[Congressional Record Volume 155, Number 20 (Monday, February 2, 2009)]
[Senate]
[Pages S1243-S1265]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]


       NOMINATION OF ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., TO BE ATTORNEY GENERAL

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senate will 
proceed to executive session to consider the following nomination which 
the clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read the nomination of Eric H. 
Holder, Jr., of the District of Columbia, to be Attorney General.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, there will be 3 
hours of debate equally divided and controlled between the Senator from 
Vermont and the Senator from Pennsylvania or their designees.
  The Senator from Vermont is recognized.
  Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, I thank the distinguished Presiding 
Officer and appreciate her being here. We are starting a minute or so 
late. It is my fault. When I saw my friend from Pennsylvania, the 
distinguished ranking member, come out, we had to have some discussion 
of last night's Super Bowl game. It was one of the most spectacular 
ones. He feels even more spectacular than Senators from some other 
States--any other State--because his State won.
  I think it is also a spectacular day because the Senate is 
considering President Obama's historic nomination of Eric Holder to be 
Attorney General of the United States.
  The Judiciary Committee voted last week to report Mr. Holder's 
nomination to the Senate for consideration. That strong, bipartisan 17 
to 2 vote in favor was a statement that members from both sides of the 
aisle recognize that Mr. Holder has the character, integrity and 
independence to be Attorney General. It is a statement that we all want 
to restore the integrity and competence of the Justice Department and 
to restore another critical component--the American people's confidence 
in Federal law enforcement. The broad support Mr. Holder's nomination 
has from law enforcement, from advocates for crime victims, from civil 
rights organizations and from across the political spectrum comes as no 
surprise to those of us that have known of Eric Holder during his 
decades of dedicated public service.
  After more than 2 months of scrutiny and consideration, I was pleased 
to see Mr. Holder's nomination gain the support of such a large 
majority from the Judiciary Committee. I thank all the Democratic 
members for their thorough consideration of this nomination. In 
particular, I thank our newly assigned members for following the 
hearings and participating in our deliberations without missing a step. 
I thank the Republican members, as well. I had said that Senators could 
vote for or against the nomination and two Senators determined to vote 
no, as is their right. With respect to the six Republican members who 
ended up supporting the nomination, I note that Senator Hatch, a former 
chairman of the Judiciary Committee, did so early on. Then, in the last 
days the ranking Republican member of the committee, another former 
committee chairman, as well as Senator Grassley, Senator Sessions, a 
former U.S. attorney and State attorney general, Senator Kyl, the 
Republican whip, and Senator Graham came to support the Holder 
nomination. In my three and a half decades in the Senate, I have never 
seen a nominee as qualified as Eric Holder to serve as the Nation's top 
law enforcement officer.
  The need for new leadership at the Department of Justice is as 
critical today as it has ever been. Over the last few years, political 
manipulation from the White House has undercut the Justice Department 
in its mission, and shaken public confidence in our Federal justice 
system.
  The Judiciary Committee expended a good deal of effort over the last 
2 years to uncover scandals at the Department of Justice. Former 
Attorney General Gonzales and virtually every top-ranking Department 
official resigned during our inquiry. Likewise, Karl Rove and his White 
House political deputies resigned.
  Before the November election, I coauthored an article with our 
ranking Republican member. We wrote that the next Attorney General 
``must be someone who deeply appreciates and respects the work and 
commitment of the thousands of men and women who work in the branches 
and divisions of the Justice Department, day in and day out, without 
regard to politics or ideology, doing their best to enforce the law and 
promote justice.'' I have every confidence that Eric Holder is such a 
person.
  Mr. Holder's designation was greeted with delight by the career 
professionals at the Justice Department because they know him well. 
They know he is the right person to restore the Department. They know 
him from his 12 years at the Public Integrity Section, from his time as 
the U.S. attorney for the District of Columbia, from his tenure on the 
bench, and from his years as the Deputy Attorney General, the second-
highest ranking official at the Department. His confirmation will do a 
great deal to restore morale and purpose throughout the Department.
  It is important that the Department also have the rest of its senior 
leadership in place without delay. This week, we will hold a hearing 
for the Deputy Attorney General nominee, and I will soon notice 
hearings for the other members of the Justice Department leadership 
team.
  I wished we could have moved even more quickly to put the new 
leadership in place at the Department at a time when we face serious 
challenges and threats. When President Bush nominated Michael Mukasey 
in 2007 to the Attorney General's seat vacated by the resignation of 
Alberto Gonzales, Senator Jon Kyl said:

       Since the Carter administration, attorney general nominees 
     have been confirmed, on average, in approximately three 
     weeks, with some being confirmed even more quickly. The 
     Senate should immediately move to consider Judge Mukasey's 
     nomination and ensure he is confirmed before Congress 
     recesses for Columbus Day.

  Well, it has been more than twice that long since Mr. Holder's 
designation and three times that long since reports of his impending 
nomination. Our consideration was delayed because I accommodated 
requests from the ranking Republican member and committee Republicans 
and postponed the hearing until January 15 and then they postponed 
consideration another week through procedural objections.
  Mr. Holder spent more than nine hours testifying before the Judiciary 
Committee at his hearing 2\1/2\ weeks ago, answering every question any 
member of the Judiciary Committee, Republicans and Democrats, chose to 
ask him. All Senators were accorded such time as they needed in three 
extended rounds of questioning to ask whatever they chose.
  Despite that extended hearing and a second day of hearings with 
public witnesses that I convened at the request of our Republican 
members, in the week after the hearings 12 Senators sent Mr. Holder 125 
pages of extensive follow up questions. He has answered these 
questions--more than 400 of them--as well.

  I asked for the cooperation of all members to debate and vote on Mr. 
Holder's nomination on the day after the President's inauguration but 
instead, as is his right, the ranking Republican member held over the 
nomination for another week. I was, as I said, extremely disappointed. 
I did not schedule that markup until I had consulted with the Senator 
from Pennsylvania first. Indeed, he had assured me that he would not 
hold the matter over. Yet he joined with the Republican members of this 
committee in a unanimous request to hold over the nomination. Senator 
McCain was right last week when he said about the President's Cabinet 
nominations:

       We shouldn't delay. . . . We had an election, and we also 
     had a remarkable and historic [inauguration], and this nation 
     has come together as it has not for some time.''

