S12 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE January 6, 2009 

If anyone thinks I am exaggerating, I 

will give just one example. The filibuster is a prime guarantee of the principle of minority rights in the Senate. 

The filibuster is a device by which a 

single Senator can bring the Senate to 

a halt if that Senator believes his 

cause is just. But our partisan warfare 

has often transformed this unique, fundamental Senate tool into a political 

weapon which has been abused. As a result, there have lately been efforts to 

abolish it. If this should ever happen, a 

vital and historic protection of the liberties of the American people will be 

lost, and the Senate will cease to function as the one institution that has 

provided protection for the views and 

the prerogatives of a minority. 

I lament the ever-increasing costs of 

running for a Senate seat. In 1958, Jennings Randolph and I spent a combined 

$50,000 to win the two Senate seats in 

West Virginia. Today, Senators can expect to spend about $7 million. Too 

much of a lawmaker’s time, too much 

of a lawmaker’s energy is now consumed in raising money for the next 

election or to pay off the last one. 

I lament that too many legislators in 

both parties continue to regard the 

Chief Executive in a roll much more 

elevated than the Framers of the Constitution ever intended. The Framers 

of the Constitution did not envision 

the Office of the President of the 

United States as having the attributes 

of royalty. We as legislators have a responsibility to work with the Chief Executive, but it was intended for this to 

be a two-way street, not a one-way 

street. The Senate must again rise and 

be the coequal branch of Government 

which the Constitution of the United 

States intended it to be. 

I lament the decline of the thoroughness of Senate committee hearings. In 

its classic study, ‘‘Congressional Government,’’ Woodrow Wilson pointed out 

that the ‘‘informing function of Congress is its most important function.’’ 

This was revealed in 1973 when, after 8 

days of hearings and after hours upon 

hours of questioning, L. Patrick Gray, 

President Nixon’s nominee to be Director of the FBI, revealed that White 

House counselor John Dean had lied— 

lied—lied—to FBI investigators, thus 

beginning the unraveling of the Watergate coverup. Today, we have the 

knowledge this could not happen with 

the time restrictions that are in place 

on the Senate’s hearings. 

I am pleased to say that during my 

half century in the Senate, there have 

also been positive changes in the Senate. I will mention a few. The first is 

the Senate has become more open and 

the Senate has become more constituent friendly. This was highlighted 

in 1986 when television cameras were finally installed and the American people all across this country could watch 

their Senators debate the issues of the 

day on C–SPAN. I am proud to have 

been a part—though a small part—but 

a part of that innovation. 

During my tenure, the Senate has become more open and it has become 

more diverse. When I came here in 1959, 

there was only one—one female Senator. In the 111th Congress, there are 17 

women in the Senate. In the 50 years 

prior to my service, not a single—not 

one African American was elected to 

the Senate. During my 50 years here, 

three African Americans have been 

elected to the Senate. This is a small 

number, but one of those three has now 

been elected to the highest office in the 

land—President of the United States. 

So, my fellow colleagues, we have come 

a very, very, very long way. 

Let me conclude my remarks by simply acknowledging it has been a wonderful 50 years serving in this ‘‘great 

forum of constitutional American liberty.’’ I only wish my darling wife, who 

now sings in the heavenly choir above, 

were here today to say with me that I 

look forward—yes, look forward to the 

next 50 years. Amen. Amen. 

That concludes my remarks. 

I yield the floor and I say good night 

to the Chair and all the people here. 

I suggest the absence of a quorum. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. 

SANDERS). The clerk will call the roll. 

The legislative clerk proceeded to 

call the roll. 

Mr. MCCONNELL. Mr. President, I 

ask unanimous consent the order for 

the quorum call be rescinded. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without 

objection, it is so ordered. 

f 

MINNESOTA SENATE RACE 

Mr. MCCONNELL. Mr. President, earlier today there were some comments 

about the Minnesota Senate race that I 

would like to briefly address. The only 

people who have pronounced the Minnesota Senate race over are Washington Democrats and the candidate 

who is the current custodian of the 

most votes. The people of Minnesota 

certainly do not believe the Minnesota 

Senate race is over. The Minneapolis 

Star Tribune, which never could be 

confused for a conservative publication, wrote an editorial in their paper 

today entitled, ‘‘Court Review is Key 

in Senate Recount.’’ 

