```

[Congressional Record Volume 154, Number 186 (Thursday, December 11, 2008)]
[Senate]
[Pages S10918-S10919]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

                     EXTENSION OF MORNING BUSINESS

  Mr. WHITEHOUSE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that we extend 
morning business until 7:30.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from Alabama is recognized.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I will share a few remarks on the matter 
before us. I was pleased to support Mr. Holder when he was nominated to 
be the Deputy Attorney General. He came as a Superior Court Judge in 
DC, and as a U.S. attorney. I thought he had many of the gifts and 
graces that would be appropriate for a Clinton deputy. He might not 
have been my top choice, but I thought he had a good background and I 
supported that. I have considered him a friend. I tried to be 
supportive of him throughout his tenure.
  But I have to say there are some problems that are going to have to 
be dealt with. I went through the very painful process of Attorney 
General Gonzales and the difficulties he had. It was very painful for 
me. I am not sure he was treated fairly, to tell you the truth. But it 
came to a point where I think he concluded, and maybe everybody 
concluded, it was best for him to step down as Attorney General. He 
wanted to do the right thing, I believe, but made some errors. It 
damaged the Department.
  I spent 15 years in the Department of Justice. I was an Assistant 
U.S. attorney for 2\1/2\ years and U.S. attorney for 12. That is a 
pretty long time; the biggest part of my professional career, for sure.
  I love the Department of Justice. I believe it is very important that 
we have leaders committed to following the law regardless of position 
or power or influence; that the Attorney General should set the 
example. When I was there they did and there was no doubt about it. We 
were encouraged to do the right thing. If you took political heat, if 
you were right, the Attorney General would back you up, no matter what 
politician might call or what influential contributor or friend might 
try to intervene. You were expected to do your duty. That is the way I 
trained my assistants and that is the way I was expected to perform.
  So I have no more grim prospect in mind, in the beginning of next 
year, than to have to go through a contentious hearing for the Attorney 
General of the United States. As I said, I have had nothing but 
personal affection for Eric Holder.
  I want to make a couple of points. First, I believe Senator Specter 
is justified in asking that this hearing not start so soon. President-
elect Obama is not in office. He will not be President. President-elect 
Obama will not be President at that time. He is talking about starting 
it on January 8 and that is very early. Members of the committee have 
sought a bunch of documents. I am not sure they are entitled to all of 
those documents, but many of them are public record documents that are 
quite appropriate to be requested. These members have requested those 
documents and they need to be looked at because there are some 
questions here that are going to have to be examined.
  I note Attorney General Griffin Bell, who is one of the great 
Attorney Generals ever to serve in this country, serving under 
President Carter, that his hearings lasted 6 days.
  John Ashcroft, a member of the Judiciary Committee, one of our own, 
and I believe a man of great integrity and commitment to the law, had 4 
days and my colleagues on the other side had 23 outside witnesses 
testify in an effort to try and find something to complain about. 
Basically, they did not have

[[Page S10919]]

anything to say of importance, and he was confirmed.
  But a confirmation hearing is not a coronation, particularly when 
there are questions out there that need to be conducted in the right 
way. I think, first, that Senator Specter is well within propriety and 
collegiality to ask that we not start this hearing so soon. Second, we 
need to be sure there is enough time set aside that it can be fairly 
discussed. And I will not go into the allegations that are out there, 
but I wish to say that not rushing this nomination through is not some 
sort of partisan attack, but instead a duty that must be performed.
  Let me say that commentators and newspapers across the spectrum have 
raised questions about the nominee. The Senate has been called upon to 
do its job and ask the kinds of questions that need to be asked and 
clear the air on some of these allegations. And I hope Mr. Holder is 
able to do so.
  The New York Times, a strong supporter of President-elect Obama, more 
and more known to be a liberal newspaper, said this recently:

       Mr. Holder . . . must answer serious questions before the 
     Senate votes on his confirmation.

  They had an editorial on this subject and seemed to be troubled by 
the nomination and flatly stated that we should look at that seriously.
  The Wall Street Journal said this:

       For a politicized Justice Department, none can compare to 
     the Clinton Administration's, and the role that Mr. Holder 
     played in it deserves the fullest airing before he is given 
     the opportunity to return.

  To return--he was Deputy Attorney General under President Clinton, 
the second in command in the Department of Justice.
  Richard Cohen from Mr. Holder's hometown paper, the Washington Post. 
