S282 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE January 12, 2009 

The Marshall Plan was a long time 

ago, but if you bring it up-to-date that 

would amount to $115 billion. This is 

after inflation. The race to the Moon, 

$237 billion; the entire Korean war, $454 

billion; the New Deal, $500 billion; the 

Vietnam war, $698 billion; and then 8 

years in Iraq, in the liberation of Iraq— 

people were complaining about how 

much money it cost—it is less than the 

$700 billion we are talking about here. 

We cannot put on fast track the remaining $350 billion in this package. 

Congress is going to have to actively 

debate any further funding. 

What my legislation does, first of all, 

if we do not do anything at all, if we sit 

back and act like everything is fine 

and wait until the proposal comes to 

us, then the only thing we can do under 

the law we passed in October of this 

past year is to have a resolution of disapproval. 

If the leadership, if Senator REID and 

the leadership decide we should not 

have a vote on that, I am sure they will 

have procedural ways to have this kept 

from having a vote, but even if there is 

a vote, they would have that control. 

That doesn’t do any good at all. The 

only way to do it is to pass this bill 

that says we cannot spend the last $350 

billion until they come forth with a 

program, we evaluate it, we take our 

prerogative as given to us in the Constitution and determine whether this is 

a wise expenditure of these funds. 

I hope I will have several others 

wanting to join S. 64. Who can argue 

with accountability? 

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

The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will call the roll. 

The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll. 

Mr. WHITEHOUSE. Mr. President, I 

ask unanimous consent the order for 

the quorum call be rescinded. 

The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so ordered. 

f 

NOMINATION OF ERIC HOLDER 

Mr. WHITEHOUSE. Mr. President, I 

rise to speak on President-elect 

Obama’s nomination of Eric Holder to 

be the Attorney General of the United 

States. It is nothing new in Washington for it to be said of a nominee 

that he or she is the best person for a 

job. That happens all the time. We 

have all heard it. It will surprise no 

one in this room or elsewhere in Washington to know it is not always the 

case. But in this case, for this appointment at this time, I believe it is true. 

I believe Eric Holder is the best person 

to be Attorney General of the United 

States. 

It is hard to overstate the significance of the work of the Department of 

Justice to the American people. 

It is hard to overstate how vital it is 

that the American people have confidence in that Department, from the 

Attorney General down to the most 

junior line attorney. It is hard to overstate the importance of our trust that 

this great Department makes decisions 

on the merits, proceeds on the facts 

and the evidence and the law, and carefully protects itself from political interference. 

The Bush administration has compromised the American peoples’ faith 

in their Department of Justice by compromising the integrity of the Department at its highest levels. We need 

that back. 

What we need now is an Attorney 

General who first, understands the 

inner workings of the Department so 

he can set the ship right; second, will 

be fiercely independent and will make 

decisions based on the facts and the 

evidence and the law, not on politics or 

pressure from the White House; and 

third, has the temperament and experience to be strong and fair through all 

of the pressures that mount up on that 

office. Eric Holder is the best possible 

person for this difficult job at this difficult time. 

We all know Mr. Holder’s long and 

distinguished experience at the Justice 

Department and within the justice system. He has been a line attorney in the 

Public Integrity Section, prosecuting 

corrupt public officials of both parties; 

he has been a judge nominated by 

President Ronald Reagan; he has been 

the Deputy Attorney General, the No. 2 

position in the Department; he has 

been the U.S. attorney for the District 

of Columbia; and he has been a highly 

regarded attorney in private practice. 

One would be hard pressed to find a 

more experienced candidate. It is no 

surprise, then, that so many organizations and individuals who work with 

the criminal justice system every day 

have endorsed Mr. Holder’s nomination, including the National Fraternal 

Order of Police, the National District 

Attorneys Association, the National 

Association of Police Organizations, 

the International Association of Chiefs 

of Police, the National Association of 

Assistant United States Attorneys, the 

National Center for Victims of Crime, 

the National Organization for Victim 

Assistance, and Mothers Against 

Drunk Driving. 

Mr. Holder’s experience is unquestionable, but it is not only experience 

that makes him the right person for 

this uniquely challenging post. I know 

Eric Holder. When I was a U.S. attorney, he was my colleague, as the U.S. 

attorney for the District of Columbia, 

and then my boss when he became Deputy Attorney General. I have great personal confidence in him. In our work at 

the Department, the U.S. attorneys 

saw firsthand in Eric, over and over, 

the qualities of temperament, intelligence, judgment, and independence 

that are essential for an Attorney General and especially for an Attorney 

General who takes office during a time 

when the Department is in distress. 

As I know Eric Holder, so also do I 

know the damage and destruction that 

was wrought by the Bush administration on our Department of Justice. In 

the Judiciary Committee, under the 

distinguished leadership of Chairman 

Patrick Leahy, we worked hard to find 

out what has been done there and to 

bring it to light. My colleagues, Senator SCHUMER of New York and Senator 

FEINSTEIN of California, deserve particular credit in that struggle. 