Writing about yesterday’s Canvassing Board findings, the editorial 

says—and again, this is in today’s Minneapolis Star Tribune—the editorial 

today says: 

As Minnesotans are learning, that determination is not the same as declaring a winner in this amazingly close race. 

It went on to say: 

Both Franken and Coleman should want 

court-ordered answers to questions that the 

Canvassing Board could not answer. 

The winner of this contest deserves the legitimacy that would come with a court’s politically independent finding that he got 

more votes than his opponent. 

The bottom line is this: The Senate 

race in Minnesota will be determined 

by Minnesotans, not here in the Senate. 

f 

OPENING OF THE 111TH CONGRESS 

Mr. MCCONNELL. Mr. President, the 

opening of a new Congress is always an 

important moment in the life of our 

Nation. Every time a gavel falls on a 

new legislative term, we are reminded 

of the grandeur of the document we are 

sworn to uphold. We are grateful to the 

citizens of our respective States—in 

my case the people of Kentucky—who 

give us the opportunity to serve. We 

are thankful once again that the U.S. 

Constitution has endured to guarantee 

the freedom and the prosperity of so 

many for so long. 

The growth of our Nation over the 

years is one of the most remarkable 

feats of man, and it was far from inevitable. When Congress first organized 

under the Constitution, the United 

States consisted of 11 States and 3 million citizens. Today, more people than 

that live in Kentucky alone. Yet despite a bloody Civil War, the arrival of 

millions of immigrants, economic collapse, World Wars, social unrest, and 

the long-delayed realization of America’s original promise of equality for 

all, we have come together as a body 

and as a nation. We have not just endured these things, we have flourished, 

and that is well worth remembering 

and celebrating as the 111th Congress 

convenes. 

As we meet in January of 2009, America faces many serious challenges. 

None is more urgent than our troubled 

economy. President-elect Obama was 

one of those who recognized the gravity of the current troubles early on. He 

reassured many by fielding a solid 

team of economic advisers. He agrees 

with Republicans that we should put 

more money in the pockets of middleclass American families by cutting 

their taxes, and he has proposed working with Republicans to create jobs and 

to encourage long-term economic stability with a massive domestic spending bill the details of which Members 

of Congress and the American people 

are increasingly eager to see. 

After a long and rough campaign season, it is encouraging for many Americans to see that the two parties in 

Washington are in broad agreement 

about something so important to their 

daily lives. And Republicans will work 

with President-elect Obama to make 

sure that as we consider this legislation the taxpayer is not taken for a 

ride. 

All of us agree the economy needs 

help. We are concerned and taxpayers 

are concerned. But if we are going to 

appropriate an unprecedented amount 

of money from the Treasury for this 

spending bill, it is absolutely essential 

that we determine up front whether 

the spending is going to be wasteful or 

wise. 

Specifically, the American people 

should have at least a week, and it 

looks as if we will have more than 

that, to see what this enormous spending plan includes. President Clinton 

proposed a $16 billion stimulus package 

in his first year in office. Congress, 

back in 1993, rejected it for being too 

expensive. Now Democrats in Congress 

are proposing a stimulus that would 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with SENATE
January 6, 2009 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE S13 

cost taxpayers more than 50 times 

what President Clinton’s would have 

cost. 

This potentially $1 trillion bill would 

be one of the largest spending bills in 

U.S. history. It would increase the deficit by a half trillion dollars overnight 

and deepen an already enormous national debt. 

Before we all agree to it, the American people need to see the details. 

They need to be able to see for themselves whether this is money well 

spent. If lawmakers think it is, then 

they need to make a convincing case to 

the people who are paying for it. 

Now, 16 years ago we rejected a similar stimulus the size of the Minnesota 

State budget. We should not be rushed 

into voting for a bill that, by any estimate, will be bigger than all 50 State 

budgets combined, especially when 

many of the jobs it promises will not 

even materialize for another year. If we 

are serious about protecting the taxpayer, these projects will be awarded 

through a fair and open process and allowed to compete with other priorities 

in the budget. We should encourage, 

not discourage, questions about this 

bill in a reckless rush to meet an arbitrary deadline. We should be open to 

new ideas aimed at protecting the taxpayer. 

Here are three new ideas worth considering: Congressional Democrats 

have talked about sending hundreds of 

billions of dollars to the States. If we 

loan those funds rather than give them 

away, States will be far less likely to 

spend the money frivolously, and the 

taxpayer would have greater assurance 

their money is well spent. 