Mr. Cohen, who I think it is fair to say is a liberal columnist, 
certainly not a conservative, I think probably recognized as a 
Democrat, had some strong words. This is what Mr. Cohen, a longtime 
columnist, wrote in the Washington Post:

       Holder was involved, passively or not, in just the sort of 
     inside-the-Beltway influence peddling that Barack Obama was 
     elected to end. He is not one of Obama's loathed lobbyists; 
     was merely their instrument--a good man, certainly, who just 
     as certainly did a bad thing. Maybe he deserves an 
     administration job, just not the one he's getting.

  Well, in October of last year, before the election and after Attorney 
General Gonzales was forced to resign because really he did not manage 
his Department well--I think little has shown that he had a malicious 
intent, but he was forced to resign, and the chairman and the ranking 
member, Chairman Leahy, the Democrat, and the ranking Republican, 
Senator Specter, published a joint op-ed in the Politico newspaper. 
They made clear that they expected the next nominee to be independent 
of political influence and loyal to the rule of law, and the Department 
of Justice personnel.
  They said this:

       The attorney general must hold everyone, no matter how 
     powerful, accountable to the law. Any nominee must have a 
     visceral commitment to pursuing and achieving justice, and a 
     record of doing just that.

  They went on to say:

       Finally, the attorney general must be someone who deeply 
     appreciates and respects the work and commitment of the 
     thousands of men and women who work in the branches and 
     divisions of the Department of Justice day in and day out, 
     without regard to politics or ideology, doing their best to 
     enforce the law and promote justice.

  Well, I agree with that. So I would hope that in the process going 
forward, that we do take the time to analyze some of these allegations 
and dig into why Mr. Cohen, or the New York Times or the Wall Street 
Journal has expressed serious reservations about this most important 
nominee.
  The Marc Rich pardon--let me tell you why that is troubling to me as 
a longtime U.S. attorney. Very few people obtain pardons. That is just 
the way it is. Thousands apply. I have a bunch of them who write me 
right now, and they want me to help them get their pardon. Little 
people, who committed small drug crimes; maybe forged a check; maybe 
did something that violated Federal law in some fashion, are convicted 
and charged, and they do not get pardons. In fact, the process is set 
up with a pardon attorney. They have to complete their time in prison, 
they have to complete their parole, and only after a period of time of 
good behavior, only after that does a pardon attorney even consider 
their application for a pardon. But the President of the United States 
is constitutionally empowered
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent for 1 additional 
minute.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. SESSIONS. So the President is constitutionally empowered to do 
the pardon.
  So in the instance of Marc Rich, this was a major fraud case. He was 
indicted--one of the largest fraud cases in the country. He was a 
fugitive. He never reported and answered the indictment against him, as 
I understand. He was a fugitive, at least, and did not come and show up 
for trial. For some reason, over the strong objections of the 
prosecutor involved in the case, the President of the United States, 
with a positive recommendation from then-Deputy Attorney General 
Holder, granted that pardon. Of course, we know that through some 
method, Marc Rich--he, or people close to him, had been a very 
substantial contributor to matters of importance to the Clintons, to 
President Clinton personally. It was not a good deal. That was not a 
good deal. It was wrong. And every little person who has asked for a 
pardon and did not get it and deserved it 99 times more than Marc Rich 
did has a right to be offended. The rule of law and the respect for the 
Department of Justice was definitely lowered by that act. I wish Deputy 
Attorney General Holder had done the right thing, which was tell 
President Clinton: President Clinton, you cannot do this, and if you do 
this, my resignation will be on your desk. I cannot serve in an 
administration that would issue this pardon.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Delaware is recognized.
  Mr. CARPER. I do not know Eric Holder, whom President-elect Barack 
Obama has nominated to serve as our next Attorney General. I had an 
interesting conversation with one of the topmost senior people within 
the Department of Justice, serving in the current administration, who 
described the nomination as ``a brilliant choice.'' So we will find out 
whether it was.
  Before I came here, I served for 8 years as Governor. At one time, I 
was State treasurer, as my colleague, the Presiding Officer, was, both 
treasurer and insurance commissioner for the State of Florida. I served 
on the Board of Pardons as State treasurer for 6 years and then later 
on as Governor for another 8 years to consider the recommendations of 
the Board of Pardons as to whether people should have a sentence 
commuted or whether they should be pardoned for some crime they had 
committed. I always got advice from our legal counsel, got advice from 
the Board of Pardons itself, but in the end the buck stopped with me as 
the Governor, and I made the decision. Whether it was well received or 
not, I never blamed my counsel for the advice he or she had given me. 
At the end of the day, I think that is probably the case at the Federal 
level as well.
  But we look forward to receiving the nomination and having a full 
hearing, a fair hearing so that this nominee can defend himself, 
present his case and his credentials to us. I hope what the senior 
Department of Justice official said to me about this nomination, that 
it was a brilliant choice, will indeed prove to be the case.

                          ____________________
```