January 13, 2009 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE S323 

mitigation, consumer lending, and 

more.’’ 

This program has no definition, it 

has no limits, it is whatever Treasury 

and the administration want it to be. 

It is a wide open slush fund for whatever the perceived need or want is of 

the moment. Of course, the best example of that is use of funds from this 

program for the auto bailout. After explaining for weeks that this program 

was not designed to do anything like 

the auto bailout, and use of these funds 

in an auto bailout would be completely 

inappropriate, the Bush administration 

then proceeded to use some of this 

money on the auto bailout. It is wide 

open. It has no limits. It has become a 

slush fund for whatever the administration believes it has to do at the moment. That is not a proper way to 

move forward in terms of remedying 

the economy. 

Fourth, we should end this program, 

and we should pass my resolution of 

disapproval because there has been no 

accountability whatsoever on this program. Remember, we spent a lot of 

time debating accountability months 

ago when this matter was before the 

Senate and before the House. There 

were all sorts of promises about accountability. There were all sorts of 

protections put in the bill regarding 

accountability. Yet what has that produced? That has produced the biggest 

embarrassment in terms of a lack of 

accountability, at least since Hurricane Katrina, and that is saying a lot. 

The GAO and other watchdog groups 

report that the Treasury Department— 

the Treasury Department in charge of 

this fund—cannot even tell us precisely 

how the first $350 billion has been 

spent. Treasury doesn’t know, much 

less the watchdogs of other protections 

Congress was supposed to have put in 

place. 

Now, we hear all sorts of promises 

and commitments from congressional 

leaders and leaders of the Obama transition that this is all going to change: 

There is going to be real transparency, 

there is going to be real accountability, and we are going to know 

where every penny goes. I don’t doubt 

for a minute the goodwill and the honesty of those pronouncements. I am 

sure the congressional leaders and 

folks in the Obama transition who say 

these things mean it and want it. The 

problem is, I think folks were equally 

as sincere a few months ago, and it produced absolutely nothing in terms of 

transparency and accountability and 

protection of taxpayers’ hard-earned 

tax dollars. 

Surely we should demand more than 

another round of promises. Surely at a 

minimum we need to see exactly what 

the plans for the second half of TARP 

are before we decide this matter. Surely we need to see the details of any new 

accountability program. Yet we have 

seen none of that. Yet we are scheduled, in the Senate, to vote on this resolution within days without having 

any ability to see those plans, to see 

those protections, to see those new accountability measures before the vote. 

We cannot accept that. We must pass a 

motion of disapproval and only consider continuing this type of program if 

it is represented to Congress with those 

protections, with those detailed plans. 

Finally, my fifth and final reason for 

urging all of my colleagues to join me 

in this resolution of disapproval is 

that, at its very core, TARP is a dangerous, heightened intervention of the 

Government in the private sector. 

Let me restate what I said a few minutes ago. We are in the midst of a horrible recession, which is still getting 

worse. It is almost certainly the worst 

recession since World War II. Clearly, 

the Federal Government needs to play 

a leadership role in helping the country 

and the economy turn the corner. I do 

not doubt that for a minute. But the 

sort of intervention of TARP and actions in the Treasury Department over 

the last several months are fundamentally different from any other economic policy actions we take here at 

the Federal level. It is picking winners 

and losers. It is getting involved, not in 

the direction of the economy but in individual companies, in individual potential bankruptcies, in individual 

mergers and deals and acquisitions. 

That is a level and type of intervention 

that is fundamentally different from 

broad fiscal policy, from broad monetary policy. It really is moving the line 

significantly in terms of Government 

intervention in the private sector. 

Going back to our original debate 

here in the Senate, that was one of my 

most fundamental reservations from 

the beginning with TARP, that type of 

detailed intervention—and, by the way, 

the invitation for malfeasance and corruption that it can bring when Government bureaucrats are making very important life-or-death economic decisions regarding individual firms and individual transactions. I do not think 

we should continue down that path. I 

think that path is riddled, littered with 

mistakes and troubling actions by the 

Federal Government picking winners 

and losers, getting involved in individual companies in a very direct 

way—individual transactions, putting 

the hand of the Government in the 

boardroom in that sort of really unprecedented way. 

