January 13, 2009 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE S321 

by the Franken campaign at the time 

they were trailing in the count, and 

the Canvassing Board granted the request without issuing any direction to 

ensure consistency among the counties 

in their review. A vast number of these 

ballots, which happened to generate 

more votes for Franken, were included 

in the Canvassing Board total. However, the board also refused to review 

over 160 ballots requested by the Coleman campaign. 

We can see there are obviously some 

issues to be resolved. The three-judge 

panel will be appointed. The campaigns 

will convene with the panel, set forth 

the ground rules for the election contest trial, and then that will occur. 

There are no stipulations for when 

the proceedings must be completed, 

and estimations are, at least from folks 

in Minnesota, that it could take a 

month, if not more. 

As a part of that context, the Coleman campaign has requested the review of hundreds more ballots that 

may have been wrongly rejected. Because of the size of the pool of ballots 

to be reviewed and the erroneous recount totals including questionable 

votes for Franken, Senator COLEMAN

has expressed confidence that the numbers will revert back to where they 

were on election night and his lead will 

be restored and then he would be declared the winner. 

Obviously, this is for the Canvassing 

Board and the court in Minnesota to 

resolve. It is not for us to prejudge the 

result at this time. Unfortunately, the 

majority leader and his staff have publicly stated they would try to seat Al 

Franken while the contest is still proceeding, despite the fact there is not a 

signed certificate, which is required of 

every Senator. This dates back to 1884. 

This action, of course, was blocked, 

and we presume the process will continue in regular order to await the result of the proceedings. 

It is true Al Franken attempted to 

declare himself the winner. Yesterday, 

the campaign requested the Governor 

and Secretary of State send him a certificate so he could be seated. But it 

was, of course, not granted because 

both officials indicated correctly that 

would directly violate State law. 

So we are left with the matter of a 

vacancy in Minnesota, with the issue 

to be resolved by the people in Minnesota, properly under their law, the 

Canvassing Board, and the three-judge 

court. For my part, I certainly hope 

this phase will not fall prey to inconsistencies and problems that have led 

some experts and newspaper editorials 

to claim the election process needs to 

be fundamentally reformed. If it is 

done in the proper way and due care for 

the evidence that is presented, then 

hopefully everyone will be satisfied 

with the result and willing to abide by 

that result. It will then come to the 

Senate, and we will seat the appropriate candidate. 

The Republicans ask for nothing 

more. We are certainly hopeful our 

former colleague and soon-to-be current colleague, Senator COLEMAN, will 

resume his seat. But that is for the 

process in Minnesota to determine, not 

for that to be determined in some arbitrary way in the Senate. 

The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Vermont. 

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, how 

much time is reserved for this side of 

the aisle? 

The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. There is 7 minutes 40 seconds. 

Mr. LEAHY. I thank the distinguished Presiding Officer, my good 

friend from Montana. 

f 

JUSTICE DEPARTMENT REPORT 

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, today we 

received a report from the Department 

of Justice’s Office of the Inspector General and Office of Professional Responsibility about their investigation of allegations of politicized hiring and 

other improper personnel actions in 

the Civil Rights Division. 

I held hearings on this situation. At 

the time, there was a Mr. Bradley 

Schlozman who testified. I stated, at 

the time, that I did not find his testimony credible. 

Today’s report confirms some of our 

worst fears about the Bush administration’s political corruption of the Justice Department. Not only did senior 

Republican appointees violate Federal 

law by hiring based on politics in the 

Civil Rights Division, they also lied 

about it. Indeed, they lied about it 

under oath when they were called to 

explain themselves to Congress. 

I am particularly disturbed about the 

findings that a senior Justice Department appointee, a very senior Justice 

Department appointee, Bradley 

Schlozman, made false statements 

under oath when appearing before the 

Senate Judiciary Committee. Lying to 

Congress undermines the very core of 

our constitutional principles and 

blunts the American people’s right to 

open and transparent Government. It is 

one thing to have a witness come and 

say they disagree with the Members of 

Congress. That is fine. Everybody has a 

constitutional right to do that. Nobody 

has a right to lie under oath. Nobody 

has the right to break the law. And 

certainly a senior member of the Justice Department should not be able to 

consider himself above the law. 

Not only did Mr. Schlozman lie to me 

and the Committee, but he then refused to cooperate with the Justice Department’s own internal oversight offices’ investigation into illegal hiring 

practices in the Department’s Civil 

Rights Division. The clear determination that he broke the law corrodes our 

trust in our system of justice and in 

the Nation’s top law enforcement agency. If somebody can break the law in 

our Nation’s top law enforcement agency, the Department of Justice, what 

does that say to the rest of Americans? 

