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
S284 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE January 12, 2009 

I drafted legislation to overturn this 

Bush administration policy and make 

it clear that cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment is prohibited in all circumstances. I will tell my colleagues 

that my bill did not pass, but a virtually identical bill introduced by Senator JOHN MCCAIN, which I was proud 

to cosponsor, did pass overwhelmingly. 

It was obvious that Senator MCCAIN

was the right person to carry this 

issue. His experience as a detainee and 

prisoner of war during the Vietnam 

conflict gave him more credence on 

this issue than anybody else on the 

Senate floor. He stood and spoke not 

only for the American people but for a 

great tradition in American law. He 

was criticized and there were objections from Vice President CHENEY and 

others, but Senator MCCAIN’s position 

prevailed in the Senate. 

After Alberto Gonzales departed as 

Attorney General under a cloud of 

scandal, I had hoped that the Justice 

Department would be able to turn a 

new page with the nomination of Michael Mukasey. He had served as a Federal district court judge. He was an accomplished attorney. He was someone 

who I thought came to this job with 

the capacity to put perspective on 

some of the most contentious issues. 

During his confirmation hearing on the 

second day, I asked Mr. Mukasey a 

simple, straightforward question: Is 

the torture technique known as 

waterboarding legal? 

Now, waterboarding is a torture technique that was used as long ago as the 

Spanish Inquisition in the 15th century. Following World War II, the 

United States prosecuted Japanese 

military personnel as war criminals 

when they were accused of 

waterboarding U.S. prisoners. The 

Judge Advocates General, the highest 

ranking lawyers in the U.S. military, 

told me and testified unequivocally 

that waterboarding was illegal. But 

Mr. Mukasey, at his confirmation hearing for Attorney General, refused to 

answer my question and to this day 

still refuses to acknowledge that 

waterboarding is torture. 

President-elect Barack Obama has 

made it clear that he will reclaim 

America’s role as champion and defender of fundamental human rights. 

He said—and I quote my former Senate 

colleague, President-elect Obama: 

No administration should allow the use of 

torture, including so-called ‘enhanced interrogation techniques’ like water-boarding, 

head-slapping, and extreme temperatures. 

It’s time that we had a Department of Justice that upholds the rule of law and American values, instead of finding ways to enable 

the President to subvert them. No more political parsing or legal loopholes. 

I believe Eric Holder will fulfill the 

President-elect’s commitment. When I 

met with Mr. Holder, I asked him the 

same simple question I had asked Michael Mukasey: Is waterboarding illegal? Without hesitation, Mr. Holder 

looked me straight in the eye and 

said—and I quote—‘‘Senator, 

waterboarding is torture.’’ 

After hours of questioning Michael 

Mukasey on that simple, obvious fact 

when he refused to answer 

straightforwardly, here we have a 

nominee for Attorney General who has 

made it clear that America is going to 

return to the values we have held dear 

for generations, and I think returning 

to those values will help restore our 

position and credence in the world. 

Indeed, Mr. Holder has spoken out repeatedly about this issue—not just in 

meeting with me privately. For example, last June in a speech before the 

American Constitution Society he said: 

Our needlessly abusive and unlawful practices in the ‘‘war on terror’’ have diminished 

our standing in the world community and 

made us less, rather than more, safe. 

Alberto Gonzales, the former Attorney General, said the United States 

could engage in cruel, inhuman, and 

degrading treatment. Listen to what 

Eric Holder said during his speech to 

the American Constitution Society: 

We must declare without qualification that 

it is the law, policy, and practice of the 

United States Government that we do not 

torture people and we do not subject people 

to cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment. 

What a stark contrast from the evasive words we heard from Alberto 

Gonzales and the refusal of Attorney 

General Michael Mukasey to address 

this issue directly. 

I can assure my colleagues that Eric 

Holder will bring about a welcome 

change in the Department of Justice 

and a welcome change that our Nation 

is anxious to see. He possesses the experience, the wisdom, and the integrity 

to be an outstanding Attorney General. 