I urge all of our colleagues, Democrats and Republicans, to think carefully about this issue. We had a significant debate when this first came to 

Congress several months ago, and we 

had several votes on the matter. Obviously, eventually it passed without my 

support. But since then, we have seen a 

lot, we have learned a lot, and a lot has 

changed. Since then, virtually all of 

the arguments against the program 

have been borne out and new concerns 

and new questions have arisen. They go 

to my five points. The program has not 

eased credit on the street. The entire 

premise of the program was thrown out 

2 weeks after Congress passed it. No. 3, 

it has become a catchall slush fund and 

the purpose and parameters of the program change week to week. No. 4, there 

has been no accountability; Treasury 

cannot even tell us today precisely how 

the first $350 billion was spent. No. 5, at 

its core this program is about Government intervention in a way we have 

not seen before, picking winners and 

losers. 

I urge my colleagues to join in this 

resolution of disapproval so we can 

start anew, so we can put new protections in place, so we can act on the 

economy but not simply continue down 

this path and spend another $350 billion, adding deficit on deficit, debt on 

debt, without a clear, positive result 

for American families. 

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

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The 

clerk will call the roll. 

The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll. 

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, I ask 

unanimous consent that the order for 

the quorum call be rescinded. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without 

objection, it is so ordered. 

f 

EXTENSION OF MORNING 

BUSINESS 

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, I ask 

unanimous consent that morning business be extended for 15 minutes, equally divided between the Republicans and 

Democrats. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without 

objection, it is so ordered. 

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, I then 

seek recognition under morning business. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The 

Chair is pleased to recognize the Senator from Maryland. 

f 

NOMINATION OF ERIC HOLDER 

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, I am 

honored to serve on the Judiciary Committee in this body. The last couple of 

years have been very difficult years in 

how the Department of Justice has 

been managed. We have seen abuses of 

civil liberties in the name of trying to 

protect the rights of our citizens when 

we have abused the rights of our citizens; we found the Department of Justice tried to justify the use of torture 

in this country; the manner in which 

detainees were treated; the politicizing 

of the Department of Justice—I could 

go on and on. 

I thank Eric Holder for being willing 

to serve the public once again as President-elect Obama’s nominee for the office of Attorney General of the United 

States. I think Eric Holder is the right 

person at the right time for the Department of Justice, and I hope his 

confirmation process will move forward. 

We need an independent Attorney 

General. During the Bush administration, we found that they politicized the 

Department of Justice in the firing of 

U.S. attorneys and in decisions as to 


smartinez on PROD1PC64 with SENATE
S324 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE January 13, 2009 

whether to proceed with criminal investigations. The list goes on and on. 

Eric Holder has demonstrated throughout his entire career the type of independence we need in the next Attorney 

General of the United States. 

Let me give you one example. When 

the Independent Counsel who was investigating the President of the United 

States asked for additional authority, 

Eric Holder was the one who made that 

recommendation to proceed even 

though it was not popular at all with 

the President of the United States. It 

is that type of independence that we 

need in the next Attorney General of 

the United States. He brings broad experience as former judge, former U.S. 

attorney, and from the private sector. 

We need to take politics out of the 

Department of Justice. During the 

Bush administration, we found that 

politics was very much interwoven into 

the personnel decisions made within 

the Department of Justice affecting career attorneys. That was not permitted, but it was done. We need the 

next Attorney General to be one who 

will make sure politics has no place in 

those types of personnel decisions. 

Again, Eric Holder’s career has 

shown his willingness to carry out his 

responsibilities in a nonpolitical way. 

He has handled major public corruption 

cases as a U.S. attorney against both 

Democrats and Republicans. He understands the responsibilities of the Department of Justice. 

We need our next Attorney General 

to reestablish the premier role of the 

Department of Justice in the Civil 

Rights Division. The Civil Rights Division historically has been the key 

agency to protect the civil rights of the 

people of this Nation. We need the next 

Attorney General to reestablish that in 

the Department of Justice. Once again, 

Eric Holder has demonstrated that sensitivity that will restore the role of the 

Department of Justice in protecting 

the voting rights of all Americans. 

The list goes on and on and on. Bottom line, the next Attorney General 

must restore the reputation of the Department of Justice. I believe he is the 

right person, but it is not only me. Let 

me read from some of the record that 

has been presented to the Judiciary 

Committee. 

Both law enforcement and civil 

rights groups support Eric Holder. The 

Fraternal Order of Police writes that: 

Our members reported that they found 

Judge Holder and U.S. Attorney Holder an 

able and aggressive prosecutor. 

