possible.

There are more than 24 million Americans living with a disability and many more who face some sort of physical, visual or mental challenge. The athletes who competed in London sent a strong, compelling signal that, while their circumstance may seem daunting, there are many mountains to climb and races to win if they are determined and willing to pursue excellence in whatever field they choose, whether it be the track, a classroom or any other worthy pursuit. These games also bring greater awareness and more resources to efforts to increase the availability of physical activity for disabled Americans across the Nation, the benefits of which have been well-documented in recent years.

The 2012 Paralympic games dazzled us with impressive athletic feats, inspired us with stories of courage and perseverance, and reminded us that we can all overcome adversity and pursue excellence both in competition and in life. The 2012 summer Paralympic games, like the Olympic games that preceded it, was a stage on which athletes from across the globe came together in friendly competition. Barb and I salute every athlete who represented Team USA in London. As one organizer eloquently stated, ``The Paralympians have lifted the cloud of limitation.'' For that, we owe them a deep debt of gratitude.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. President, I am proud to recognize all those affiliated with the Children's Leukemia Foundation of Michigan as they celebrate 60 years of dedicated service and invaluable support for Michigan families. Their efforts have made a tremendous difference in the lives of individuals diagnosed with leukemia or a related disorder. This is important work, and we are all grateful for their efforts. An exciting evening has been planned to commemorate this milestone in Birmingham, Michigan this Saturday.

The Children's Leukemia Foundation of Michigan has been at the forefront of the battle against various blood disorders for six decades, helping countless families across Michigan deal with these devastating illnesses and to navigate the many important decisions they face as a consequence. Since its inception in the late 1940s and its incorporation in 1952, this organization has sought to equip patients and their loved ones with the resources, information, and guidance they need to make informed decisions.

Each individual who is diagnosed with a disorder must make a number of important decisions about their care and circumstances. This is where the CLF steps in. The mission of the CLF is ``to provide and promote compassionate, personalized support to people in Michigan affected by Leukemia and other related disorders.'' This is accomplished through a comprehensive array of services for patients and their loved ones, ranging from support groups, to an online resource room, to a resource kit for families and caregivers that contains useful and timely information about the disorder and the road ahead.

The financial and emotional support the CLF provides is crucial. Whether it is listening to patients and caregivers, helping to defray the cost of a prescription, referring an individual to the appropriate agency or service provider, or paying lodging for a family member, the CLF stands ready and willing to assist families in their time of need. Understanding that illness affects the entire family, the CLF offers services such as a day of respite for family members, peer support from others who share a common experience, a holiday toy program for children, and a ticket program that gives families a precious few hours of fun and joy. The deep concern and care this organization shows certainly helps to lessen the stress on families.

Organizations like the CLF help to provide a measure of comfort and assistance to patients and their loved ones. I know my colleagues will join me in thanking all those affiliated with the Children's Leukemia Foundation of Michigan for their hard work and tireless commitment on behalf of families across Michigan. The positive impact they continue to have on the lives of Michiganians living with leukemia and related disorders, is tremendous, and I extend my deepest appreciation for their many years of service.

Mr. President, our representative form of government is based on the premise that citizens who vote in our elections are informed about who is seeking to influence elections. Sadly, we continue to see that information obscured by organizations who are misusing our tax code for political gain.

As we have discussed on this floor many times, the Supreme Court opened our campaign finance system to a torrent of unlimited and secret special-interest money in Citizens United. But even the Supreme Court acknowledged in Citizens United that disclosure is important:

``[P]rompt disclosure of expenditures can provide

shareholders and citizens with the information needed to hold

corporations and elected officials accountable for their

positions and supporters. Shareholders can determine whether

their corporation's political speech advances the

corporation's interest in making profits, and citizens can

see whether elected officials are in the pocket of so-called

moneyed interests.'' Citizens United v. FEC, 130 S. Ct. 876,

916 (2010).

Yet, according to the Center for Responsive Politics, as of September 13, spending on political advertising by groups that either do not disclose, or only partially disclose their donors, has increased four- fold, from $32 million in the 2008 election to more than $135 million at the same point in the current election.

These groups are exploiting our tax code by organizing as tax-exempt ``social welfare'' groups and then spending tens of millions of undisclosed dollars on political campaigns.

The Internal Revenue Service (IRS)--the organization that grants these groups their tax-exempt status in the first place--should be protecting the voting public from these groups that pretend to be acting in the social welfare but are instead engaging in partisan politics.

The law in this area is clear. 26 U.S.C. Sec. 501(c)(4) states that ``Civic leagues or organizations not organized for profit but operated exclusively for the promotion of social welfare, or local associations of employees, the membership of which is limited to the employees of a designated person or persons in a particular municipality, and the net earnings of which are devoted exclusively to charitable, educational, or recreational purposes'' are exempt from taxation. The word ``exclusively'' is in the tax code for a reason. Congress didn't say ``partially,'' or ``primarily.'' We said that these groups had to be operated ``exclusively'' for the promotion of social welfare. The IRS, in writing the implementing regulations to the statute, said that, ``An organization is operated exclusively for the promotion of social welfare if it is primarily engaged in promoting in some way the common good and general welfare.'' [emphasis added] By substituting the word ``primarily'' in the regulation with the word ``exclusively'' in the statute, the IRS essentially redefined what Congress required a social welfare organization to be.

