```

[Congressional Record Volume 154, Number 186 (Thursday, December 11, 2008)]
[Senate]
[Pages S10913-S10914]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

                   HOLDER NOMINATION HEARING SCHEDULE

  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I would like to discuss Eric Holder's 
nomination to be the U.S. Attorney General. While Mr. Holder appears to 
have the appropriate credentials and work experience, it is important 
that the Judiciary Committee be able to fully and carefully vet the 
candidate for this important position because this is the Nation's top 
law enforcement officer.
  I was surprised to hear that the chairman of the Judiciary Committee 
noticed Mr. Holder's confirmation hearing for January 8, 2009. Mr. 
Holder was only formally announced as the prospective Attorney General 
nominee on December 1 of this year. I understand the Judiciary 
Committee has a large number of boxes of archived documents relating to 
his employment at the Justice Department, and those materials need to 
be reviewed. We have not even gotten Mr. Holder's questionnaire, 
nomination materials, or FBI background investigation yet. Judiciary 
Committee members just sent a letter to the Justice Department and the 
Clinton Library requesting documents relating to issues that Mr. Holder 
was involved in during his tenure in the Clinton Justice Department. 
Once we get these materials and once these documents come to us, it 
will take some time for committee members to review them.
  While it is not unprecedented for the Judiciary Committee to hold a 
hearing prior to the inauguration of a President, such as the one held 
for former Attorney General John Ashcroft, there are significant 
differences. First, the Ashcroft nomination hearing was held from 
January 16 to January 19, 2001, obviously giving committee members more 
breathing room to review his record. Moreover, Attorney General 
Ashcroft was a well-known quantity to us because he served as our 
colleague in the U.S. Senate and he was a prominent member of the 
Judiciary Committee. Of course, this was all prior to his nomination 
for Attorney General. Even then, my colleagues on the other side of the 
aisle insisted on 2 days of testimony from the nominee and 2 days of 
testimony from 23 other outside witnesses, for a total of 4 days of 
hearings.

  The bottom line is that the proposed January 8 hearing timetable 
doesn't give members a full and fair chance to consider Mr. Holder's 
background as thoroughly as we should. We must have time to 
comprehensively examine all of Mr. Holder's information, materials, and 
documents, most of which we haven't even received yet. There is no need 
to jump the gun and undermine our oversight responsibilities.
  This is all the more important because Mr. Holder is not a nominee 
free and clear of issues. The fact is Mr. Holder played a very key role 
in some very controversial matters, and since his nomination, a number 
of newspapers, including the New York Times, the Washington Post, and 
the Wall Street Journal, have all published articles reminding the 
public of those controversies and raising serious questions about Mr. 
Holder's role in them. These issues need to be fully considered by 
members of the Judiciary Committee and eventually by the full Senate.
  For example, red flags about Mr. Holder's judgment and independence 
include his role in securing pardons or clemency for an unrepentant 
billionaire fugitive tax cheat such as Marc Rich or terrorists such as 
members of the FALN and Weather Underground. A lot of people--including 
this Senator--have found these facts to be troubling. As I previously 
mentioned, a number of editorials have been written asking questions 
about how those facts impact Mr. Holder's ability to serve as U.S. 
Attorney General. I expect to question Mr. Holder at his confirmation 
hearing about these and other controversial matters he has been 
involved with.

[[Page S10914]]

  In addition, Mr. Holder has been in private practice since he left 
the Clinton Justice Department over 8 years ago. It is important that 
we know what Mr. Holder has been doing in those 8 years, which cases he 
has been involved with, and who his clients are, what speeches he has 
made, and so forth. For example, public reports have emerged that in 
2004, the Governor of Illinois hired or sought to hire Mr. Holder. We 
certainly need time to learn what that is all about. Mr. Holder has not 
provided the committee with all of this information yet. Again, it is 
not unreasonable for members of the Judiciary Committee to want to 
receive all of these materials and have ample opportunity to study them 
before holding the nomination hearings. As such, I, then--this Senator, 
then--is in support of Senator Specter's request that Chairman Leahy 
move the hearing to a later date in January so committee members can do 
their duty and review Mr. Holder's nomination in a responsible manner.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader is recognized.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, we have been working, as I think the country 
knows and the Senate knows, for the last many weeks trying to come up 
with some way to resolve the issue of dealing with Detroit and the 
automobile manufacturers. We thought we were at a place today where we 
would have a series of votes and we were almost there when another 
Senator submitted another idea. As a result of that, there are good-
faith negotiations going on as we speak. The last I heard is that they 
would have something completed by 5:30. I kind of smile when I say 
that, because considering the years I have spent here in the Senate, 
sometimes I don't know if they are referring to ``5:30'' meaning 10 
minutes from now or 12 hours and 10 minutes from now, but they said 
5:30. If they are able to work that out, then the bill will 
overwhelmingly pass the Senate. I have told the House and the House 
will have to do whatever they do with that. But right now, that is not 
done.
  As I indicated, they said they thought a half hour or so ago it would 
be done by 5:30. I hope that is the case. I know it is late. I know 
people want more definite definitions of when this is all going to 
happen, but that isn't the way the Senate works, as much as we would 
all like it to be. So if everyone will be patient, there is still a 
possibility--and even maybe a probability--that sometime this evening 
we would be able to vote.
  Now, Senator McConnell and I don't know at this stage what we will be 
voting on. If the negotiations which are going forward now bear fruit, 
then that will be the issue that I think would pass with a significant 
margin here in the Senate. There may be some other Senators who want to 
offer alternatives. I think there may be some suggestions for that to 
take place. At this stage, I think it is pretty clear that there is no 
need to vote on the House measure, because it is pretty clear there 
aren't enough votes to pass that, but those decisions we will make 
shortly. I think what we are going to be voting on is a series of 
competing alternatives. There is not going to be an opportunity to 
offer a lot of individual rifleshot amendments to these different 
proposals, but I know that a number of Senators have one proposal. We 
have the one we talked about we will probably vote on today, and then 
we have the bipartisan issue that is being worked on right now. If we 
are fortunate, maybe we could wind up having three votes or maybe only 
two votes. But, anyway, we are doing our best to resolve this issue.
  There is no need to talk about all of the Senators involved. We will 
do that if we can work something out and they will get all the 
accolades they need. We have had a lot of cooperation today. That 
doesn't mean we are going to be able to work something out, because 
this is a very important issue. But right now, I think we are a lot 
further down the road than I thought we would be. I was trying to 
think: Down the road distance, so it should be ``farther'' down the 
road. But, anyway, I wish to alert everyone they should be patient 
tonight. We hope to have some votes before the night is out.
  If everything falls apart, then we will be left with having a cloture 
vote on the Democratic version. Regardless of whether we work something 
out, that would be tomorrow morning, as early as we want to come in, 
but hopefully, that is not the resolution of this because that may not 
be the best way to solve the problem of Detroit.

                          ____________________
```