Because I had worked in the Department, I was familiar with many of the 

institutions, the traditions and the 

practices of the Department that have 

been cast aside or ignored. The result? 

The result was a damaged institution, 

its reputation compromised, its integrity challenged, and its morale sadly 

diminished. Now, more than anything 

else, someone needs to put that right. 

Eric Holder has the knowledge, the experience, and the character to do that. 

I have listened with a great deal of 

interest to some of the things that 

have been said in this Chamber about 

Eric Holder and his character. Indeed, 

there has been a not-so-subtle effort to 

question whether Mr. Holder is sufficiently independent of political influence to serve this Nation as our Attorney General. I cannot speak to the motivations behind this effort, but I can 

say this: Eric Holder is a man who 

spent 12 years as a line prosecutor 

prosecuting corrupt politicians of both 

parties. He is a man who was sufficiently politically independent for 

President Ronald Reagan to nominate 

him as a judge. This is a man who, as 

U.S. attorney for the District of Columbia, indicted and convicted Dan 

Rostenkowski, the Democratic chairman of the Ways and Means Committee, one of the most powerful men 

in Washington. This is a man who recommended to Attorney General Janet 

Reno that she appoint an Independent 

Counsel to investigate President Clinton’s Secretary of the Interior, Bruce 

Babbitt. This is a man who advised Attorney General Reno to expand the 

scope of the investigation by Kenneth 

Starr into the Monica Lewinsky affair 

investigation. 

It is not just me with this confidence 

in Eric Holder and in his independence, 

his character, his judgment, and his 

temperament. Let me read what former 

Attorney General William Barr, former 

Deputy Attorney General James 

Comey, and former Federal Bureau of 

Investigation Director Louis Freeh 

have said about him. 

In a letter to Chairman LEAHY and 

Ranking Member SPECTER, Mr. Comey 

wrote this: 

From my professional and personal association with Mr. Holder, I believe him to be 

a man of strong character, and first-class 

ability. I think he has the institutional 

knowledge, humility, and integrity to be a 

fine Attorney General. 

My colleagues will remember that 

James Comey was the Deputy Attorney 

General for Attorney General Ashcroft. 

He was the Acting Attorney General at 

the time of that sickening raid by the 

White House Chief of Staff and White 

House Counsel Alberto Gonzales at the 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with SENATE
January 12, 2009 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE S283 

hospital bedside of stricken Attorney 

General Ashcroft. He is the man who 

stood up against the warrantless wiretapping program and stopped it until it 

was brought right. He is the center, by 

all accounts, of what would have been 

essentially the resignation of the attorneys at the top of the Department 

of Justice if the White House had not 

blinked and backed down. This is a 

man who knows something about independence and integrity, and he vouches 

for Eric Holder. 

Louis Freeh, who was the Director of 

the Federal Bureau of Investigation, 

wrote this: 

I am certain that Eric has the highest 

legal competence, total integrity, leadership, 

and, most importantly, the political independence to discharge faithfully the immense trust this Nation reposes in its Attorney General . . . In all of Eric’s interactions 

with me as FBI Director, as well as in his 

close coordination with my Deputy and 

other Assistant Directors who also had extensive and sometimes daily contact with 

him, Eric always displayed total integrity, 

courageous leadership, complete fairness, 

and, once again and most importantly, political independence. 

Former Attorney General Bill Barr, 

former Deputy Attorney General 

George Terwilliger, and others wrote 

that: 

Mr. Holder’s 30-year professional career 

has consistently been characterized by unfailing integrity and a commitment to political independence . . . Eric Holder is the 

right man at the right time to protect our 

citizens in the critical years ahead. 

There is a powerful record behind 

Eric Holder of political independence. 

The measure of independence is not 

whether you decide against the President or your party on every question, 

every time; the measure is whether you 

decide against the President or your 

party when the facts and the law direct 

it. In my view, Eric Holder has met 

that standard. And in the view of Republican Attorney General and Deputy 

Attorney Generals and people who have 

served with distinction and know him 

well, they agree he has fully met that 

standard. 

I take the Senate’s role in the confirmation process very seriously. I believe the Judiciary Committee must 

and, under the leadership of Chairman 

LEAHY, will closely examine Mr. Holder’s record and his qualifications. It is 

our duty. At the end of that process, I 

believe the majority of colleagues will 

agree with me and with so many others 

that Eric Holder is the right person at 

the right time to restore our Department of Justice to its rightful standing 

as the defender of what is good and 

what is honorable and what is true in 

our Nation. 

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

The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will call the roll. 

The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll. 

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I ask 

unanimous consent that the order for 

the quorum call be rescinded. 

The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so ordered. 