He is a leader who can rebuild the morale within the Justice Department 

and restore faith among the American 

people in this important agency. We all 

remember that chapter in the history 

of the Department of Justice when so 

many U.S. attorneys were 

unceremoniously dismissed from their 

positions, many of whom had never had 

any criticism leveled at them for their 

professional work. Questions have been 

raised over and over as to whether this 

was just a political move or what. The 

fact is, I am sure it took its toll on the 

morale of the department. We have a 

chance with Eric Holder to restore it. 

It is critical because without faith in 

our system of justice, our democracy is 

in danger. 

I wish to address one final matter 

that some of my Republican colleagues 

have talked about: the pardon of Marc 

Rich in the closing days of the Clinton 

administration. In January of 2001 

President Clinton issued a pardon for 

Marc Rich, who had been convicted of 

tax evasion and who had fled the country. Presidents have the power to issue 

pardons and commutations, and they 

seek the advice of the Justice Department on which requests to grant and 

which to reject. On January 19, 2001, 

the last full day of the Clinton Presidency, the White House called Eric 

Holder at the Justice Department to 

ask him his opinion about Marc Rich. 

Without spending much time examining the pardon request, Eric Holder 

indicated he did not oppose it. 

In retrospect, when I asked him directly in my office, Mr. Holder admitted that comment was a mistake. He 

acknowledged that the Rich pardon 

should not have been granted and that 

he should have sought the input of 

other Justice Department officials 

about this recommendation. It was a 

lapse in judgment, and Mr. Holder has 

openly acknowledged it. 

Now, many of us who have spoken 

out on the Senate floor have occasionally said things we wish we hadn’t said. 

We are, as a matter of course, given 

permission to revise and extend our remarks if we make a mistake, but it is 

rare in public life. Senators do it, Congressmen do it, and occasionally elected officials do it—to just say flat out, 

‘‘I made a mistake.’’ Eric Holder has 

been open and honest about that. I 

value that. In the thousands of decisions he faced as the No. 2 man in the 

Justice Department, there are only a 

handful that have even raised a question, and he has been open and honest 

in saying that this was not the right 

thing to do. 

There is probably no one in America 

more disappointed by that pardon of 

Marc Rich than the man who prosecuted him, James Comey. You may remember Mr. Comey; I sure do. He is a 

Republican who served for a few years 

as the Deputy Attorney General at the 

Justice Department under John 

Ashcroft. He was the one who stood up 

to President Bush and refused to authorize the President’s secret surveillance program during the critical period when John Ashcroft was hospitalized and Mr. Comey served briefly as 

the Acting Attorney General. Earlier 

in his career as an assistant U.S. attorney in New York, Mr. Comey was the 

prosecutor in charge of the Marc Rich 

case. He knows the case better than 

any of us. He strongly opposed the pardon of Marc Rich by President Bill 

Clinton, as did his colleagues in the 

U.S. Attorney’s Office in New York. 

However, Mr. Comey sent a letter to 

the Senate Judiciary Committee a few 

weeks ago in support of the nomination 

of Eric Holder. I wish to read from it. 

He said: 

I have come to believe that Mr. Holder’s 

role in the Rich and [co-defendant Pincus] 

Green pardons was a huge misjudgment— 

Mr. Comey wrote to the committee— 

one for which he has, appropriately, paid 

dearly in reputation. 

Mr. Comey went on to say: 

Yet I hope very much he is confirmed. I 

know a lot of good people who have made 

significant mistakes. I think Mr. Holder’s 

may actually make him a better steward of 

the Department of Justice because he has 

learned a hard lesson about protecting the 

integrity of that great institution from political fixers. I’m not suggesting errors of 

judgment are qualification for high office, 

but in this case, where the nominee is a 

smart, decent, humble man who knows and 

loves the department and has demonstrated 

his commitment to the rule of law across an 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with SENATE
January 12, 2009 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE S285 

entire career, the error should not disqualify 

him. Eric Holder should be confirmed as Attorney General. 

