S280 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE January 12, 2009 

Senator MCCONNELL has. They had 

great respect for our country. 

Last July, I brought onto the Senate 

floor a group of teachers of U.S. history. They were selected, one from 

each State, under a program that is 

called Presidential Academies for 

Teachers of United States History. 

Since a Senator may bring onto the 

floor before it convenes anybody he 

chooses, there were 50 of us here. I 

showed them Daniel Webster’s desk, 

which is right next to me. I talked with 

them about Henry Clay, and I showed 

them Jefferson Davis’s desk in the 

back. 

As you can imagine, these outstanding teachers were awestruck 

being on the floor of the Senate. They 

were the only ones here. After about a 

30-minute visit, one of them—I think it 

was the teacher from Oregon—said to 

me: Senator ALEXANDER, what would 

you like for us to take back to our students about this visit? 

I found myself saying: I hope you will 

tell them that I get up every morning— 

and I think most of us here do—and 

come to work hoping that by the end of 

the day, we can make this country a 

little better place. I am not sure what 

it looks like on television. I am not 

sure what it looks like on the front 

pages of the newspapers. But that is 

my motive, and that is the motive of 

most of us here. 

That has been the motive of Senator 

MITCH MCCONNELL of Kentucky. Yes, 

beginning his 25th year in the Senate is 

a rare distinction, especially because 

he is from a State that has produced so 

many outstanding Senators and a 

State that even today and through 

most of the last 24 years has been a 

very competitive State with Democrats 

and Republicans both having a chance 

to be elected. MITCH MCCONNELL gets 

up every day, comes into work—and it 

is usually very early—thinking about 

how to make this country a little better before the end of the day—and that 

is usually very late. That quality is 

even more important than his more 

than 24 years of service. 

Mr. President, I yield the floor. 

The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Republican leader is recognized. 

Mr. MCCONNELL. Mr. President, I 

thank my dear friend from Tennessee 

for being on the Senate floor today and 

for his overly kind comments about my 

tenure. We have indeed been friends for 

40 years. 

The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Wyoming. 

Mr. BARRASSO. Mr. President, it is 

a privilege today, and really a joy, to 

rise to join in the celebration of Senator MITCH MCCONNELL and his many 

terrific years of service to this country 

and to the people of the State of Kentucky. For those folks who watch from 

the gallery or watch at home, I will 

tell you what you see is what you get. 

He is kind, he is thoughtful, he is calm, 

he is patient, but I will also tell you he 

is persistent. You could not have a better friend in the Senate or in this life 

than MITCH MCCONNELL or his wonderful wife Elaine. 

We have heard a bit about the history of Kentucky, we have heard a bit 

about Wendell Ford, but when you put 

this into historical perspective and you 

do the searches and you see who the 

top names are in Kentucky when it 

comes to politics, the names that come 

up are Henry Clay, Abraham Lincoln— 

because he was born in Kentucky—and 

MITCH MCCONNELL. 

Now, Henry Clay was the greatest of 

the Old Senate Chamber. People who 

watched the swearing in of the Senators earlier this month saw Senators 

taking their oath in this Chamber but 

also going back for a reenactment in 

the Old Senate Chamber. In that Old 

Senate Chamber the names were Clay, 

Calhoun, and Webster. When one of 

them would rise to speak—and people 

would come from all around—they 

would say: Clay is up, Calhoun is up, 

Webster is up, and people would run. 

Well, today, the running occurs when 

people say: MITCH is on the phone; 

MITCH is calling. You want to know: 

How can I help? What are his ideas? 

You know they are good for the country. Henry Clay was called the great 

compromiser. He was called the great 

pacifier. Those names were given to 

him because of his ability to bring others to agreement. The exact same thing 

can be said of MITCH MCCONNELL in 

this, the new Senate Chamber. 

Now, Mr. President, we left that Old 

Senate Chamber in 1859 and moved to 

this beautiful Chamber, and this marks 

the 150th year of that move. There is 

actually a little booklet, the ‘‘United 

States Senate Chamber 1859–2009,’’ and 

it talks about when we left and made 

the procession. We have heard about 

some previous Kentucky Senators, but 

the Senator who gave the speech when 

we left that Senate Chamber in 1859 

was also from Kentucky. It was Senator John Crittenden, and some of his 

comments are in this booklet. 

Well, I will tell you, in the new Senate Chamber, since 1859—now 150 

years—MITCH MCCONNELL truly and 

clearly is the man of the Senate. Just 

like Henry Clay, he came from humble 

beginnings. We talk about humble beginnings, but few people know that 

MITCH MCCONNELL, at the age of 2, had 

polio. He was nursed back to health by 

his mother, who helped teach him how 

to walk and then how to run. It is 

through her hard work and his dedication and his persistence that he has become the man we know today. 