  He concluded that he understood that ``the message that the American 
people are sending us now is they want us to work together and get to 
work.''
  Regrettably the Republican members of the Judiciary Committee did not

[[Page S1244]]

hear or act on that message 2 weeks ago. I am glad that they changed 
course last week and that so many of them have come to support the 
nomination.
  Yet even after receiving strong bipartisan support in the committee, 
a handful of Senate Republicans chose to delay yet again confirming 
this well-qualified nominee to his vital post. We could and should have 
debated Mr. Holder's nomination and confirmed him last week, but some 
Senators on the other side of the aisle seem unable to resist 
continuing their partisan tactics of obstruction and delay.
  President Obama in his inaugural address spoke about the real 
challenges facing the country and the American people. He urged that we 
all work for the common good and ``proclaim an end to the petty 
grievances'' and ``recriminations'' and that we ``set aside childish 
things.''
  President Obama is right. There is work to be done. There are real 
threats. There are abuses to be undone and rights that need to be 
restored. We need to get on with the task of remaking America.
  Eric Holder is a good man, a decent man, a public servant committed 
to the rule of law. He will be a good Attorney General. Republicans 
know this. They heard from him at his hearing. They have heard the 
endorsements of former FBI Director Louis Freeh, President Bush's 
homeland security adviser Fran Townsend, Senator Warner of Virginia, 
Senator Hatch, Senator Martinez, and the many Reagan and Bush 
administration officials who have endorsed his nomination. They have 
seen the endorsements from the National Association of Police 
Organizations, the Fraternal Order of Police and the entire law 
enforcement community.
  I would like to put into the Record a list of the more than 130 law 
enforcement and criminal justice organizations, civil rights 
organizations, victims' advocates, legal practitioners, bar 
associations, and current and former public officials that support 
Senate confirmation of Mr. Holder's nomination. These letters from 
nearly every part of the political spectrum are in the committee's 
hearing record and available for any Senator to read.
  Judge Louis Freeh, a former Director of the Federal Bureau of 
Investigation who testified before the committee in support of Mr. 
Holder, said that Mr. Holder ``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.'' Judge Freeh was ``honored to give 
him my very highest personal and professional recommendation.'' Former 
Attorney General William Barr and nine Republican lawyers and former 
officials wrote to the committee in support of Mr. Holder's nomination. 
They noted ``that not only is Eric superbly qualified to be Attorney 
General, but he is truly a good man.'' They further urged ``his rapid 
confirmation as our next Attorney General of the United States.'' James 
Comey, the Deputy Attorney General under President George W. Bush and 
before that prosecutor in charge of the Marc Rich case and the criminal 
investigation into the Marc Rich pardon, described Mr. Holder as ``a 
smart, decent, humble man, who knows and loves the Department and has 
demonstrated his commitment to the rule of law across an entire 
career,'' and urged his confirmation.
  The endorsement from the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights and a 
number of civil rights organizations expressed ``strong support for the 
historic nomination of Eric Holder to the position of Attorney General 
of the United States,'' citing Holder as ``among the most qualified 
nominees for Attorney General in the last fifty years and . . . 
uniquely suited to lead the Department at this moment in time.'' The 
endorsement noted that: ``The nation urgently needs an Attorney General 
dedicated to restoring the independence and integrity of the 
Department, with an unquestionable commitment to the Constitution and 
the rule of law. Eric Holder is the right person for this job.''
  Nearly every major law enforcement organization has expressed support 
for Mr. Holder, including the National Association of Police 
Organizations, NAPO, and the Fraternal Order of Police, FOP. The 
National Sheriffs' Association highlighted Mr. Holder's ``outstanding 
record of public service in his role as a federal prosecutor, a trial 
judge, the United States Attorney for the District of Columbia and the 
Deputy Attorney General for the Department of Justice.'' The National 
Troopers Coalition urged Mr. Holder's ``speedy confirmation to the 
office of Attorney General'' and wrote that he ``presents a 
distinguished career as a prosecutor, Superior Court Justice and Deputy 
Attorney General. This unmatched experience will prove to be invaluable 
in directing our law enforcement efforts at this difficult time in 
history.''
  Chuck Canterbury, the national president of the FOP, testified in 
support of Mr. Holder's nomination, saying that Mr. Holder is ``not 
only well qualified but possessing in excess the requisite character, 
knowledge, and skills to do this job and be an extremely effective 
leader for the Department.''
  Fran Townsend, President Bush's homeland security adviser, also 
testified and said:

       I am not here because I believe that, if confirmed as 
     Attorney General, Eric Holder will decide legal issues 
     necessarily in the same way that I would. On the contrary, I 
     expect that there would often be times where this is not the 
     case. I am here because I believe Eric is competent, capable, 
     and a fair-minded lawyer who will not hesitate to uphold and 
     defend the laws and the Constitution of the United States.

  Ms. Townsend also pointed to the dangers of delay in confirming Mr. 
Holder as Attorney General. She testified:

       The Attorney General position must be filled quickly. We 
     remain a nation at war and a nation that faces the continuous 
     threat of terrorist attack. We cannot afford for the Attorney 
     General position to sit vacant or for there to be a 
     needlessly protracted period where the leadership of the 
     department is in question.

  I do not know why Republican Senators who supported the confirmation 
of Alberto Gonzales without any reservation slowed the consideration of 
the nomination of Eric Holder. He meets and exceeds any fair standard 
for confirmation. And at this time in our history, with the challenges 
we face, we need to move forward and confirm the new Attorney General 
and the leadership team at the Justice Department.
  Mr. Holder has demonstrated that he is committed to restoring the 
rule of law, and, as President Obama said, ``to reject as false the 
choice between our safety and our ideals.'' I am more convinced than 
ever that Eric Holder is a person who will reinvigorate the Department 
of Justice and serve ably as a key member of the President's national 
security team. He will pursue the Justice Department's vital missions 
with skill, integrity, independence and a commitment to the rule of 
law.
  I remember when the senior Senator from Pennsylvania took the 
occasion of the confirmation hearing for John Ashcroft to be Attorney 
General to apologize to Judge Ronnie White of Missouri for the manner 
in which his nomination to the Federal court had been rejected in a 
party-line vote of Senate Republicans.
  I remember when the senior Senator from Utah and I had to labor for 
weeks to overcome the anonymous Republican hold on the Senate floor of 
Mr. Holder's nomination to be the Deputy Attorney General in 1997. 
Regrettably, after celebrating the Martin Luther King Jr. holiday and 
the inauguration of Barack Obama as the 44th President of the United 
States, the Judiciary Committee treated Mr. Holder's nomination to be 
Attorney General to the tactics of the past--more delay, more 
obstruction, more partisan muscle flexing. I am pleased that this week 
those who sought to delay and were considering opposing had second 
thoughts. Perhaps the unifying spirit of President Obama's inauguration 
had a delayed effect, perhaps it was the overwhelming support for the 
nomination, perhaps it was the qualities and qualifications of the 
nominee himself. Whatever the reason, I am glad to see so many Senators 
heed President Obama's call and perhaps heard the echo of President 
Lincoln's first inaugural address and were ``touched . . . by the 
better angels of [their] nature.''
  I questioned Mr. Holder at his hearing and he gave his commitment to 
respect the second amendment right to bear arms as an individual right 
guaranteed by our Bill of Rights. I asked him to work with me on a 
media shield