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, it is my 

understanding we are in morning business. 

The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. We are. 

f 

NOMINATION OF ERIC HOLDER 

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, last 

month, President-elect Obama designated Eric Holder to be the next Attorney General of the United States. 

When President-elect Obama made this 

choice, there was virtual universal 

praise from both sides of the aisle. 

Republican ORRIN HATCH of Utah, the 

former chair of the Senate Judiciary 

Committee, said Eric Holder was ‘‘an 

excellent choice,’’ in his words, and 

that ‘‘I intend to support him.’’ My colleague, Senator JEFF SESSIONS of Alabama, said, ‘‘I think his instincts on 

law and order are good’’ and that he 

was ‘‘disposed to support’’ Eric Holder. 

Senator TOM COBURN of Oklahoma said: 

‘‘I think it’s a good choice.’’ 

It is not hard to see why the initial 

response to Eric Holder’s selection was 

so positive. After all, Mr. Holder had 

been confirmed unanimously by the 

Senate in 1997 for the position of Deputy Attorney General. 

As the No. 2 person at the Justice Department, Mr. Holder supported broadening the authority of independent 

counsel Ken Starr, a difficult decision 

that was criticized by many Democrats. Mr. Starr’s investigation led to 

the impeachment of President Clinton. 

And Mr. Holder recommended the appointment of a special prosecutor to investigate Interior Secretary Bruce 

Babbitt, a member of President Clinton’s Cabinet. 

Earlier in his career, Eric Holder had 

been appointed by President Ronald 

Reagan to serve as a judge. He was 

later appointed by President Clinton to 

be the U.S. attorney in Washington, 

DC. In that position, he earned a reputation for independence. He prosecuted public officials of both political 

parties during the 12 years he served as 

a career prosecutor in the Justice Department’s Public Integrity Section. 

So it is no wonder Mr. Holder’s nomination to serve as Attorney General 

was met initially with strong bipartisan praise. 

Unfortunately, some Senators are 

now questioning the character of Eric 

Holder. What has happened? Why the 

change? Why the initial positive reaction of a man who has served as a prosecutor, as a judge, as the No. 2 man in 

the Department of Justice, someone 

who has faced thousands of decisions, a 

person who was first appointed under a 

Republican President, then a Democratic President? Why this change? 

Well, it is attributable in part to 

someone who has surfaced again on the 

American political scene and has been 

very vocal in his criticism of Eric 

Holder. That person is Karl Rove. I am 

sure we all recall Karl Rove. He used to 

be President Bush’s top political strategist. Today he works as a high-priced 

political consultant. 

In a TV interview last month, Mr. 

Rove called Eric Holder ‘‘the one controversial nominee’’ among Presidentelect Obama’s Cabinet choices. A 

Washington Post reporter who had 

been covering the Holder nomination 

said in an interview: 

Word on the street is that Karl Rove is 

going to be helping lead the fight against 

Eric Holder when his nomination for Attorney General heads up to the Senate. 

That is unfortunate. I am confident, 

however, that at the end of the day, 

when Eric Holder comes before the 

Senate Judiciary Committee this week 

for his nomination hearing, he will answer the questions directly and show 

the Senate and the American people 

that he is an excellent choice to be our 

next Attorney General. 

I met with Eric Holder in my office 

last month. I had similar meetings 

with President Bush’s Attorney General nominees: Michael Mukasey, 

Alberto Gonzales, and John Ashcroft. 

In my meetings with all four of these 

nominees, I asked each of them about 

their views on issues that were central 

to the mission of the Department of 

Justice. I asked them about a variety 

of different issues: human rights, civil 

rights, civil liberties, national security, and access to justice. I tried to 

take the measure of each man, and to 

gain a sense of whether they would 

have the independence and integrity 

for the job. 

In my opinion, Eric Holder stood 

head and shoulders above the others. 

Let’s take one example, but a critically 

important example, the issue of torture. 

The late historian Arthur Schlesinger, Jr., said this about the torture 

policy of the Bush administration: 

No position taken has done more damage 

to the American reputation in the world— 

ever. 

Historian Schlesinger, of course, has 

written about the American history of 

the 19th and 20th centuries, and I think 

he understood as much if not more 

than others that some of the graphic 

scenes and details of torture under the 

Bush administration have created, unfortunately, sad memories among people across the world. 

Sadly, that policy of torture was 

aided and abetted by the last two Attorneys General. Instead of defending 

the rule of law, the Bush administration’s Justice Department set aside our 

treaty obligations and redefined torture with evasive words and with a 

wink and a nod. 

During his confirmation hearings, 

Gonzales told me it was legally permissible for the United States of America 

to subject detainees to cruel, inhuman, 

and degrading treatment. But cruel, inhuman, and degrading treatment are 

clearly prohibited by the Torture Convention, a treaty we ratified and are 

bound to obey. 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with SENATE