In early November of this past year, 

George Will wrote an article praising 

Senator MCCONNELL, but he quoted 

Abraham Lincoln, when he wrote: 

I hope to have God on my side but I must 

have Kentucky. 

I will tell you, Mr. President, for 

those of us on this side of the aisle, we 

must have MITCH MCCONNELL. The Senate would just not be the Senate. We 

have been blessed time after time after 

time that the people of Kentucky have 

seen fit to send MITCH MCCONNELL back 

to the Senate. 

In his speech when the Senate moved 

from the Old Senate Chamber to the 

new Senate Chamber, Senator 

Crittenden said: 

Senators are the representatives of 

the States of this mighty union. No 

matter under what sky we may sit; no 

matter what dome may cover us; the 

great patriotic spirit of the Senate of 

the United States will be there and I 

have an abiding confidence that it will 

never fail in the performance of its 

duty. 

Well, Mr. President, this applies to 

Senator MCCONNELL because his great 

patriotic spirit will always be here, and 

those who know him have an abiding 

confidence that he will never fail in the 

performance of his duty. 

Mr. President, Senator MCCONNELL is 

a champion. He is a champion for Kentucky and he is a champion for America; for a stronger America, a better 

America, a safer America, and an 

America where any boy or girl can, 

through hard work and persistence, 

grow up to be a leader of this great Nation. 

Mr. President, I yield the floor. 

The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Republican leader is recognized. 

Mr. MCCONNELL. Mr. President, I 

would like to express my deep appreciation to the Senator from Wyoming 

for his overly kind and very generous 

comments about my work here, and 

also say, Mr. President, to the people 

of Wyoming, how fortunate they are to 

have Senator BARRASSO representing 

them. 

I have seen a lot of new Senators 

come into this body over these 25 

years. I have never seen one make a 

mark quicker. So I know the people of 

Wyoming deeply appreciate their junior Senator. They demonstrated that a 

couple of months ago in the election, 

and they really could not have made a 

wiser choice. I value my colleague from 

Wyoming, and I thank him so much for 

his very kind and generous remarks. 

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

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

The legislative clerk proceeded to 

call the roll. 

Mr. INHOFE. 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. 

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I ask I 

be recognized as in morning business 

for such time as I shall consume. 

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

recognized. 

f 

TARP 

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I was 

somewhat shocked last October when 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with SENATE
January 12, 2009 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE S281 

the vote came up and actually 75 Senators in the Senate and about 75 percent of the House of Representatives 

voted to give an unelected bureaucrat 

$700 billion to do with as he wanted 

with no accountability. I believe that 

20 or 30 years from now, historians will 

look back and say that was the most 

outrageous vote, maybe in the history 

of these institutions. The administration has now requested the second $350 

billion sometime this week. 

If you are a reasonable person and 

were to assume that a major event in 

the financial world has prompted the 

negotiations that led to the decision to 

release the second $350 billion, you 

would be wrong. The true reason Congress may be asked to release the second $350 billion—it is just politics. It is 

a hot potato; nobody wants it, but they 

all want the money, and that is what 

we are faced with now. Again, no event 

in the financial world has prompted the 

request for the second $350 billion. 

I was critical of the Bush administration, and particularly of Secretary 

Paulson, since the October 10 vote giving Paulson, an unelected bureaucrat, 

$700 billion to do with as he wished. It 

is hard for me and it is hard for most 

Americans to understand, when they 

talk about these huge numbers—billion 

dollars and trillion dollars, whatever it 

means. But I think the time has come 

to count the actual number of families 

who file tax returns in America and, if 

you do your math, with your $700 billion it comes to $5,000 a family. That is 

what we are talking about. This is not 

a little deal. It is huge. I think, if people look at some of the things that 

have happened since then, it is the 

fault of passing the $700 billion bill; 

that precipitated all the problems we 

have. 

Congress is asked as an institution to 

prepare to say yes to the next $350 billion in deficit spending simply because 

we received a letter of assurances. I do 

not know what letters of assurance are, 

or what a letter of assurance is, but I 

suppose it is the same kind of assurance we got from Secretary Paulson 

when he said to us we have to have $700 

billion, and it has to be used to buy 

damaged assets. 

The letters of assurances are a bunch 

of promises on paper and that is not 

sufficient justification for this institution to let go of the $350 billion in taxpayers’ money. Congress needs to put 

itself back in the process when we are 

talking about this kind of money. That 

is why I introduced legislation, S. 64, 

with a bipartisan group of Senators. 

That says the executive branch can 

only have access to the remaining $350 

billion if Congress approves the submitted plan and votes on that plan. 

What is so bad about that? This is 

the way we have been doing business 

for years and years. The administration will make a request. That is what 

they do in the budget process. It comes 

to Congress. We evaluate that and determine whether we, who are elected 

representatives, believe it is something 

that should take place. 