[[Page S1245]]

law, and he said that he would do so. I asked him about revitalizing 
the Freedom of Information Act, and he was agreeable. President Obama 
took action on that score in his first full day in office, and once 
confirmed, Attorney General Holder can bring that policy to fruition so 
that the Federal Government is more open to the American people.

  I asked about anticrime initiatives, strengthening the Violence 
Against Women Act and defending the Voting Rights Act. On all these 
matters he was straightforward and supportive. I look forward to 
working with him to provide greater Federal assistance to State and 
local law enforcement and to aggressively target fraud and public 
corruption. He said that his priorities will be the safety and security 
of the American people and reinvigorating the traditional work of the 
Justice Department in protecting the rights of Americans.
  Mr. Holder has had a long and distinguished career in public service. 
His willingness to leave a lucrative private law practice and forego 
extensive earnings in order to return to public service at a time when 
judges are leaving the Federal bench because of their salary 
constraints, is commendable.
  We need an Attorney General, as Robert H. Jackson said 68 years ago, 
``who serves the law and not factional purposes, and who approaches his 
task with humility.'' That is the kind of man Eric Holder is, the kind 
of prosecutor Eric Holder always was, the kind of Attorney General he 
will be, and the kind of family person he is. I met his wife and his 
family and his wonderful children, and they show what a person he is. 
The next Attorney General will understand our moral and legal 
obligation to protect the fundamental rights of all Americans and to 
respect the human rights of all people.
  It is important that the Justice Department have its senior 
leadership in place without delay. The Attorney General is the top law 
enforcement officer in the country and a key member of the national 
security team. With the Bush administration having devoted billions to 
bailouts in the last few months, we need to ensure that those resources 
are not diverted by fraud or deceit. We need the Justice Department to 
be at its best.
  The responsibilities of the Attorney General of the United States are 
too important to have had this appointment delayed by partisan 
bickering. We have known and worked with Mr. Holder for more than 20 
years. He has been nominated by a Republican President and by a 
Democratic President and confirmed three times by the Senate to 
important positions over the last 20 years. His record of public 
service, his integrity, his experience and his commitment to the rule 
of law merit our respect and deserve our support.
  Republicans over the last months sought to make comparisons to other 
confirmation hearings at other times, and even to those for lifetime 
appointments to the Supreme Court. These comparisons are inappropriate. 
For example, the circumstances of the Ashcroft nomination were very 
different. The country at that time was deeply divided, and those 
divisions had been inflamed by the manner by which the Supreme Court 
had intervened to stop the counting of ballots in Florida and decide 
the outcome. Just before Christmas, President-elect Bush had further 
accentuated the divide by his polarizing designation of John Ashcroft 
to be Attorney General. By contrast, we have just experienced the 
historic election of Barack Obama. President Obama has made numerous 
efforts already to be inclusive and to reach across the political 
aisle.
  His selection of Eric Holder 2 months ago was greeted by nearly 
universal acclaim. The domestic and economic challenges to our country 
in recent years have been the most serious since the Great Depression. 
In recognition of those circumstances, Democrats expedited 
consideration of President Bush's nomination of Michael Mukasey to be 
Attorney General. Democrats scheduled a hearing quickly and did not 
hold the nomination over when it was scheduled for consideration. Those 
of us who were troubled by his unwillingness to acknowledge that 
waterboarding is torture voted no, but we were not dilatory. We did not 
play partisan political games.
  My fundamental concern with President Bush's nomination of his White 
House counsel Alberto Gonzales was that he would not be independent of 
the White House. I did not oppose that nomination in a kneejerk, 
partisan reflex. Indeed, I initially hoped that he would be an 
improvement over the Ashcroft years. I met with Mr. Gonzales, raised 
the issue in my initial statement at his confirmation hearings and gave 
him opportunity after opportunity to demonstrate that he understood the 
role of the Attorney General. He did not. Ultimately I opposed that 
nomination. History proved me right. At the time, not a single 
Republican Senator was concerned. They all voted in favor of the 
Gonzales nomination. If that nomination met their standard for 
consideration, all of them must support Mr. Holder's nomination.
  Unlike Mr. Gonzales, Eric Holder understands the responsibilities of 
the Attorney General of the United States, and the need to uphold the 
law and act in the interests of the American people, and not just the 
President. Unlike Mr. Ashcroft, he admitted past errors and has learned 
from his mistakes. Unlike Judge Mukasey, he recognizes that 
waterboarding is torture and that the legal opinions of the Bush era 
need to be reviewed and revised where they are found to be wrong. If an 
American were waterboarded by some government or terrorist anywhere in 
the world, it would be torture and illegal. It would not ``depend on 
the circumstances'' as the Bush Attorneys General maintained.
  I recall the incident that Jane Mayer wrote about in her book ``The 
Dark Side.'' During a meeting of top White House officials like Vice 
President Cheney, National Security Adviser Rice, the CIA Director and 
the Attorney General, in which they were hearing the details of what 
the Bush administration liked to call ``enhanced interrogation 
techniques,'' Attorney General Ashcroft is quoted as warning: ``History 
will not judge us kindly.''
  The Senate should proceed to confirm President Obama's nomination of 
Eric Holder without further delay. We must have leadership in place at 
the Justice Department to begin the vital work that must be done to 
carry out the Executive orders signed by President Obama last week that 
will finally put an end some of the Bush administration's most damaging 
national security policies. These orders call for the Attorney General 
to coordinate comprehensive interagency reviews of the Guantanamo Bay 
Detention Facility by the State Department, Director of National 
Intelligence, Homeland Security Department and Joint Chiefs of Staff 
and to chair task forces with the DNI and Department of Defense 
reviewing interrogation and detention policies. We need Mr. Holder in 
place as Attorney General to carry out these orders and put the 
government's detainee policies on a solid legal footing for the first 
time in many years.
  I do not want another Attorney General who sits in the room while 
others in our Government approve the secret wiretapping of Americans in 
violation of our laws, or approve torture.
  I want an Attorney General who stands up for the rule of law and our 
long-cherished American values. I believe Eric Holder will be that kind 
of Attorney General.
  The rationales for holding up and opposing this nomination have 
shifted over time, since Karl Rove called for partisan opposition. Now 
it seems that some Republican Senators want the Nation's chief 
prosecutor to agree that he will turn a blind eye to possible 
lawbreaking before investigating whether it occurred. Senator 
Whitehouse is quite right that what Senator Cornyn and others are now 
asking for is a pledge no prosecutor should give. No Senator should 
demand such a bargain for his vote. Senators can vote in favor or they 
can ignore the needs of the country and the qualifications of the 
nominee and vote against, but no one should be seeking to trade a vote 
for such a pledge.
  When he designated Mr. Holder, President Obama said:

       The Attorney General serves the American people. And I have 
     every expectation that Eric will protect our people, uphold 
     the public trust, and adhere to our Constitution.

  I have no doubt that Mr. Holder understands the serious 
responsibilities of the Attorney General of the United

[[Page S1246]]

States and that his experience and integrity will serve him and the 
American people well.
  Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to have the list of 130 
supporters of the nomination of Eric Holder that I mentioned earlier 
printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

  Letters of Support for the Nomination of Eric Holder To Be Attorney 
                      General of the United States


                   current & former public officials

       Asa Hutchinson, former U.S. Attorney, Republican 
     Congressman, Undersecretary for Homeland Security in Bush 
     Administration; Bob Barr, Former Congressman; Carla Hills, 
     former Assistant Attorney General, Civil Division, former 
     U.S. Trade Representative; Carol Lamm, former President of 
     the District of Columbia Bar; Charles La Bella, former US 
     Attorney; Chris Wray, former Assistant Attorney General, 
     Criminal Division; Dan Bryant, former Assistant Attorney 
     General, Office of Legal Policy and Office of Legislative 
     Affairs; Congressional Black Caucus; Craig S. Morford, former 
     Acting Deputy Attorney General.
       GOP Lawyers: William P. Barr, Former Attorney General; 
     Joseph E. diGenova, Former United States Attorney for the 
     District of Columbia; Manus M. Cooney, Former Chief Counsel, 
     Senate Judiciary Committee; Stuart M. Gerson, Former Acting 
     Attorney General, Former Assistant Attorney General; Makan 
     Delrahim, Former Staff Director, Senate Judiciary Committee 
     and Former Deputy Assistant Attorney General; Michael J. 
     Madigan, Former Federal Prosecutor and Chief Counsel, Senate 
     Special Investigations, Committee on Government Affairs; 
     Michael O'Neill, Former Chief Counsel/Staff Director, Senate 
     Judiciary Committee and Former Commissioner, United States 
     Sentencing Commission; Victoria Toensing, Former Deputy 
     Assistant Attorney General and Former Chief Counsel, Senate 
     Intelligence Committee; George J. Terwilliger, III, Former 
     United States Attorney for the District of Vermont and Former 
     Deputy Attorney General; Charles R. Work, Former Federal 
     Prosecutor and Former President, District of Columbia Bar.
       James B. Comey, former Deputy Attorney General; John P. 
     Sarcone, Polk County Attorney, Iowa; Karen Tandy, former 
     Administrator, Drug Enforcement Administration; Larry D. 
     Thompson, former Deputy Attorney General; Louis J. Freeh, 
     Judge and Former FBI Director; Paul McNulty, former Deputy 
     Attorney General, former U.S. Attorney; Sheila Jackson-Lee, 
     Congresswoman, Eightheenth District, Texas.
       State Attorneys General: Arizona, Arkansas, California, 
     Colorado, Connecticut, Florida, Georgia, Hawaii, Idaho, 
     Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine, 
     Maryland, Massachusetts, Mississippi, Montana, Nebraska, 
     Nevada, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, Oklahoma, Rhode 
     Island, South Dakota, Tennessee, Utah, Vermont, Washington, 
     West Virginia, Wyoming.
       Theodore B. Olsen, former Solicitor General and Assistant 
     Attorney General, Office of Legal Counsel; United States 
     Conference of Mayors; Luis G. Fortuno, Governor of Puerto 
     Rico; Kenneth L. Wainstein, former Assistant to the President 
     for Homeland Security and Counterterrorism.


            Law Enforcement & Criminal Justice Organizations

       American Probation and Parole Association; Federal Law 
     Enforcement Officers Association; Fraternal Order of Police; 
     International Association of Chiefs of Police; International 
     Union of Police Associations; Major Cities Chiefs 
     Association; National Association of Assistant U.S. Attorneys 
     ; National Association of Blacks in Criminal Justice; 
     National Association of Drug Court Professionals; National 
     Association of Attorneys General; National Association of 
     Police Organizations (NAPO); National Black Prosecutors 
     Association; National Crime Prevention Council; National 
     Criminal Justice Association; National District Attorneys 
     Association; National Law Enforcement Officers Memorial Fund, 
     Inc.; National Narcotics Officers' Associations' Coalition; 
     National Organization of Black Law Enforcement Executives; 
     National Sheriffs Association; National Troopers Coalition; 
     Police Executive Research Forum.


                           Victims' Advocates

       Anne Seymour, National Crime Victim Advocate ; Appriss; 
     Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence; Dan Levey, National 
     President of Parents of Murdered Children, Inc (POMC), 
     Advisor for Victims to Arizona Governor Janet Napolitano; 
     Illinois Victims; International Organization for Victim 
     Assistance; Justice Solutions, NPO; Maryland Crime Victims' 
     Resource Center, Inc.; Mothers Against Drunk Driving (MADD); 
     National Center for Missing and Exploited Children; National 
     Center for Victims of Crime; National Crime Victims Research 
     & Treatment Center; National Leadership Council for Crime 
     Victim Justice; National Network to End Domestic Violence; 
     National Network to End Violence Against Immigrant Women; 
     National Organization for Victim Assistance; National 
     Organization of Victims of ``Juvenile Lifers''; Partnership 
     for Safety and Justice; Security on Campus; Sharon J. 
     English, Homicide Victim Survivor, Crime Victim Services 
     Advocate.