That statement of support is from 

James Comey, a Republican, and the 

chief prosecutor of Marc Rich who was 

entrusted with major responsibilities 

in the Department of Justice under 

President Bush. He is a man who knows 

that Department very well. 

Mr. Comey’s opinion is also shared by 

Larry Thompson, another prominent 

Republican who served for several 

years as Deputy Attorney General 

under President Bush. Mr. THOMPSON

had this to say about Eric Holder and 

the Rich pardon: 

There’s no way you can have a high-profile 

job in Washington like the deputy attorney 

general without attracting some kind of controversy. That matter has been fully investigated, and it should be put behind him. 

Let me also read the statement of another high-profile Republican, Ed Rogers, who served in two Republican 

White Houses. Mr. Rogers said: 

Under the Constitution, the President’s authority to pardon is unlimited. There was no 

deceit or malfeasance by Holder. Everyone 

knows this was Bill Clinton’s initiative. Eric 

Holder is innocent. 

Then he added: 

the Rich pardon is no bar to Eric Holder 

being an effective Attorney General—even 

though we Republicans and some in the 

media will enjoy rehashing it. 

You can question Eric Holder’s judgment in the Marc Rich case, but you 

can’t question his integrity, his independence, and his character. 

A few days ago the Senate Judiciary 

Committee received a letter of support 

for Eric Holder from 10 prominent Republican lawyers, including former Attorney General William Barr and 

former chief counsel to Senator ARLEN

SPECTER of Pennsylvania, Michael 

O’Neill. This is what the letter said: 

Due to his character and experience, Eric 

today enjoys the endorsement of literally 

thousands of law enforcement officials from 

across the country, including NAPO (the National Association of Police Organizations), 

NDAA (National District Attorneys Association), PERF (Police Executive Research 

Forum), NSA (National Sheriffs’ Association), NAAUSA (National Association of Assistant U.S. Attorneys), and NOBLE (National Organization of Black Law Enforcement Executives). . . . As former federal 

prosecutors and senior officials of the Department of Justice we are profoundly aware 

of the challenges that the Department and 

the country are facing. Eric Holder is the 

right man at the right time to protect our 

citizens in the critical years ahead. 

It is worth noting that Eric Holder 

also has the public support of former 

FBI Director Louie Freeh, as well as 

the National Fraternal Order of Police, 

which is the world’s largest organization of sworn law enforcement officers. 

One final point: Eric Holder is a historic selection. If confirmed, he would 

be the first African-American Attorney 

General in our Nation’s history. When I 

was growing up, there were laws in 

some States that prevented African 

Americans from drinking out of the 

same water fountains as Whites, attending the same schools, and using 

the same restrooms, restaurants, swimming pools, and other public accommodations. It is one more measure of 

how far America has come that we now 

have a chance to confirm a distinguished African American to be the top 

law enforcement officer in America. 

After 8 years of the Justice Department trampling the Constitution and 

often putting politics over principle, 

we now have a chance to confirm a 

nominee with strong bipartisan support who can restore the Justice Department to its rightful role as the protector of our laws and renew America’s 

faith in our system of justice. 

This week, before the Senate Judiciary Committee, on which the Presiding 

Officer also serves—we will have an opportunity to ask questions of Mr. Holder. I will be asking him many of the 

same questions I have asked of former 

Senator Ashcroft, Mr. Gonzales, and 

Mr. Mukasey. 

The answers, I am sure, will be significantly different, showing that we 

are about to launch a significant 

change in America, a change which the 

American people voted for overwhelmingly in November and a change that 

will be carried forward in a very positive way at the Department of Justice 

by Eric Holder as our next Attorney 

General. 