The Leadership Conference on Civil 

Rights, which is a group of our major 

civil rights advocates in this country 

said: 

Mr. Holder’s various experience as a trial 

attorney, judge, prosecutor and lawyer in 

private practice make him uniquely qualified to run the Department of Justice. It 

would be difficult to find a candidate more 

experienced in the Department or better 

suited to lead it. His background will render 

him ready to lead the Department from day 

one. His even-mindedness and sound judgment will ensure that justice is dispensed 

fairly and equitably. His professional accomplishments and ability to put partisan politics aside make him above reproach. His 

commitment to the rule of law makes him 

the ideal candidate for the nation’s top prosecutor. 

Now, that is the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights, which, again, 

is comprised of the premier groups in 

this country that are out there fighting 

for the rights of the people of this 

country. 

I would also draw my colleagues’ attention to a January 7, 2009, letter received by the Judiciary Committee 

from several former high-level Department of Justice officials in the Republican administration. They write: 

We are pleased to be able to write in support of Eric Holder, a man who stands with 

the most qualified who have been privileged 

to be nominated to be Attorney General of 

the United States. President-elect Obama’s 

nomination of Eric as the historic appointment of the first African-American Attorney 

General should be hailed as a milestone. He 

is an extraordinary lawyer and an even better person. 

We need to move forward immediately in the leadership in the Department of Justice. I would urge my colleagues, let us move forward on the 

confirmation process as quickly as possible. I look forward to Eric Holder 

being the next Attorney General of the 

United States. I hope we will do that 

very shortly. 

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

The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. 

WHITEHOUSE.) The clerk will call the 

roll. 

The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Florida is recognized. 

Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the 

order for the quorum call be rescinded. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without 

objection, it is so ordered. 

The Senator will suspend for one moment. 

f 

CONCLUSION OF MORNING 

BUSINESS 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Morning 

business is closed. 

f 

DESIGNATING CERTAIN LAND AS 

COMPONENTS OF THE NATIONAL 

WILDERNESS PRESERVATION 

SYSTEM 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under 

the previous order, the Senate will resume consideration of S. 22, which the 

clerk will report. 

The legislative clerk read as follows: 

A bill (S. 22) to designate certain land as 

components of the National Wilderness Preservation System, to authorize certain programs and activities in the Department of 

the Interior and the Department of Agriculture, and for other purposes. 

Pending: 

Reid amendment No. 15, to change the enactment date. 

Reid amendment No. 16 (to Reid amendment No. 15), of a perfecting nature. 

Motion to recommit the bill to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, 

with instructions to report back forthwith, 

with Reid amendment No. 17, to change the 

enactment date. 

Reid amendment No. 18 (to the instructions of the motion to recommit), of a perfecting nature. 

Reid amendment No. 19 (to Reid amendment No. 18), of a perfecting nature. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Florida is recognized. 

Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak 

as in morning business. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without 

objection, it is so ordered. 

(The remarks of Mr. NELSON pertaining to the introduction of S. 22 are 

located in today’s RECORD under 

‘‘Statements on Introduced bills and 

Joint Resolutions.’’) 

f 

RECESS 

Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the 

Senate stand in recess under the previous order. 

There being no objection, the Senate, 

at 12:31 p.m., recessed until 2:15 p.m. 

and reassembled when called to order 

by the Presiding Officer (Mr. C

f 

ARPER). 

DESIGNATING CERTAIN LAND AS 

COMPONENTS OF THE NATIONAL 

WILDERNESS PRESERVATION 

SYSTEM—Continued 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico is recognized. 

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I 

suggest the absence of a quorum. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The 

clerk will call the roll. 

The legislative clerk proceeded to 

call the roll. 

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I ask 

unanimous consent the order for the 

quorum call be rescinded. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. 

SANDERS). Without objection, it is so 

ordered. 

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I ask 

unanimous consent to proceed as in 

morning business. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without 

objection, it is so ordered. 

ISRAEL AND GAZA

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I am 

here today to speak about the growing 

violence in Gaza. I support the United 

Nations Security Council resolution 

calling for an immediate and durable 

cease-fire. In my view, both the Israeli 

airstrikes and the Palestinian rocket 

attacks must stop immediately, and 

Israeli ground forces should withdraw 

from Gaza. I regret that President 

Bush chose to have the United States 

be the only Security Council member 

not to support this U.N. resolution. 

I ask unanimous consent that the 

full text of the U.N. resolution be 

printed in the RECORD. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without 

objection, it is so ordered. 


smartinez on PROD1PC64 with SENATE