His actions, in fact, undermine the 

very mission of the Department’s Civil 

Rights Division, which is charged with 

enforcing Federal law and prohibiting 

discrimination. 

A strong and independent Civil 

Rights Division has long been crucial 

to the enforcement of our precious 

civil rights laws, and experienced and 

committed career attorneys have always been the heart and soul of that 

Division. In the past, the people who 

worked there, no matter how much 

time you spent with them, you 

wouldn’t know if they were Republicans or Democrats. All you would 

know is that these folks, who are 

among the brightest and best lawyers 

in the country, are dedicated to serving 

the United States of America and upholding our laws. 

Contrary to those traditions, however, which we have had in both Republican and Democratic administrations, 

this report details troubling revelations of political appointees who 

marginalize and force out career lawyers because of ideology, and, corrupt 

the hiring process for career positions. 

It should come as no surprise that the 

result, and of course the intent, of this 

political makeover of the Civil Rights 

Division has been a dismal—a dismal— 

civil rights enforcement record. 

This report is just one of the final 

chapters in the regrettable legacy of 

the Bush administration at main Justice, and it reinforces the need for new 

leadership. 

Now, more than ever, it is necessary 

to confirm new leadership at the Justice Department, starting with Attorney General-designee Eric Holder. 

I compliment the Department’s Office of Inspector General. They did not 

allow politics to stand in their way. 

They went and investigated this situation. 

I do wish the current U.S. Attorney’s 

Office, appointed by this administration, had decided to prosecute someone 

for these deplorable acts. I think the 

only way you stop such blatant criminal violations, especially by people 

who know better, people who are sworn 

to uphold the law, is that they know 

they will go to jail for breaking the 

law. That is what should have been 

done. They broke the law in the Bush 

administration, and the Bush administration decided not to prosecute, and I 

think that raises real questions. Prosecution should be done no matter who 

breaks the law. 

I recall one of the people who testified in that same investigation who 

said: We swear an oath to President 

George Bush. I said: No, you swear an 

oath to uphold the Constitution. Mr. 

President, that Constitution is the 

Constitution you are sworn to uphold 

and I am sworn to uphold. It is a Constitution that reflects all Americans. 

The Government is not of a person; indeed, whether you support an individual or not, the Government is for all 

Americans. The Constitution is for all 

Americans. When somebody deliberately, purposely, sets out to subvert 

the Constitution of the United States 


smartinez on PROD1PC64 with SENATE
S322 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE January 13, 2009 

and then lies about it—lies about it, 

Mr. President—I find that a heinous 

crime. 

When we see some child who steals a 

car, they will be prosecuted, as probably they should. But when you have a 

key member of the Department of Justice who lies under oath, who subverts 

the Constitution of the United States, 

that is all the more reason to prosecute 

that person. What Mr. Schlozman did 

was reprehensible, it was disgusting, 

and it was wrong, but it also contradicts the very core of America’s 

principles. 

The distinguished Presiding Officer, 

like me, had the great opportunity to 

serve as a prosecutor, and I have every 

reason to believe he did not show fear 

or favor when he brought a prosecution, as I did not. I did not show fear or 

favor. Most prosecutors do not. Yet 

here we have somebody who is part of 

the Justice Department lie under oath 

and do it in a way to cover up and subvert the very laws that protect all of 

us. Our civil rights laws are on the 

books to protect all of us. It protects 

all of us—White, Black, brown—no 

matter what our race, our creed. It protects all of us. 

What has marked this country since 

the time I was a young lawyer in the 

1960s has been our adherence to those 

civil rights laws. We can’t go back to a 

time where they are enforced for some 

and not for others. 

Mr. President, I hope people read—I 

will not put it in the RECORD because it 

is available—this investigation of allegations of politicized hirings and other 

improper political actions in the Civil 

Rights Division of the Department of 

Justice. It is chilling. I am going to 

suggest that every new person coming 

into the Department of Justice read 

this investigation. It is a handbook— 

not of what to do—but a handbook of 

what not to do. 

Mr. President, I yield the floor, and I 

suggest the absence of a quorum. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. 

LIEBERMAN). The clerk will call the 

roll. 

The legislative clerk proceeded to 

call the roll. 

Mr. VITTER. 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 

TARP 

Mr. VITTER. Mr. President, yesterday, President Bush announced that he 

was sending to Congress formal notice 

regarding use of the second half of 

TARP, the Troubled Asset Relief Program. As you know, under that legislation, which Congress passed over my 

objection last year, once $350 billion of 

the fund—half of the fund—is spent, 

and the administration wants to begin 

spending the second half of the fund— 

the second $350 billion—the President 

has to formally notify Congress. Under 

the program, Congress has the opportunity to basically veto moving forward by affirmatively having to pass a 

resolution of disapproval. 