I yield the floor. 

f 

TRIBUTE TO MITCH MCCONNELL 

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President. I rise 

today to honor my good friend MITCH

MCCONNELL, the Senate minority leader whose strong leadership, sterling example and wise counsel have earned 

him an honored position within the 

ranks of the extraordinary public servants who now serve or have served in 

the U.S. Senate. 

Senator MCCONNELL is the second 

Kentuckian to lead his party in the 

U.S. Senate, the first being Senator 

Alben Barkley, who led Senate Democrats from 1937 to 1949. MITCH is now 

the longest-serving Republican Senator 

in Kentucky history, eclipsing the previous record held by the legendary Senator John Sherman Cooper. 

Today, Senator MCCONNELL has been 

serving as a U.S. Senator for almost a 

quarter century. During that time, 

four U.S. Presidents, scores of colleagues, and several crises have come 

and gone, but MITCH has carried on 

with courage, boldness and steadfastness. He has weathered the most turbulent political seas and has always been 

a calming influence on his Senate colleagues while at the helm. 

Few would have predicted that Senator MCCONNELL would have such staying power when he was first elected to 

the Senate in 1984 by a razor-thin margin—less than half a percentage point. 

But political pundits and prognosticators often only skim the surface or 

state the obvious and give short shrift 

to the characteristics that matter 

most in the making of an outstanding 

leader. 

In other words, they didn’t really 

know MITCH MCCONNELL. They didn’t 

know about how he overcame polio at 

age 2, undergoing an intensive therapy 

regimen at the Roosevelt Warm 

Springs Institute for Rehabilitation 

and obeying doctors’ orders not to 

walk or run for 2 years. That took determination, and MITCH showed that 

early on. 

Senator MCCONNELL’s service to his 

State and Nation is as varied as it is 

impressive. After serving as a student 

body president and graduating with 

honors at the University of Louisville 

College of Arts and Sciences in 1964, he 

went on to law school at the University 

of Kentucky, where he was elected 

president of the Student Bar Association and earned a law degree. 

He followed that by working as an intern for Senator John Sherman Cooper 

and as a chief legislative assistant to 

Senator Marlow Cook, which provided 

him with invaluable experience in 

Washington, DC. Other stints followed: 

He was deputy attorney general under 

President Gerald R. Ford and a county 

judge-executive in Kentucky until he 

was sworn in as a U.S. Senator on Jan. 

3, 1985. 

In whatever position Senator MCCONNELL has served, he has unfailingly 

served with distinction. I have had the 

good fortune of working with MITCH for 

years, dating back to his election as a 

freshman Senator, when he became the 

first Republican to win a statewide 

race in Kentucky since 1968. In fact, 

MITCH was the only Republican in the 

Nation in 1984 to defeat a Democrat incumbent. 

To his considerable credit, MITCH has 

been defying the odds ever since. For 

example, during his tenure as chairman 

of the National Republican Senatorial 

Committee during the late 1990s and 

early 2000s, the Republicans controlled 

the Senate—in large part due to his 

leadership. 

MITCH MCCONNELL is a conservative’s 

conservative who gets high marks from 

the American Conservative Union and 

all who know him. Moreover, he is a 

scholar and able defender of the Constitution and this great country. Knowing just how deadly terrorists can be, 

he is deadly serious about protecting 

America. He also is an outspoken advocate of the first amendment and a tremendous parliamentary tactician. 

When MITCH MCCONNELL talks, people 

listen and pay heed—almost always 

with excellent results. 

As good a Senator as MITCH is, he is 

an even better man—one who places 

principals above partisanship. His love 

for his State and our Nation is second 

to none. He also is loyal, honest and 

unflappable, which explains why he is 

held in such high esteem by his Senate 

colleagues on both sides of the aisle. 

MITCH is a devoted family man. He is 

the proud father of three beautiful 

daughters and the loving husband of 

outgoing U.S. Secretary of Labor 

Elaine Chao. And he is utterly devoted 

to the people of Kentucky he so ably 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with SENATE