S10918 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE December 11, 2008 

will do. So there is no reason for us to 

do that by not accommodating the 

ranking member on this committee 

and setting the schedule with which 

the minority on that committee are 

not prepared to be prepared to answer 

that. 

With that, I am happy to yield to my 

colleague. 

Mr. WHITEHOUSE. I appreciate that 

very much. I thank the Senator from 

Oklahoma for his courtesy for yielding. 

I wanted to make sure the distinguished Senator was not suggesting 

that when the Senate allowed 26 days 

between Attorney General Reno’s announcement and her nomination hearing, or allowed 25 days between Attorney General Ashcroft’s announcement 

and his nomination hearing, or allowed 

30 days between Attorney General 

Mukasey’s announcement and his nomination hearing that the Senate was 

then underprepared or had not done its 

job in evaluating, or didn’t have 

enough time to evaluate those candidates. I think they probably did. 

They appeared to going forward. By 

comparison, the 39 days—— 

Mr. COBURN. Reclaiming my 

time—— 

Mr. WHITEHOUSE. If I could finish 

the question—— 

Mr. COBURN. I suggest we did a poor 

job with Attorney General Gonzales, 

that is No. 1. No. 2, I was not here then 

so I don’t know whether we did or did 

not. Mukasey—the difference that 

would lie is there is a large red flag on 

one or two specific actions of this gentleman as he acted as assistant Attorney General. That requires good scrutiny. 

I assure my colleague that does not 

mean, and I think he knows this—I 

have not made a decision on this gentleman and I will not until we have 

gone through the hearing process. As I 

have said to the press, I am generally 

inclined to think he is very well qualified for this. But the question of judgment will require a lot of research on 

associated issues that have been outlined here. 

So, to me, it is not a game I am playing. I think my colleagues in the Senate know I work very hard to stay informed and up to detail on every issue 

that is before us. I would say to my 

colleague, to me, I don’t care what the 

time was ever. What I care about is do 

we do it right so we do not have a repeat. 

I am sure my colleague knows he 

doesn’t want us to have a repeat of 

making a mistake and not thoroughly 

vetting someone to the degree we 

should. 

My hope is the Judiciary Committee 

in the next Congress operates very 

smoothly, that we stand on the principles that we spoke about as we went 

through this last year, and that we do 

not see the process of trying to slow 

down judicial appointments because it 

is a partisan issue. 

He has my pledge that will never be 

anything I will pertain to or participate in. If somebody is qualified and 

they are this President’s nominee and 

they are qualified after going through 

the Judiciary Committee and I believe 

they should be voted on, I intend to 

vote for them and not hold them up. 

But I think this is a very different instance. There are two specific problems 

that have to be very well vetted. 

From what we have seen so far, the 

vast majority and minority have not 

met Mr. Holder. We are going to be 

asked to meet with him on the day before the committee hearing so we will 

not have had the time even after we 

meet with him to be able to crosscheck what we have asked him against 

what facts we know because we will 

not have all the facts in, because we 

will not even have all the records from 

the Clinton library at that time. 

I suggest we ought to start it off in 

more of a spirit of cooperation. My 

ranking member is of the learned opinion for the years that he has been here, 

and he is a proven expert in the law, 

that we need more time. We hope that 

request would be honored. 

With that, I yield the floor. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Rhode Island is recognized. 

Mr. WHITEHOUSE. I wanted, while 

the Senator from Oklahoma is still on 

the floor, to let him know I appreciate 

his concern and I am grateful for his 

kind words. I would hope the one or 

two red flags that he has mentioned 

are not such as to justify necessarily 

extending the period between nomination and confirmation hearings more 

than 2 weeks beyond what the Senate 

gave for other nominees such as Attorney General Thornburgh, Attorney 

General Barr—almost 2 weeks for Attorney General Reno, 2 weeks longer 

than for Attorney General Ashcroft, 1 

day short of 2 weeks longer than for 

Attorney General Meese. Some of these 

people have some red flags too, but the 

Senate was able to do its job timely 

and I hope we will do so again. 

I yield the floor. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Rhode Island. 

f 

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 21⁄2 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 

December 11, 2008 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE 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 thenDeputy 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. 

f 

AUTOMOBILE INDUSTRY LOAN 

Mr. CARPER. Mr. President, what I 

want to do is take the next 8 or 9 minutes to talk about the issue we are 

waiting for, waiting to address here 

hopefully later this evening, and the 

issue is whether we are going to provide—not a grant, not a gift, not a bailout to two auto companies, GM and 

Chrysler, but whether we are going to 

provide them a loan. 

Some of you recall 28 years ago when 

Chrysler was in difficult straits and 

their CEO, Lee Iacocca, called on the 

Federal Government to provide a loan. 

We did not do that; we provided a loan 

guarantee. Chrysler made a lot of 

changes within the company to reduce 

their costs, to make them a low-cost 

provider of vehicles, and they came 

back to health. The loan was repaid. 

Federal taxpayers actually made