We have already seen the legislation 

we passed last fall is a blank check for 

one person to do whatever he wants 

with billions of dollars. Take, for instance, the auto bailout. The interesting thing about the auto bailout is 

everyone expressed all this outrage 

over the auto bailout. I said back in 

October, when 75 percent of the Members of the House and the Senate voted 

to give Secretary Paulson $700 billion 

to do with as he wished: Who is going 

to be next in line to be bailed out? I 

suggested aviation, then the auto industry and farmers and everybody else. 

That is exactly what did happen. So 

those people who expressed such outrage with the auto bailout should stop 

and realize, if it had not been for that 

vote to turn loose and turn over $700 

billion, that could not have happened. 

People talk about whatever it was, 

$15 billion or whatever it was in the 

auto bailout. That only constituted 2 

percent of the $700 billion. That is what 

we have to keep our minds on, as to 

what precipitated the problem we have 

now. 

We were told what was going to be 

done with the money. Paulson came to 

us in September and said if we didn’t 

immediately come through with $700 

billion—that is what he said it would 

take to buy bad assets—the total economy would collapse. It was a panic scenario. 

Then the plans changed and Paulson 

began—and this happened right after 

he got his hands on the $700 billion. He 

didn’t use it to buy damaged assets. He 

used it to pass out to various financial 

institutions—banks. It is my belief the 

rationale for releasing any more of the 

$700 billion no longer applies. As a matter of fact, a prominent economist 

from the Reagan administration last 

Wednesday said the first $350 billion 

did absolutely no good, in terms of 

dealing with the recession we are currently in. 

It was clear to me at the time it was 

a mistake to sign a blank check to one 

man for such a tremendous amount of 

money. Although there are still significant challenges in the financial markets, it appears the threat of the financial crisis spinning so out of control 

that we face another Great Depression—which was the original justification for the grant of such sweeping authority—has subsided. Has the need to 

allow one person, whether it is Secretary Paulson or Timothy Geithner, 

to give away hundreds of billions of 

taxpayers’ dollars to banks subsided as 

well? That is a question that needs to 

be asked, and that answer is yes. 

I fully understand the severity of the 

ongoing financial crisis that erupted in 

this past year. I am fully aware of the 

need to take extraordinary actions in 

such situations. From the rescue of 

Bear Stearns in March to the announcement of the bank equity purchase program in mid-October, to two 

bailouts for AIG, to hundreds of billions extended to Citigroup, the U.S. 

Government has, indeed, undertaken 

extraordinary efforts to calm financial 

markets. However, it is clear to me and 

many of my colleagues that the Treasury accessing the remaining $350 billion would do little to fix the recession 

we are in now. 

It is time for the U.S. Government to 

cease announcements of new programs 

or plans designed to inject confidence 

in markets. Moreover, I think confidence would be better instilled by 

halting the announcement of new billion dollar programs designed to fix 

markets. I understand the need to 

move in accordance with changing conditions. I simply think the time has 

come to stop having the Government 

trying to fix markets. The markets are 

going to have to fix themselves. 

That is going to take some time. It is 

not going to be a pleasant process, but 

we are fooling ourselves if we think we 

can come up with some easy shortcut 

to solving these problems. 

One of the major causes of this crisis 

was the accumulation of far too much 

debt on the part of some financial institutions. The U.S. Government can 

make the same mistake. We are now 

anticipating an astounding $1.2 trillion 

deficit this year alone, and that is before any accounting of the roughly $800 

billion stimulus proposal. 

I can remember so many people in 

this body criticizing President Bush on 

his deficits. If you take the total deficits in the Bush administration and 

add them up and divide by 8, the years 

he has been in there, the average is $247 

billion. Now we are looking at $1.1 trillion. 

This massive debt accumulation 

poses a serious threat to future stability and economic growth. We are on 

track to have a budget deficit this year 

that exceeds the size of the entire Federal budget only a few years ago. However, we can immediately make 

progress on reducing that deficit 

amount by not releasing the $350 billion. That is something that deserves 

sufficient debate. 

Finally, as a fiscal conservative, the 

thing that concerns me about the $700 

billion bailout is it permanently 

changed the perception about what is 

‘‘big’’ in big government from now on. 

What is another $50 billion here or another $100 billion there, after we give 

$700 billion to banks? What is the big 

deal about a trillion dollar deficit or 

$800 billion stimulus package or a 

multibillion health care proposal or 

whatever plan is dreamed up around 

here to spend the taxpayer money on, 

once we gave $700 billion to an 

unelected bureaucrat with no oversight. We have simply lost our perspective. People now think that the 

amount has changed. 

I will close by noting the cost of the 

following defining events in the 20th 

century, much our shared history, and 

compare them with the $700 billion 

bailout, to hopefully bring a little perspective to the debate over the request 

for the second half of the $700 billion 

bailout. 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with SENATE
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