S10856 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE December 10, 2008 

This statement summarizes some of my efforts to maintain a strong U.S.-Israel relationship, to strengthen Israel as a key strategic partner, and to promote an Israel-Syria 

peace treaty. Active participation by the 

Clinton Administration enabled the parties 

to come very close to an accord in 1995 and 

2000. Israel potentially has much to gain if 

Lebanon is a strong, independent nation 

without undue Syrian influence or Hezbollah 

domination. If Syria stopped supporting 

Hamas, that entity committed to the destruction of Israel, might be sufficiently 

weakened to enable the Palestinian Authority to negotiate a Peace Treaty with Israel. 

A corollary benefit could be to drive a wedge 

between Syria and Iran. 

For reasons amplified in my Senate floor 

statement on June 16, 2006 and my article in 

The Washington Quarterly’s Winter 2006–2007 

issue entitled ‘‘Dialogue with Adversaries,’’ I 

am firmly convinced that aggressive diplomacy holds the key to resolving international disputes, including the Mideast 

peace process, and should be employed by the 

new Administration. 

f 

ATTORNEY GENERAL DESIGNATE 

ERIC HOLDER 

Mr. SPECTER. Madam President, I 

further sought recognition to comment 

briefly about the scheduling of the 

hearing for Attorney General designate 

Eric Holder. 

In looking toward the hearing process, I am looking for a very constructive engagement to determine the 

qualifications of Mr. Holder. There is 

no intent on my part or on the part of 

any of my colleagues on the Republican side of the aisle to engage in partisan sniping. As I say, we intend to be 

constructive and not destructive. We 

are looking to strengthen the Department of Justice. 

The position of Attorney General is 

an extraordinarily important position. 

We have seen that during the administration of Attorney General Alberto 

Gonzales, stated candidly, the Department was not well handled. That is a 

candid statement and also a very mild 

statement. 

During the course of Attorney General Gonzales’ tenure, there were so 

many situations where the Attorney 

General molded his views to accommodate his appointer, the President of the 

United States. A great deal that went 

on in the Department of Justice was 

partisan and not in the interests of the 

work of the Department or in the interests of the American people. 

We have seen, since 9/11/2001, a vast 

extension of Executive authority. We 

found the terrorist surveillance program was initiated by the President 

without consultation under the tradition of notifying the chairman, which I 

was during the 109th Congress, or the 

ranking member. We found there was 

an engagement with the telephone 

companies to engage in electronic surveillance, again without notifying the 

chairman or ranking member of the 

Judiciary Committee and without notifying the intelligence committees of 

both Houses, as mandated by law. Further was the expansion of signing 

statements all during the tenure of the 

Attorney General. 

Without going into the issues of 

politicization, they were rampant during the tenure of Attorney General 

Gonzales. I refer to an article, coauthored by the current chairman of the 

committee and myself, which appeared 

not too long ago in Politico, on October 28, 2008, where we said in part: 

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 Justice Department, day 

in and day out, without regard to politics or 

ideology, doing their best to enforce the law 

and promote justice. 

With respect to Attorney General 

designate Holder, there is no doubt he 

comes to this nomination with an outstanding record, for the most part. Not 

without question but for the most part. 

He has an excellent educational background from Columbia: undergrad and 

law degree, a trial attorney in the Department of Justice, an associate judge 

of the Superior Court of the District of 

Columbia, U.S. attorney, Deputy Attorney General, Acting Attorney General—a very distinguished re ́sume ́, 

which I have recited. 

But there are questions which have 

to be inquired into fairly, as already 

noted in the commentaries of the 

media on the editorial pages. There has 

been considerable publicity about the 

pardon of Marc Rich. There was a case 

involving Mr. Rich, who was a fugitive, 

who had given very substantial sums of 

money to entities connected to the 

President. The regular procedures for a 

pardon were bypassed. The Department 

of Justice was not consulted. The attorneys in the Southern District of 

New York, which was handling the 

Rich case, were opposed to the pardon. 

From my own days as district attorney of Philadelphia, where I dealt with 

celebrated cases involving people who 

were fugitives, who had fled, that is 

about as serious a matter as you could 

find and hardly one where there would 

be an expectation of leniency or pardon 

to wipe out the charge, eliminate the 

matter, while the defendant was in 

absentia. 

There was an extensive report filed 

on this issue by the House of Representatives Committee on Government Reform, the 107th Congress, second session. It is available for anyone 

to read. There are quite a number of 

very serious questions involving what 

happened with Mr. Holder and the people involved there. 