                       Civil Rights Organizations

       American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee; Anti-
     Defamation League; Asian American Justice Center; Center for 
     Neighborhood Enterprise; Leadership Conference on Civil 
     Rights, December 18, 2008 (signatories: Leadership Conference 
     on Civil Rights, Alliance for Justice, American Federation of 
     Labor and Congress of Industrial Organizations, Americans for 
     Democratic Action, Inc., Asian American Justice Center, 
     Center for Inquiry, Feminist Majority, Human Rights Campaign, 
     The Judge David L. Bazelon Center for Mental Health Law, 
     Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights Under Law, National 
     Abortion Federation, National Association for the Advancement 
     of Colored People, NAACP Legal Defense & Education Fund, 
     Inc., National Council of Jewish Women, National Council of 
     La Raza, National Fair Housing Alliance, National Health Law 
     Program, National Partnership for Women & Families, National 
     Organization for Women, National Urban League, People for the 
     American Way, Planned Parenthood Federation of America).
       Leadership Conference of Civil Rights, January 14, 2009 
     (additional signatories: A Network for Ideas & Action; 
     American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees; 
     American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee; Americans United 
     for Change; Association of Community Organizations for Reform 
     Now; Campaign for America's Future; Center for Community 
     Change; Center for the Study of Hate & Extremism; Coalition 
     of Labor Union Women; Coalition of Human Needs; Common Cause; 
     Communications Workers of America; DC Vote; Family Equality 
     Council; GLSEN--The Gay, Lesbian and Straight Education 
     Network; International Union, United Automobile, Aerospace, & 
     Agricultural Implementation Workers of America; League of 
     United Latin American Citizens; Mexican American Legal 
     Defense and Educational Fund.
       National Asian Pacific American Bar Association; National 
     Association of Human Rights Workers; National Black Justice 
     Coalition; National Center for Lesbian Rights; National 
     Center for Transgender Equality; National Coalition for Asian 
     Pacific American Community Development; National Council of 
     Negro Women; National Education Association; National 
     Employment Lawyers Association; National Gay and Lesbian Task 
     Force Action Fund; National Network to End Domestic Violence; 
     National Women's Law Center; Parents, Families and Friends of 
     Lesbians and Gays National; Progressive Future; Service 
     Employees International Union; Sikh American Legal Defense 
     and Education Fund; U.S. Public Interest Research Group; 
     Unitarian Universalist Service Committee; United Food and 
     Commercial Workers International Union; USAction; Wider 
     Opportunities for Women; Women Employed).
       Leadership Conference of Civil Rights, January 14, 2009 
     (signatories: Wade Henderson and Nancy Zirkin);Mexican 
     American Legal Defense and Educational Fund; National 
     Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP); 
     National Women's Law Center; People for the American Way; 
     Southern Poverty Law Center; National Council of Asian 
     Pacific Americans.


                            Other Supporters

       African-American Partners at Covington & Burling, LLP: 
     Thomas S. Williamson, Jr., Michael St. Patrick Baxter, 
     Catherine J. Dargan, Jennifer A. Johnson, Lisa Peets, Loretta 
     Shaw-Lorelle.
       Boys and Girls Clubs of America; City of Mendota 
     California; Hispanic National Bar Association; John Walsh, 
     Host of America's Most Wanted; Mario Thomas Gaboury, J.D., 
     Ph.D., Professor and Chair of Criminal Justice, University of 
     New Haven, Ct.; National Bar Association; Partners of Color 
     in Washington, D.C. Firms; Samuel M. Aguayo, M.D., Staff 
     Physician at the Atlanta Veterans Affairs Medical Center; 
     Young Lawyers Section of the Bar Association of the District 
     of Columbia; Washington Bar Association; Wesley S. Williams, 
     Jr., former Partner, Covington & Burling, LLP; Karen Hastie 
     Williams; retired Partner, Crowell & Moring, LLP; Stanley V. 
     Campbell, Jr., CEO of Business Intel Solutions.

  Mr. LEAHY. I reserve the remainder of my time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Pennsylvania is recognized.
  Mr. SPECTER. Madam President, I begin today as I began my opening 
statement on the confirmation hearing of Mr. Holder as Attorney 
General-designate. I begin today with the statement that I wish to be 
helpful to President Obama in his new administration and to reach 
across in a bipartisan fashion to help the President restructure the 
Department of Justice. In so doing, the beginning point of reference is 
the Constitution, which places upon the Senate the responsibility to 
confirm. That involves, under the principles of checks and balances, 
inquiry into the nominee, which has been undertaken in the Judiciary 
Committee.
  There is a sharp distinction between the Attorney General and other 
Cabinet officers. Other Cabinet officers carry out the President's 
programs and his policies. But the Attorney General has an independent 
responsibility to

[[Page S1247]]