Idea No. 2: Congress has had nearly 1 

year to review the fiscal 2009 spending 

requests. These remaining bills now 

make up a $400 billion Omnibus appropriations bill. This is a bill that meets 

the level of spending proposed for the 

stimulus, and it is a bill that could 

pass Congress by Inauguration Day. If 

speed is one of the goals, it strikes me 

that passing the omnibus achieves that 

goal. 

Idea No. 3, middle-class tax relief: 

One way to get more money into people’s pockets quickly is to increase the 

size of their paychecks immediately. 

An immediate 10 percent cut in taxes 

for nearly 30 million Americans would 

provide a significant jolt to the economy that all of us want. These are 

ideas on which both parties could 

agree. Each of them is designed to protect and empower the taxpayer. So 

let’s consider them. But either way the 

American people should be in on this 

spending plan because the potential for 

waste and abuse is enormous. 

Now, some loose-lipped local politicians have already described the grant 

as ‘‘free money’’ from Washington. 

Others openly hope to use it on frivolous pet projects that no sensible taxpayer would sign off on if they had a 

choice. The American people do not 

want to be pick-pocketed. They do not 

want to be taken advantage of. They 

want a real return on their investment, 

and all of us should be eager to show 

that we understand the difference. 

President-elect Obama has said a 

stimulus plan will have to create jobs, 

have an immediate impact, and lead to 

the strengthening of the long-term 

economy. Republicans agree, and we 

will help to ensure just that by insisting on scrutiny and oversight in the 

face of pressure on congressional 

Democrats from interest groups and 

local politicians. 

Here is an issue on which the Republicans and Democrats can work together for a positive result for the 

American people. My hope is that once 

we achieve it, we will have a model to 

build on for the remainder of the 111th 

Congress. The opportunities for cooperation are numerous. Throughout 

his campaign, President-elect Obama 

spoke about the importance of a strong 

national defense. He spoke of the need 

to reduce the national debt. He vowed 

to go through the budget line by line to 

cut wasteful programs. He pledged to 

cut taxes on virtually all Americans 

and on small business. And he promised 

to put America on the path to energy 

independence within the next 10 years. 

These are all goals Republicans support. At this moment, nothing should 

stand in the way of our achieving them 

together. 

I have told the new President I am 

eager to work with him. I have told 

him he can expect cooperation on the 

confirmation of qualified nominees to 

key Cabinet posts so the American people do not have to worry about a power 

vacuum at places such as the Pentagon, the State Department, Treasury, or Homeland Security. I have discussed with him something he already 

knows but which is worth repeating on 

the first day of the new Congress. When 

it comes to new Presidents, history offers a clear path, a clear path to success and a clear path to failure. 

Some new Presidents have chosen to 

work with the other party to confront 

the big issues of the day that neither 

party is willing or able to tackle on its 

own. Others have decided they would 

rather team up with members of their 

own party and focus on narrow, partisan issues that only appeal to a tiny 

sliver of the populace but which lack 

the support of the American mainstream. 

In my view, the choice at this particular moment is clear. If the new 

President pursues the former course, 

our chances of achieving a positive for 

the American people will be strong. 

The parties will continue to disagree. 

This is good for democracy, but political conflict is not an end in itself. At 

this moment we have an opportunity 

to show the American people, and we 

know that. 

The majority leader has mentioned 

that this year the opening of Congress 

coincides with two important anniversaries. The first is Senator BYRD’s 50th 

anniversary. This feat of longevity has 

no equal in the history of this body, 

and this is quite fitting for a Senator 

who has no equal in the history of this 

body. 

When ROBERT CARLYLE BYRD took 

the oath of office on January 5, 1959, he 

could not have known that he would be 

the longest serving Senator in U.S. history or that he would one day write 

this body’s definitive history. But 

through the support of his beloved 

Erma, his legendary devotion to our 

Constitution, and his tireless will to 

improve the lives of the people of his 

State, the senior Senator from West 

Virginia has accomplished a remarkable feat, and today we honor him for 

it. 

The other anniversary we commemorate today is no doubt dear to Senator 

BYRD’s heart because 150 years ago this 

very month the Senate moved from its 

old home down the hall, where we had 

the reenactment of the swearing in of 

new Senators today—its old home 

down the hall, to the room we are in 

now. This transition meant far more in 

its day than the mere packing of books 

and rearranging of desks because back 

then, as now, every expansion of the 

Capitol has come with a fresh realization of the great adaptability of the 

U.S. Constitution and is further proof 

of its greatness. 