The concern that arises is why Mr. 

Holder lent the recommendation, 

which has been characterized as neutral leaning in favor, in this context. I 

come to no conclusions on the matter. 

I approach this matter, as I try to approach all matters, with an open mind. 

But in an extensive interview with Mr. 

Holder he has presented his views. I 

don’t think it is useful to get into the 

specifics as to the precise concerns 

which I raised and his precise answers. 

Let that await a day where we have a 

hearing and where Mr. Holder is in a 

position to speak for himself. But by 

analogy to the Gonzales tenure, I think 

it is imperative we be sure the Attorney General of the United States does 

not bend his views to accommodate his 

appointer; that the Attorney General 

does not bend his views in any way 

which is partisan or political, to serve 

any interest other than the interests of 

justice. 

As noted in the article cited in Politico, where you have the professionals 

in the Department of Justice, they 

wouldn’t even meet with attorneys for 

Mr. Rich, they thought it was such an 

open-and-shut case, and were opposed— 

at least according to information provided. This is all to be brought out at 

a hearing. But to run counter to the 

views of the professionals is a major 

red flag which has to be inquired into 

and inquired into with some depth. 

Then we have the situation where Attorney General Reno recused herself on 

the issue of appointing an independent 

counsel to investigate alleged—and I 

emphasize alleged—illegal fundraising 

by Vice President Albert Gore out of 

the White House. There was the relatively notorious incident where the 

Vice President was at a meeting and 

drank a lot of ice tea and absented 

himself from certain parts of the meeting where he was not able to—or had a 

rationale for not knowing certain 

things. 

I questioned Attorney General Reno 

in detail about that during Judiciary 

Committee hearings and she said: Well, 

there just wasn’t sufficient evidence. 

She had disregarded a document, a 

note taken by someone present, because, as she said, it did not refresh 

that witness’s recollection. 

I asked her about the doctrine of 

prior recollection recorded, which is a 

well-known exception to the hearsay 

rule. She denied knowing about it. 

I note a frown on the face of the Presiding Officer, who is a distinguished 

district attorney herself. Doubtless we 

could speak at length about prior 

recollection recorded. I mention that 

because of the curious circumstances of 

what happened there. There we had an 

assistant U.S. attorney named LaBella, 

who was asked to take on the job of 

making a recommendation. According 

to the information provided to me, he 

made a recommendation for an independent counsel and the professionals 

in the Department asked for an independent counsel, and it was overruled. 

I am not going to comment about Mr. 

Holder’s role. Let him respond to that 

and let us take that up in due course. 

But here again is a potential situation 

where the interests of justice and objectivity were not followed in the highest levels of the Department of Justice 

when Mr. Holder was in charge, with 

the Attorney General, Attorney General Reno, having recused herself. 

There are many other matters which 

warrant inquiry, and I will not take 

the time to go into them now. They are 

December 10, 2008 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE S10857 

referenced in a letter which eight Republican members of the Senate Judiciary Committee sent to Attorney General Mukasey, requesting information 

from the Department of Justice files. 

I ask unanimous consent that a copy 

of this letter be printed in the RECORD. 

There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in the 

RECORD, as follows: 

U.S. SENATE, 

COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY, 

Washington, DC, December 10, 2008. 

Hon. MICHAEL B. MUKASEY, 

Attorney General, U.S. Department of Justice, 

950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Washington, DC. 

DEAR ATTORNEY GENERAL MUKASEY: As 

part of our preparation for the Judiciary 

Committee’s hearings on the nomination of 

Eric H. Holder to the office of Attorney General, we write to request that the Department of Justice provide certain materials in 

its possession relating to his service in the 

Department of Justice. 

Specifically, we write to request, in accordance with the attached guidelines, all 

memoranda, correspondence, and other documents on which Mr. Holder is designated as 

a recipient, or documents prepared by Mr. 

Holder in his position as U.S. Attorney, Deputy Attorney General, or Acting Attorney 

General or by his staff, for his approval, or 

on which his name or initials appear, related 

to the following matters: 

1. The Department of Justice’s investigation into fundraising activities by VicePresident Al Gore during the 1996 election 

campaign cycle; 

2. The investigation of President Clinton 

by the Office of the Independent Counsel and 

related impeachment proceedings against 

President Clinton, including consideration of 

appointing independent counsels and/or special prosecutors in related and unrelated 

matters during the period 1993–2001, including consideration of appointing independent 

counsels and special prosecutors; 

3. The investigation by the Department of 

Justice into illegal contributions by the Castro family of Venezuela to the Democratic 