the people to uphold the rule of law. That is a very important quality. 
We have seen, historically, some Attorneys General who have succeeded 
admirably in that responsibility. Elliot Richardson, for example, 
refused to fire Archibald Cox at the direction of President Nixon on 
the infamous Saturday Night Massacre. Richardson himself resigned. 
Griffin Bell, Attorney General for President Carter, stood up to the 
President, who wanted him to initiate a certain criminal prosecution 
that Attorney General Bell thought was inappropriate, and he laid down 
the marker: If the President wanted that prosecution brought, he would 
have to find himself a new Attorney General.
  Other Attorneys General have not fared so well. Attorney General 
Daugherty of the Teapot Dome fame was sharply criticized in that 
scandal, although later he was personally exonerated. Attorney General 
Homer Cummings in the Roosevelt administration, author of the so-called 
court-packing plan, did not display the kind of independence that was 
requisite. And I expressed my own concerns about Mr. Holder on a series 
of matters he handled as Deputy Attorney General.
  Beyond any question, Mr. Holder brings an extraordinary resume to 
this position, an excellent academic record, including Columbia for his 
undergraduate degree and law school; he served as U.S. attorney for the 
District of Columbia; he was a District of Columbia Superior Court 
judge; he served as a Deputy Attorney General and as a partner in a 
prestigious law firm handling many important matters.
  One recommendation in favor of his nomination I found particularly 
weighty was the recommendation of former FBI Director Louis Freeh. I 
have a very high regard for former Director Freeh. I knew him and 
worked closely with him on the Judiciary Committee on FBI matters and 
especially closely during the 104th Congress when I chaired the 
Intelligence Committee. Director Freeh was sharply critical of Mr. 
Holder on a number of items that were concerns of mine. Notwithstanding 
that, Director Freeh recommended Mr. Holder for the job.
  There is the infamous case of the Marc Rich pardon. He was a man who 
was a fugitive from justice, a man who had violated the Federal law, 
selling arms to Iran. Yet he was given a pardon out of the ordinary, 
without going through regular channels. That was a pardon to be 
rejected by any standard, in my opinion. Mr. Freeh characterized the 
pardon as corrupt. I cannot be any stronger than that. The corrupt act 
was in granting the pardon, not in Mr. Holder's recommendation of 
``neutral, leaning favorable.'' But that was beyond the realm of what 
would ordinarily be considered prudent and independent.
  Mr. Freeh was also critical of Mr. Holder on the FALN terrorist 
commutation of sentences. The FALN terrorists robbed banks and 
committed murders and were released from jail on the recommendation of 
Mr. Holder. There again, Mr. Freeh was very critical. Nonetheless, he 
recommended Mr. Holder for Attorney General.
  The failure to appoint independent counsel in the investigation into 
Vice President Gore for an alleged violation of campaign finance laws, 
raising money from the White House--Director Freeh characterized it as 
one of the strongest possible grounds for appointing independent 
counsel, and the Department of Justice, with Mr. Holder's 
participation, declined to do so. Still, Mr. Freeh recommended the 
confirmation of Mr. Holder.
  Also, there is the strong recommendation of former Deputy Attorney 
General James Comey, a man whom I also worked with in the Department of 
Justice, which was weighty, as was the strong recommendation of former 
Secretary of Transportation William Coleman.
  So with all of those factors considered, it seemed to me that Mr. 
Holder was entitled to the benefit of the doubt and President Obama's 
nominee ought to be confirmed. It was for that reason that I voted aye 
in recommending Mr. Holder for action by the full Senate.
  I think, too, at the beginning of an administration it is significant 
to have bipartisan support. I commented at the committee level that 
when Senator Leahy or his ranking member supported the confirmation of 
Chief Justice Roberts, that was a signal of bipartisan support, which 
was important and another factor that weighed in my consideration.
  I had discussed with Mr. Holder the issue of how to handle possible 
prosecutions against individuals who may have been engaged in 
waterboarding, where that question has been raised in some quarters. 
Mr. Holder went about as far as he could, saying that if there is a 
valid legal opinion and there is action within the confines of the 
opinion, that would weigh heavily against prosecution. Obviously, all 
of these matters are very much fact-determinative. I think those 
assurances go about as far as one can go.
  I also questioned Mr. Holder about the recognition of the differences 
in interrogation techniques of the Army Field Manual, contrasted with 
that of the FBI, which is stronger, and then again contrasted with the 
CIA, which may be a little stronger yet, and that all of those factors 
had to be considered in evaluating the interrogation tactics, depending 
upon the rule and the circumstances.
  I expressed my concerns to Mr. Holder about the Department of Justice 
policy on extracting really what amounts to coercion of a waiver of the 
attorney-client privilege, where the Department goes in and deals with 
the corporation and secures a waiver of the attorney-client privilege, 
subjecting employees to losing their privilege, in the context where 
the Department threatens more severe charges or stronger recommendation 
on sentencing. This practice began with the Holder Memo in 1999 and was 
carried through in the so-called Thompson Memo and then the McNulty 
Memo, and legislation is pending which would change that.
  In my view, there are two very basic principles involved. One is the 
obligation of the commonwealth government to prove its case beyond a 
reasonable doubt and, secondly, the right to counsel. An indispensable 
ingredient of right to counsel is a privilege, to be able to 
communicate freely to an attorney. When I was district attorney of 
Philadelphia, handling very complex, tough prosecutions, many involving 
governmental corruption, I would never have dreamed of trying to prove 
my case out of the mouth of the defendant. I believe Mr. Holder will 
look at this with a conciliatory attitude as we work on that 
legislation through the Congress.
  I also talked to Mr. Holder about the issue of reporters' privilege. 
Judith Miller of the New York Times spent 85 days in jail--I visited 
her in a jail in Virginia--for failing to disclose confidential 
informants when the source of the information was known. Mr. Holder 
also acknowledged the extensive authority of the Congress under 
standards defined in the congressional research memorandum, which I 
provided to him, and gave assurances that he would be available to talk 
to the minority as well as to the majority on matters of concern.
  For all these reasons, I am pleased to move ahead at this time to 
lend my support to the confirmation of Attorney General-designate Eric 
Holder.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Vermont.
  Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, I was about to yield--we do our normal 
back and forth--to the Senator from Illinois. I understand the Senator 
from Oklahoma has a time constraint, if the Senator from Pennsylvania 
would like to yield time off his side to him.
  Mr. SPECTER. Yes, I am prepared to yield time. Senator Cornyn is next 
on the list. How much time would the Senator from Oklahoma like?
  Mr. COBURN. Madam President, short of 15 minutes; probably 15 
minutes.
  Mr. SPECTER. I yield that time to Senator Coburn.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from Oklahoma is recognized.
  Mr. COBURN. Madam President, I thank the chairman for his 
graciousness, and I thank the ranking member.
  Last week in the Judiciary Committee, I voted against the nomination 
of Eric Holder. I was not, because of time constraints, offered the 
opportunity to express my reasoning and logic for that opposition. 
Today, I rise to explain my opposition and to urge others to share my 
concerns to do the same.