Again, President Bush took that first 

step of formally notifying Congress 

yesterday and today. 

I come to the Senate floor to announce that I am introducing a motion 

of disapproval, and I encourage my colleagues, Democrats and Republicans, 

to think very seriously about this matter and to join me in this motion of 

disapproval. In doing so, I am immediately joined by several colleagues, 

and I want to thank Senators BUNNING, 

SESSIONS, DEMINT, BARRASSO, and 

INHOFE for being original cosponsors 

with me of the resolution of disapproval. 

When we debated this very important 

matter on this floor several months 

ago, I expressed serious concerns. I will 

not go through my comments then or 

my concerns, but unfortunately, sadly, 

many of them—virtually all—have 

been proven true. The history of this 

program—the Troubled Asset Relief 

Program—has indeed been very troubled, very concerning, and it raises far 

more questions and hesitations than it 

provides answers for our ailing economy. So as we revisit this issue, I cannot support moving forward with this 

very troubled program, primarily for 

five reasons. 

First among those reasons is the 

most fundamental test we should bring 

to the matter: Has the program 

worked? I think it is very clear it has 

not worked. The purpose of the program was to ease the credit crisis. The 

entire focus of the program was to get 

credit on the streets of the American 

economy, to provide reasonable credit 

to consumers and businesses. Yet our 

economy is still gripped by a real credit crunch. So that fundamental purpose 

of the program, that fundamental test 

of the program has simply not been 

met. 

Now, Mr. President, in this new year, 

and under the new administration, we 

are going to debate and act on other 

measures, particularly the stimulus 

plan, a stimulus plan which will spend 

upwards of $1 trillion that Presidentelect Obama has talked about and 

begun to outline. Certainly, we must 

act on the economy. Certainly, we are 

in a very serious recession. Almost certainly, it is the most serious, the worst 

since World War II, and, certainly, the 

Federal Government needs to help lead 

the way, to be a big part of the solution to get us out of this deep financial 

recession. But as we move to a $1 trillion stimulus program, why are we 

going to simply continue with a program that hasn’t worked, spending another $350 billion? Again, as we mount 

trillions of dollars of new deficit spending, deficits upon deficits, debt upon 

debt, surely we should think long and 

hard about continuing another $350 billion of spending in a very troubled program which has not begun to meet its 

fundamental goal. 

The second reason I would suggest we 

should not continue down this path is 

that the entire program, as it was outlined to Congress, as it was explained 

to us by the Treasury Secretary and 

others, has never been implemented. It 

was thrown out the window even before 

it could begin to be implemented. As 

all of us remember, just a few months 

ago, when the Treasury Secretary proposed this idea before Congress, it was 

indeed supposed to be the Troubled 

Asset Relief Program under which the 

Government would buy troubled assets 

from a spectrum of financial institutions, get those assets off the books of 

the financial institutions, and make 

those institutions far healthier and far 

more able to extend credit to individuals and businesses across America. 

That was the beginning, that was the 

middle, and that was the end of the 

program. That was what every explanation, every presentation was about 

as the Treasury Secretary, the Chairman of the Federal Reserve, and others 

came to Capitol Hill to explain this 

program over several weeks. It wasn’t 

part of the program, it was the entire 

program. Yet within a couple of weeks 

of Congress passing the Troubled Asset 

Relief Program—again, over my objection—that plan was completely thrown 

out the window. Congress acts to pass a 

$700 billion spending program, forging 

completely new ground in terms of economic policy and the Government’s 

intervention in the market, and within 

a few weeks of that action, plan A is 

completely out the window and the 

Treasury Secretary sets about forming 

plan B and doing something fundamentally different than was presented to 

Congress. 

I have suggested over the last several 

weeks, along with my colleagues, that 

alone should make the administration 

come back to Congress and get reauthorization for what is a completely 

new program. That, again, is my second reason we should not continue the 

TARP and continue going down this 

path and spending the second $350 billion of this program. 

The third reason I would offer is 

closely related to the second. As I said, 

within 2 weeks of Congress passing this 

legislation, the whole program 

changed. The entire concept of buying 

troubled assets was out the window, 

and Treasury had a brandnew plan, 

which was never presented to Congress 

and never discussed in any level of detail. So what has happened is, the 

TARP has become a veritable slush 

fund for the administration to do whatever it wants with it, to use it in whatever way it wants. After throwing the 

TARP idea out the window, Treasury 

came up with a capital purchase program to purchase preferred stock and 

warrants of certain institutions. It also 

established a systematically significant failing institution program, allowing Treasury to invest in any financial 

instrument, including debt, equity, or 

warrants determined to be troubled assets. Now Treasury says it ‘‘continues 

to explore other programs, including 

those focused on insurance, foreclosure 


smartinez on PROD1PC64 with SENATE