Party in 1992; 

4. The investigation by the Department of 

Justice into the Clinton Administration’s decision to allow Loral Space to export a communications satellite to China for launch on 

a Chinese-built rocket, and the subsequent 

report to Chinese government outlining 

methods for improving its missile guidance 

prepared by Loral scientists; 

5. The issue of attorney-client privilege 

and work product protection for corporations under criminal investigation; 

6. Clemency for the following members of 

the organization FALN (an acronym that 

translates to the Armed Forces of Puerto 

Rican Nationalists) by President Clinton on 

August 11, 1999, including but not limited to 

the July 8, 1999 memorandum from Deputy 

Attorney General Holder to the President: 

Elizam Escobar, Ricardo Jimenez, Adolfo 

Matos, Dylcia Noemi Pagan, Alicia 

Rodriguez, Ida Luz Rodriguez, Luis Rosa, 

Carmen Valentin, Alberto Rodriguez, 

Alejandrina Torres, Edwin Cortes, Oscar 

Lopez-Rivera, Juan Enrique Segarra-Palmer, 

Antonio Camacho-Negron, Roberto 

Maldonado-Rivera, and Norman RamirezTalavera; 

7. FALN members who had petitions for 

clemency filed in their name but were not 

granted clemency, including but not limited 

to Carlos Alberto Torres; 

8. The April 22, 2000, raid in Miami, Florida 

by Border Patrol agents to take Elian 

Gonzales into custody; 

9. The Department of Justice’s investigation into the 1993 confrontation at the Mt. 

Carmel Complex in Waco, Texas; 

10. Any clemency or non-clemency related 

matter regarding Marc Rich, Pincus Green, 

Carlos Vignali, Harvey Weinig, Susan L. 

Rosenberg, or Linda Sue Evans, including 

but not limited to all communications to 

and from the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the 

Southern District of New York prior to and 

following the issuance of the Rich and Green 

pardons; 

11. Any matters related to or involving 

John M. Quinn; 

12. The U.S. Attorney’s Office for the 

Southern District of New York’s criminal investigation of the 177 presidential pardons 

and commutations issued on January 20. 

2001: 

13. Death penalty approvals, rejections, or 

disputes; 

14. The Youth Gun Crime Enforcement Act 

of 1999, the extension of the Brady bill, and 

other matters affecting gun rights; 

15. The Department of Justice’s decision 

not to defend the power of Congress to enact 

18 U.S.C. §3501 in the Supreme Court litigation in Dickerson v. United States, including 

Department responses to Judiciary Committee inquiries on the subject and views of 

U.S. Attorneys and Department advisory 

panels on the matter; 

16. The Equal Employment Opportunity 

complaint filed against the Department on 

March 1, 1996 by class agent Lawrence D. 

Durnford; and 

17. Any denial of a Congressional request 

for documents or information from the Executive Branch. 

This request is consistent with requests for 

similar documents the Department of Justice has provided in the consideration of past 

nominees. 

We would appreciate your prompt attention to this request so that we may have adequate time to review the requested documents in preparation for Mr. Holder’s hearing. Thank you for your cooperation. 

Sincerely, 

ARLEN SPECTER, ORRIN HATCH, CHUCK

GRASSLEY, SAM BROWNBACK, JON KYL, 

LINDSEY GRAHAM, JOHN CORNYN, TOM A. 

COBURN. 

GUIDELINES

(1) This request is continuing in character. 

and if additional responsive documents come 

to your attention following the date of production, please provide such documents to 

the Committee promptly. 

(2) As used herein, ‘‘document’’ means the 

original (or an additional copy when an 

original is not available) and each distribution copy of writings or other graphic material, whether inscribed by hand or by mechanical, electronic, photographic or other 

means, including without limitation correspondence, memoranda, publications, articles, transcripts, diaries, telephone logs, 

message sheets, records, voice recordings, 

tapes, film, dictabelts and other data compilations from which information can be obtained. This request seeks production of all 

documents described, including all drafts 

and distribution copies, and contemplates 

production of responsive documents in their 

entirety, without abbreviation or expurgation. 

(3) In the event that any requested document has been destroyed or discarded or otherwise disposed of, please identify the document as completely as possible, including 

without limitation the date, author(s), addressee(s), recipient(s), title, and subject 

matter, and the reason for disposal of the 

document and the identity of all persons who 

authorized disposal of the document. 

(4) If a claim is made that any requested 

document will not be produced by reason of 

a privilege of any kind, describe each such 

document by date, author(s), addressee(s), 

recipient(s), title, and subject matter, and 

set forth the nature of the claimed privilege 

with respect to each document. 