[[Page S1248]]

  I have high praise for Eric Holder as an individual and as a lawyer. 
I believe certain aspects, however, of his record disqualify him as 
serving as Attorney General. I plan on outlining those in this talk 
before the Senate today, specifically, his facilitation of the Marc 
Rich pardon, his defense as reasonable of the FALN terrorists' 
commutations, in addition to his views on the first amendment and 
second amendment, specifically his answers with respect to the fairness 
doctrine.
  Eric Holder has spent most of his distinguished career as a public 
servant. By all accounts, he is a brilliant lawyer. His nomination was 
met with high praise from both sides of the aisle. His intellect and 
ability have been noted throughout his career, and they were duly noted 
in his appearance before the Senate Judiciary Committee.
  Moreover, I believe him to be a man of good character. The long line 
of individuals who have voiced support for his nomination speaks to the 
high regard in which he is clearly held. In our private meeting, I 
found him to be personable and kind. He is undoubtedly a good man.
  These good qualities, however, are not enough to overcome the 
concerns I have with this nomination. In particular, four issues have 
caused me to conclude that Eric Holder should not be given the 
assignment as the next Attorney General of the United States. I believe 
these matters suggest he lacks judgment, that he lacks independence, 
and my concern is that he now, from his testimony, lacks candor for 
such an important job.
  Eric Holder's role in facilitating the controversial pardon of 
fugitive financier Marc Rich is perhaps the most notorious blight on 
his record. Even now, 10 years later, the condemnation of that pardon 
is strong. Indeed, not even Mr. Holder will defend his actions, telling 
the committee it was a naive mistake.
  Eric Holder's involvement in this unconscionable pardon suggests he 
has dangerously poor judgment or he has an inability to say no to 
powerful political pressure. As Deputy Attorney General, he 
orchestrated an end run around the Justice Department, ignoring the 
advice of prosecutors and career professionals who opposed clemency for 
Marc Rich. Although pardoning a fugitive was extremely rare, the 
candidate appeared to have no qualms with the proposition.
  While he acknowledges his role in this pardon as a mistake, Mr. 
Holder offers a curious explanation for the error. He told the 
committee he was not familiar with Rich's record at the time of the 
pardon. First of all, I find this to be unbelievable, as the facts 
suggest otherwise.
  Just a few years before the pardon, when Holder was U.S. attorney for 
the District of Columbia, his office sued one of Rich's companies after 
an extensive investigation into contract fraud. The complaint that was 
filed in that case and comments that were made to the press make it 
almost impossible to believe Eric Holder was unfamiliar with Rich at 
the time of the pardon.
  Moreover, given that Rich had been featured as one of the FBI's top 
10 most wanted fugitives, it is even harder to believe Mr. Holder did 
not become familiar with the man in the 15 months that passed between 
the time he was first contacted by Rich's lawyer and the day clemency 
was issued.
  To say that this pardon was a mistake is an understatement of the 
worst kind. As others have pointed out, the best thing Eric Holder 
could have done for himself and his boss would have been to oppose the 
pardon and convince President Clinton not to issue it.
  While I readily acknowledge mistakes are inevitably made by us all, I 
find the excuse for this one implausible. Eric Holder is a bright and 
contentious lawyer. At the time of the Rich pardon, he had served for 3 
years as Deputy Attorney General. In short, he should have known 
better. Because he allowed his good judgment to be overridden by 
political influence, I believe this act alone should suffice to 
disqualify him from higher office.
  Although the Marc Rich pardon may have been the best known act of 
controversial clemency in Eric Holder's record, the commutation of 
sentences for 16 FALN terrorists became an issue of equal, if not 
greater, concern throughout the hearing. The FALN organization had been 
linked to 150 bombings, threats, kidnappings, and other events which 
resulted in the deaths of at least six Americans and the injury of many 
more between 1974 and 1983. It is not hard to understand why these 
commutations were strongly opposed by the U.S. attorney, the FBI, the 
pardon attorney at the Department of Justice, as well as the victims' 
families. What is hard to understand is why Eric Holder chose to ignore 
those opinions and instead facilitate clemency for these convicted 
terrorists.
  New information discovered just before the hearing revealed that Eric 
Holder played an active role in securing these commutations. According 
to the L.A. Times, ``Holder instructed his staff at Justice's Office of 
the Pardon Attorney to effectively replace the department's original 
report recommending against any commutations, which had been sent to 
the White House in 1996, with one that favored clemency for at least 
half the prisoners.''
  Unlike the Rich pardon, Holder has embraced his role in endorsing 
these commutations. He told Senator Sessions during our committee 
hearings that the decision was reasonable and has stood 
unapologetically by that statement, even when it was proven that he 
knew very little about the terrorists or their crimes at the time of 
the commutations.
  Perhaps no one is as angry about Holder's role in this incident, or 
about his elevation to this distinguished office, as Joseph Connor, 
whose 33-year-old father was murdered when the FALN bombed the New York 
City restaurant where he was eating lunch. Mr. Connor was 9 years old. 
He has written numerous editorials and gave compelling testimony at our 
hearing about how devastating and indefensible these commutations were. 
I quote him:

       We Americans have to make clear that we will not tolerate 
     officials who would put our lives in jeopardy by releasing 
     terrorists. It is a disrespectful affront to all Americans, 
     particularly to those of us who have come face to face with 
     their violence.

  Mr. Connor's testimony struck a chord with me due to my own 
experiences with domestic terrorism. Having dealt with the shock and 
the aftermath of the Oklahoma City bombing, which happened prior to the 
FALN commutations, I can relate to the grief and anger felt by the 
family member of a victim murdered senselessly by terrorists. I have 
seen the devastation these acts of violence inflict on a community and 
especially on the families they most directly impact. I have heard from 
the many law enforcement officers who work the scene, gather the 
evidence, and tend to the victims. I have witnessed the long and 
difficult process of prosecution, conviction, and sentencing. I know 
that bringing perpetrators to justice is a crucial part for these 
families' healing process.
  I cannot imagine how all those things would come undone if justice 
were undermined, as it was in the FALN case.
  The danger of commuting the sentences of terrorists responsible for 
the murder of American citizens and intent on killing even more is 
obvious. I will not recount those concerns here, but to help give a 
voice to Joe Connor and to the many other surviving family members of 
terrorist victims, I ask that our colleagues consider the effect these 
decisions had on them. We are accountable to each and every one.
  Eric Holder also raises another concern with me and that is his 
hostility to the second amendment. I heard our chairman speak earlier 
about how he said he would uphold the second amendment, but when 
queried directly and specifically about components of the second 
amendment, the answers were not forthcoming.
  As Deputy Attorney General, he advocated restrictive gun control 
legislation, such as waiting periods, an age limit, that a soldier 
coming back from Iraq could not own a shotgun because he wasn't 21 yet, 
a registration for every gun in this country, the elimination for me to 
be able to give my shotgun to my grandson when it is time to teach him 
to go hunting. All those things he has espoused limiting the second 
amendment.
  While he has advanced those restrictions as a member of the Clinton 
administration, working under Attorney General Janet Reno, he remained 
active in anti-gun advocacy after he entered the private sector. After 
the attacks of September 11, he authored an