According to the CONGRESSIONAL

RECORD, the man who was selected to 

speak on the occasion of the Senate’s 

relocation in 1859 was John 

Breckenridge, a Democrat and a Kentuckian who served as Vice President 

under President Buchanan. 

In his remarks, Breckenridge offered 

an eloquent lesson on the history of 

the Senate and, after paying appropriate tribute to the heroes of the Revolution, he made an intriguing suggestion to the Senators of his day. 

Breckenridge suggested that the Senators of 1859 had an even greater responsibility than the Senators of 1789 

because, as he put it, ‘‘the population, 

extent, and the power of our country 

surpass the dawning promise of its origin.’’ 

If this was true in 1859, it is truer 

still in 2009. Americans have seen quite 

vividly over the past 8 years, and even 

over the past few months, that the 

challenges which confront America and 

our response to those challenges have a 

powerful effect on the wider world. 

Not a single Member of this body is 

unaware of the profound impact of his 

or her decisions. And that is why not a 

single Senator in this body wishes anything but the best to President-elect 

Obama. 

Despite party differences, all of us 

feel a certain institutional pride in 

having one of our own in the White 

House. And every American will feel a 

special national pride when, for the 

first time in our Nation’s history, an 

African American man raises his hand 

to recite the oath of office from the 

Capitol steps. 

The President-elect has promised 

leadership that sees beyond the politics 

of division. But that responsibility 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with SENATE
S14 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE January 6, 2009 

does not rest with the President alone. 

It rests with all of us. Before Inauguration Day, there is the opening of this 

111th Congress. This too is a great civic 

ritual. And this too should renew our 

optimism about the future of America 

and our optimism about achieving 

something important for the American 

people over these next 2 years. Now is 

our chance to deliver—not just in word, 

but in deed. This is a solemn charge. 

For some, it might cut against the 

grain. But if we are to have a future 

worthy of our past, it is a charge that 

must be kept. 

I yield the floor. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Pennsylvania. 

f 

ERIC HOLDER CONFIRMATION 

HEARING 

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, with 

the approaching hearings before the 

Judiciary Committee on the nomination of Eric Holder to be Attorney General, I thought it might be useful to 

frame some of the issues and put them 

into perspective, at least my perspective, in advance of the hearings, and to 

advise Mr. Holder in some greater detail than our brief meeting, when he 

paid his courtesy call a few weeks ago, 

to discuss some of those issues so he 

would be in a better position to respond. 

I begin with the view that I wish to 

be helpful to President-elect Obama in 

his dealings with the enormous problems which face our Nation. I have 

come to know President-elect Obama 

in his capacity as Senator for the last 

4 years. His office is right down the 

hallway. I consider him a friend, and 

certainly we are in need of action on 

some of the enormous problems our Nation faces. We approach these problems 

in the context of our constitutional 

roles. The Constitution, in article I, 

gives certain powers to the Congress 

and, in article II, certain powers to the 

executive branch. The core of our constitutional Government is checks and 

balances so we have that responsibility 

to have oversight and to give our candid judgments. Frequently, it is more 

helpful to say no than to say yes. When 

we deal with the position of Attorney 

General, we have a role which is significantly different from other Cabinet 

officers. 

For example, Cabinet officers carry 

out the President’s policies on a wide 

variety of issues and, to an extent, so 

does the Attorney General. But the Attorney General has a significantly different role in his responsibility to the 

people and to the rule of law. Senator 

LEAHY and I wrote extensively on this 

subject, published last October in Politico. 

Some Attorneys General have been 

very compliant with the administration and have not fared very well historically. Attorney General Harry 

Daugherty was sullied by the Teapot 

Dome scandal. Although ultimately 

cleared, he resigned amid allegations of 

impropriety. We had the Attorney General during the administration of 

President Roosevelt, Attorney General 

Homer Cummings, who yielded to the 

court-packing plan, certainly not the 

sort of institutional integrity which we 

would look for in an Attorney General. 

Some Attorneys General have been 

very diligent. Perhaps the best example 

is Attorney General Elliot Richardson, 

who resigned rather than fire Special 

Prosecutor Archibald Cox during the 

administration of President Nixon, and 

Deputy Attorney General Bill Ruckelshaus followed suit. 