Mr. SPECTER. When hearings were 

held for Attorney General Ashcroft, 

they were held from January 16 to January 19 of 2001. At that time, there 

were 2 days of testimony from Attorney General Ashcroft, and the committee heard from 23 outside witnesses. 

May I remind everyone that John 

Ashcroft was a well-known person to 

the committee. He had been in the Senate. He had served on the Judiciary 

Committee. We knew him very well. 

But that didn’t stop a very full, detailed inquiry. It was not done in a 

rush. 

With respect to Mr. Holder’s situation, we have in the committee some 86 

boxes of archived committee documents relating to Mr. Holder’s tenure 

in the Department of Justice. We expect those materials to increase very 

substantially when we receive materials from the Department of Justice 

and the Clinton Library. 

Similar document requests were 

made to the Department of Justice in 

the Reagan Library during the confirmation of Chief Justice John Roberts, and they yielded some 65,000 additional pages of documents. 

As of the present time, we have not 

yet received Mr. Holder’s questionnaire, his nomination materials, or the 

FBI background investigation. 

I have taken the time to come to the 

floor to outline, very briefly, some of 

the issues. They are set out in more detail in the letter which is now made a 

part of the record to Attorney General 

Mukasey, asking for specific matters 

regarding Mr. Holder. There are other 

matters which are in the media which 

I think are better left for further investigation, even before the hearing, before there is any public comment about 

it. But we are looking at a very major 

matter. 

The Department of Justice has enormous responsibilities in the battle 

against terrorism and in the protection 

of civil rights. That is a balance which 

has to be maintained. There are real 

questions as to whether it has been 

maintained since 9/11. Those are matters for inquiry. 

There are very substantial matters 

to be inquired into on the Justice Department position on waiver of attorney-client privilege, which started with 

the Holder memorandum when he was 

Deputy Attorney General and then 

went forward to the Thompson memorandum and the McNulty memorandum 

and so forth. Also, there are major 

matters of legislation now pending on 

the subject of reporters’ shield, where 

the Department of Justice has taken a 

view which I believe has to be modified 

by legislation if we cannot get some accommodation with the Department. 

That is a very brief statement as to 

the issues which we are looking for. As 

I look at this matter, it seems to me 

S10858 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE December 10, 2008 

not realistic or fair to begin hearings 

before January 26. 

The week of January 19 is going to be 

occupied with the inauguration. And to 

have adequate time to prepare, it 

seems to me, that needs to be done. 

When we had hearings involving Chief 

Justice Roberts and Associate Justice 

Alito, consideration was made of the 

minority point of view, and extensive 

discussions were had, and there was an 

accommodation and agreement reached 

as to when the hearing was to be held. 

So we are looking at a serious matter 

and we have to do it right. It is going 

to take some time. 

I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The 

clerk will call the roll. 

The legislative clerk proceeded to 

call the roll. 

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I 

ask unanimous consent that the order 

for the quorum call be rescinded. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. 

PRYOR). Without objection, it is so ordered. 

f 

EXTENSION OF MORNING 

BUSINESS 

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I 

ask unanimous consent that the period 

for the transaction of morning business 

be extended until 6 p.m., with Senators 

permitted to speak for up to 10 minutes 

each. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without 

objection, it is so ordered. 

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I 

ask unanimous consent that I be permitted to present my remarks. I should 

not go over 10 minutes, but I ask unanimous consent that I be permitted to 

do so. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without 

objection, it is so ordered. 

f 

ECONOMIC CRISIS 

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, if 

anyone sees the quietude that is enveloping our Chamber, they can reasonably ask a question about whether we 

are doing anything, is any work being 

done, what is taking place. I must tell 

you that I have to ask the same question. 

The American people are at a point 

of great stress. They expect us to be 

hard at work solving a major problem 

facing us. I don’t see the kind of visible 

stirring that ought to accompany our 

decisions over whether to get this job 

done. I hope that as we proceed further, 

we can get some kind of an agreement 

to at least let the American people 

know whether we support this idea 

that we provide some support for ailing 

companies that provide a lot of jobs in 

our society and how we can present 

economic opportunity that is so important for us. 

As we work to provide a better future 

for our country, it is obvious that we 

face a particularly difficult choice at 

this moment. An essential segment of 

the American industrial base, the U.S. 

auto industry, is at a critical juncture. 