Mr. President, I asked the IRS for an explanation as to why they have not

responded to the increasing growth of groups that parade as social welfare groups but are obviously organized for politically partisan purposes. In my letters, I asked the IRS how they interpret the explicit language in the tax code which says that entities must operate ``exclusively'' for the promotion of social welfare, to allow any tax exempt partisan political activity by 501(c)(4) organizations. Their response? That the regulation has been in place for over 50 years. That is not an excuse if new abuses require a review of an IRS regulation.

I also asked the IRS if they are fulfilling their enforcement function by notifying these groups that are obviously engaged primarily in political activity that they are violation of the law. Again, the IRS response was inadequate. During the past 6 months, according to the IRS letter, no notices of proposed or final revocation have been issued to section 501(c)(4) organizations. None. So even under the ``primarily'' test the IRS is not enforcing the law in the face of the avalanche of evidence that our laws are being flouted.

The law is clear. Even the watered-down IRS regulation is clear. It is time that the IRS enforces the law, or at least its own regulation.

I ask unanimous consent that the correspondence with the IRS be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, every 4 years families across the United States and around the world come together as summer begins to wind to a close to watch as supremely gifted athletes from across the globe showcase their talents in peaceful competition. The many thrilling moments that comprise this 16-day span are both awe-inspiring and riveting, and I congratulate each of the athletes who competed in the 2012 Olympic games in London for their effort, sacrifice and competitive spirit. Being an Olympian is a tremendous feat and is the product of a relentless commitment to intense, event-specific training, coupled with the drive, determination, and perseverance to excel. These events and these athletes captured our imagination, and once again, reminded us that achievement is limited only by our will and our audacity to dream big.

Representing their country in London is an experience these athletes will cherish for a lifetime. They leave with new bonds and new friendships borne of mutual respect. London was a welcoming and gracious host for these athletes, their family and friends, as well as the multitudes of fans that witnessed these enthralling sporting events firsthand. The venues were breathtaking, and the opening and closing ceremony was a feast for the senses, taking us on a splendid journey through history and foreshadowing what was to come. I, along with many across Michigan, applaud their effort.

There were many firsts at these games. For the first time, a woman was a member of every Olympic delegation, including a Saudi Arabian woman competing bravely for her home country. The London games also featured the debut of women's boxing. It was particularly gratifying to watch a Flint Northwestern High School student earn the first gold medal in Women's Boxing for the United States. The poise, quickness and grit of Flint native Claressa Shield displayed en route to her victory was a delight to watch. There was also Oscar Pistorius, a bold and graceful athlete who has overcome many obstacles to compete alongside able-bodied athletes as peers.

And none of us will forget Michael Phelps, who followed up his brilliance in Athens with another dramatic and impressive performance in London, solidifying his place among the greatest Olympians of all time. The medal total for this Michigan Wolverine is astonishing--22 Olympic medals, 18 of them gold.

Nor will we forget the passion and spunk of the ``Fierce Five'', led by DeWitt's own Jordyn Weiber. Jordyn experienced a range of emotion at these games, from the high of winning the team gold in gymnastics for the United States to disappointment of falling just short of qualifying, by the narrowest of margin, for the highly coveted individual All-Around title. Her grace in both victory and disappointment set a fine example for aspiring young gymnasts.

And there was two-time Olympian Allison Schmitt, who earned three gold medals in swimming to increase her lifetime Olympic medal total to six.

As evidenced by these and other impressive performances, Michigan was well-represented in London. Impressively, 30 athletes with strong ties to Michigan competed in these games, including Chas Betts in wrestling, Tia Brooks in track, Tyler Clary in swimming, Ellis Coleman in wrestling, Desiree Davila in track, Geena Gall in track, Jake Herbert in wrestling, Charlie Houchin in swimming, Connor Jaeger in swimming, Kara Lynn Joyce in swimming, Ken Jurkowski in rowing, Justin Lester in wrestling, Spenser Mango in wrestling, Sam Mikulak in gymnastics, Brett Newlin in rowing, Jamie Nieto in track, Tom Peszek in rowing, Jeff Porter in track, Ben Provisor in wrestling, Dathan Ritzenhein in track, Daryl Szarenski in shooting, Davis Tarwater in swimming, Sarah Trowbridge in rowing, Peter Vanderkaay in swimming, Lauryn Williams in track, and Sarah Zelenka in rowing.

In addition to these outstanding American athletes, Michiganians proudly witnessed a number of talented athletes from other nations with strong ties to Michigan compete in these games, including Eric Alejandro in track, Bradley Ally in swimming, George Bovell in swimming, Nate Brannen in track, Syque Caesar in gymnastics, Milorad Cavic in swimming, Franklin Gomez in wrestling, Janine Hanson in rowing, Barry Murphy in swimming, Wu Peng in swimming, Krista Phillips in basketball, Tiffany Porter in track, Nicole Sifuentes in track, and Nick Willis in track.

The joy and excitement on the faces of these fine athletes as they fulfilled their dream to compete against the best in the world was infectious. Their determination was searing. Watching them compete in a gracious way as the world tuned in reminds us of what is possible. They navigated cultural differences, overcame language barriers and set aside historical disputes to engage in fair, peaceful competition. While it is in many ways symbolic, it is nonetheless significant. It reminds us all that we are a human family and that respect and dignity is deserved for all.

Barbara and I are honored to salute the many athletes with ties to Michigan who competed in London. Their hard work was evident; their skill was exquisite; and the competition that resulted was fascinating to watch. The inspiring example of excellence these athletes have put forth will not soon be forgotten. In homes across our State, young people are working a little harder, setting their goals a little higher and aspiring to equal or exceed the athletic prowess displayed in London time and time again. Our future is a little brighter as a result of each of them.