In today’s press, there are reports 

about the distinguished career of Attorney General Griffin Bell, who just 

died. One of the hallmarks of Attorney 

General Bell’s career was his willingness to say no to President Carter, who 

had appointed him. President Carter, it 

is reported, wanted a certain prosecution brought. Attorney General Bell 

said that it wasn’t an appropriate matter for a criminal prosecution. Attorney General Bell advised President 

Carter that the way he would get that 

prosecution brought would be to appoint a compliant Attorney General, 

that he would resign before he would 

undertake that prosecution. 

We have seen, regrettably, with the 

administration of Attorney General 

Alberto Gonzales, yielding to the Executive will without upholding the rule 

of law; the hearings conducted by the 

Judiciary Committee, for which I was 

ranking member, over the termination 

of U.S. attorneys; the attitude of Attorney General Gonzales on habeas corpus, testifying that there was no positive grant of habeas corpus in the Constitution, notwithstanding the explicit 

clause which says habeas corpus may 

be suspended only in time of rebellion 

or invasion. So this is a very key and 

critical appointment. 

The Attorney General also has enormous responsibilities in advising the 

President more generally on the scope 

of Executive authority. Mr. Holder will 

doubtless be questioned at some length 

on the issue of the terrorist surveillance program, warrantless wiretaps, 

and the meaning of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act; and where 

does congressional authority under article I stop on the flat prohibition 

against wiretaps without warrants, 

contrasted with the Executive’s power 

as Commander in Chief under article II; 

and what are the Attorney General designate’s views on attorney-client privilege restrictions, a matter which he 

initiated in 1999 and which has seen 

further restrictions in the Thompson 

memorandum and subsequently. Last 

Congress I introduced legislation to try 

to deal with that. There is also the reporter’s privilege issue, where the Department of Justice has opposed the 

privilege for reporters where they have 

been held in contempt. A New York 

Times reporter was held in jail for 

some 85 days after the source of the 

confidential disclosure had been addressed. These are just a few of the 

issues which we will be looking at in 

the confirmation hearings of Attorney 

General Holder. 

With respect to Mr. Holder, specifically, he has had an outstanding academic and professional record—I acknowledged that early on—prestigious 

college and law school, Columbia; a 

judge of the District of Columbia Superior Court; involved in Department of 

Justice prosecution teams; and later 

served as Deputy Attorney General. 

But aside from these qualifications on 

Mr. Holder’s resume, there is also the 

issue of character. Sometimes it is 

more important for the Attorney General to have the stature and the courage to say no instead of to say yes. 

There are three specific matters 

which will be inquired into during the 

course of Mr. Holder’s confirmation 

hearing. The first one involves a highly 

publicized pardon, the Marc Rich pardon. Mr. Holder testified he was ‘‘not 

intimately involved’’ in the Rich pardon and he assumed that regular procedures were being followed. But when 

you take a look at some of the details 

as to what was disclosed in the hearing 

by the House of Representatives and in 

the hearing in the Senate Judiciary 

Committee, which I chaired 15 months 

after the pardon, Mr. Holder met privately with Mr. Rich’s attorney. According to Mr. Holder’s own testimony, 

he tried to facilitate a meeting between the prosecutors in the Southern 

District of New York and Rich’s attorney. Rich’s attorney, Mr. Quinn, testified that Mr. Holder advised him to go 

straight to the White House rather 

than through the pardon office, which 

is the regular procedure. Mr. Quinn 

produced an e-mail from himself to a 

colleague with the subject line ‘‘Eric,’’ 

in which he noted that ‘‘he says go 

straight to the WH, also says timing is 

good. We should get it in soon.’’ 

That is not conclusive, but these are 

matters to be inquired into. The pardon attorney was opposed to the pardon, but he never issued a recommendation because he didn’t think 

the pardon was under serious consideration. Then the White House requested 

Mr. Holder’s opinion, and he is quoted 

as saying that he was ‘‘neutral, leaning 

towards favorable’’ on the pardon. 

On this case of the record, with the 

very close connections between Mr. 

Rich and very sizable contributions to 

the Clinton library and very sizable 

contributions to President Clinton’s 

party, these questions inevitably arise 

and have not been answered satisfactorily. During the course of the hearings, both in the House and in the Senate, where I chaired the full committee 

hearing, the claim of executive privilege was made. We face a little different situation when we are looking at 

a confirmation hearing for Attorney 

General, in terms of the legitimate 

scope of Senators’ inquiry which will 

be pursued. It ought to be focused on 

the fact that the charges against Rich 

were very serious. They involved tax 

evasion, fraud, trading with the enemy, 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with SENATE