These companies have been mismanaged, they have lacked foresight, 

and they have been out of touch with 

what consumers wanted. They failed to 

understand the demand for fuel-efficient automobiles with higher gas 

mileage and lower costs. They failed to 

provide innovative designs to encourage consumers around the world to buy 

American. Instead, they stood by like 

spectators at a sporting event while 

the first-place trophy was snatched 

away from the American people. 

I came to the Senate from the business community. I was chairman of a 

major company in this country, a company that now employs over 40,000 people. One thing I learned is that you 

must constantly update your product 

line if you want to succeed because 

otherwise someone else will and you 

will lose the opportunity, you will lose 

the sales, and you will lose your credibility. I find it shocking that the leaders of these giant companies failed to 

understand this basic rule of business. 

Instead of modernizing, they chose another path. They chose to spend millions of dollars on high-priced lobbyists 

to visit with us in our offices, asking 

Congress not to push them on fuel efficiency, not to urge that they move 

ahead with more efficient cars. Now 

they are here begging for our help. 

Unfortunately, the disaster facing 

the big three is not an isolated problem. It has implications for every 

American. If the big three go under, 

millions of jobs could go with them. In 

my State alone, New Jersey, the auto 

industry employs more than 43,000 people. Thousands of manufacturers, suppliers, dealers, insurance companies, 

and small businesses would likely be 

imperiled if the automakers fall. Our 

economy could go into further shock 

absorbing that kind of collapse, especially now with the unemployment 

rate the highest it has been in 15 years. 

So now we are being asked to decide 

whether we help General Motors, 

Chrysler, and Ford. If we agree to help 

them, this legislation has to have guarantees to protect the American taxpayers and for us to get this money 

back if we put it up at this time. For 

one thing, this cannot be free money. 

So it is essential that we only provide 

the big three with loans and lines of 

credit, not gifts, and that they have a 

clear plan to pay the money back. This 

relief package must also put strict caps 

on executive compensation and include 

an outright ban on big bonuses and 

golden parachutes for the highest paid 

managers. What is more, companies 

that receive funding must suspend paying any dividends to the shareholders. 

That is where these companies are. If 

we don’t do something, their equity 

will be worthless. We have to make 

sure no dividends are paid until the 

taxpayers are paid back the money we 

are going to put in. In addition, they 

have to make a promise to finally work 

toward greater fuel efficiency. 

To make sure automakers live up to 

these obligations—because we found 

out we cannot rely on their promises— 

the President should go ahead and appoint a car czar, someone who is devoting full time and attention to the resolution of this great problem. This administrator must work to get the Government repaid while monitoring the 

companies’ efforts to make sure they 

stay on a path to long-term success. 

That means the big three must be restructured to assure competitiveness, 

higher quality, profitability, improved 

fuel efficiency, and renewed market 

leadership. 

Doing nothing to help the big three 

could have catastrophic consequences 

for the job market and for American 

business leadership. However, a relief 

package for the big three automakers 

is no substitute for other stimulus provisions that our country desperately 

needs. We are in a severe recession, and 

for every month that this recession 

continues, more families fall behind, 

more small businesses fail, more life 

savings are lost, and more houses go 

into foreclosure. We have to find ways 

to change direction. We need bold 

strokes to get us out of this crisis. We 

need to stimulate our economy with infrastructure investments that will create jobs, increase energy independence, 

and get people to work quickly and efficiently. Transportation investments 

can give huge returns for the dollar. If 

we repair our schools and rebuild our 

crumbling infrastructure, we can create 2.5 million new jobs while reversing 

the declines we are witnessing. I mention these things because by doing 

them, we employ more people and we 

can be more optimistic as a country 

about our future. 

It is my hope that we can work together, all of us, Republicans and 

Democrats, energetically to meet these 

grave challenges. I put out a plea to 

ask our colleagues across the aisle to 

join with us to show the American people that we are hard at work, that we 

do care about what is happening, that 

we are worried about families being 

dispossessed from their homes, that we 

are worried about children who cannot 

afford an education, that we are worried about investments that will improve the quality of life in our society. 

I hope they will come around. 

I saw several of our colleagues on C– 

SPAN today at a press conference talking about why they didn’t see this as 

something of value. Something of 

value is evident when work is being 

done, when the public is hearing a debate about this crisis, when the other 

side of the aisle isn’t just being stubborn because they don’t want to give 

the Democrats or whomever an advantage. We need to debate whether we 

can pull these companies out of the 

holes they are in, save jobs, and restore 

America’s leadership in industry. 

Many in our country have lost faith 

as they worry about their ability to 

support themselves and their families. 

They look to us here in Washington to