[[Page S1249]]

op-ed for the Washington Post, entitled ``Keeping Guns Away from 
Terrorists.''
  I will not go through the details of that piece, but the details of 
what he purports to support would have a devastating impact on the 
second amendment in this country.
  Perhaps the most telling and unsettling aspect of Mr. Holder's anti-
gun record is the signing of an amicus brief in the Supreme Court's 
seminal second amendment case, in which he argued that the Constitution 
did not protect an individual's right to bear arms. I believe he 
actually believes that--that we don't have the right. He now tells us 
that is settled with the Heller case. But on further query, we get 
tremendously nervous about his support for the second amendment. The 
Supreme Court rejected his view on the second amendment unanimously.
  His statement in our hearing that he respects Heller as the law of 
the land does not provide enough assurance on his commitment to defend 
the second amendment. It is neither controversial nor instructive to 
make such a statement. What matters are his views on specific proposals 
for gun control legislation and regulation.
  At his hearing, I used the vast amount of my time in three rounds of 
questioning to try and extract opinions from Eric Holder on the second 
amendment. In his testimony, he advocated a permanent ban on so-called 
assault weapons, an age restriction on handgun possession--again, many 
of our troops returning home and out of the military after 2 years 
would not be able to have a handgun because they are not 21--and 
closing the gun show loophole. What that means is I cannot sell a gun 
to one of my neighbors without a background check on my neighbor. I 
cannot actually sell a piece of material I have to someone without 
going through a gun check, or I cannot even sell it to my brother.
  He refused to commit to defending State right-to-carry laws. There 
are more than 40 States that have these laws. He was questioned over 
and over and would not answer affirmatively that he would use the power 
of the attorney to uphold the second amendment.
  He repeatedly testified that gun regulation was not a priority for 
either he or the administration. Consistently, Mr. Holder has 
unapologetically embraced his anti-gun views. Yet at his confirmation 
hearing, he would not tell us what those views were.
  He has been a vocal gun control advocate in the past, both in his 
official and individual capacities. He was not candid on the second 
amendment issue, an issue he has followed for years, as he was on 
interrogation techniques, an issue which he could not possibly have 
enough information to prejudge.
  After an extensive review of his record and his testimony, I have 
concluded that Eric Holder as Attorney General will not defend--not 
adequately defend--the second amendment.
  Finally, I have serious doubts as to whether Eric Holder is committed 
to defending the first amendment against threats such as the so-called 
fairness doctrine. This policy existed for decades before being 
abolished in 1987 and rightly so. Today, the concept has been revived 
and the threat of Government censorship over the airwaves is again a 
real possibility.
  At our hearing, Eric Holder was asked about his thoughts on this 
proposal. Specifically, he was asked whether, as a matter of public 
policy, the fairness doctrine should be reinstated, to which he 
replied:

       [T]hat's a toughie. I've not given an awful lot of thought 
     to [it].

  It is hard to accept that Eric Holder, a former Deputy Attorney 
General, somehow missed the debate over this prominent issue in our 
society. It is even harder to accept his answer when reviewing his past 
statements about media bias.
  This not-so-thinly-veiled attack targets the very media outlets that 
advocates of the fairness doctrine hope to cripple. While this may be 
an acceptable position for a private advocate, there is no room for 
this kind of bias in the Department of Justice. Unfortunately, Mr. 
Holder said nothing to ease concerns about his predisposition on this 
issue. In written responses to further questions from the committee he 
said this: If a law or regulation is enacted that seeks to implement 
some version of the fairness doctrine, I will work with other agencies 
in the new administration and in the Department's Office of Legal 
Counsel to reach a considered view about the constitutionality of the 
specific law or regulation under consideration.
  Remarkably, although Mr. Holder was given an opportunity to distance 
himself from the inflammatory comments he made in the 2004 speech, the 
best he could offer was a commitment to give a ``considered view'' of 
any such legislation.
  What I expected from a prospective Attorney General was, first and 
foremost, a clear and strong commitment to uphold and defend the first 
amendment. What Eric Holder said fell far short of my expectation.
  The so-called ``Fairness Doctrine'' is not a ``toughie'' issue, as it 
was described by the presumptive Attorney General.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
  Mr. COBURN. I ask unanimous consent for 3 additional minutes.
  Mr. SPECTER. Okay.
  Mr. COBURN. As former FCC Chairman James Quello argued shortly after 
the policy was repealed,

       The fairness doctrine doesn't belong in a country that is 
     dedicated to freedom of the press and freedom of speech.

  I agree and am disturbed that our likely next Attorney General 
apparently does not.
  In conclusion, after listening carefully to Eric Holder's testimony, 
especially regarding each of the issues I raised today, I am forced to 
conclude that he lacks the judgment, independence, and candor necessary 
to be Attorney General. I did not reach this conclusion without careful 
consideration.
  When I first came to the Senate, one of the first votes I had to make 
was on the nomination--to consent and advise--on Attorney General 
Alberto Gonzalez. I had a catch in my spirit on that nomination. I 
should not have cast a vote for him. I was the first Republican to 
suggest that he should resign because he did not display the 
independence, the candor, or the support for the rule of law. Although 
hindsight is always 20/20, I reserve my right to do the right thing on 
this nomination. There is no difference between the lack of 
independence that has been demonstrated by the testimony of Eric Holder 
and his past and what we saw in the lack of independence of previous 
Attorneys General.
  Oftentimes, nominees come to the Senate with nearly a blank slate. 
This was not the case with Eric Holder. His time in public service, 
specifically his stint as Deputy Attorney General for President 
Clinton, served as an audition for this position. His role in the 
pardon and commutations is very troubling. I believe, in summary, 
independence is lacking, candor is lacking, and judgment is lacking. 
President Obama deserves some degree of deference in his choices, but 
no President is entitled to a Cabinet member who will neglect the 
Constitution and his own sound judgment to facilitate a bad political 
decision.
  I regret I cannot, in good conscience, support his nomination.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Vermont is recognized.
  Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, I know we proposed going with two on the 
Republican side and with two on the Democratic side. We will next go 
with Senator Burris and then Senator Dorgan.
  I would note in this debate--and I apologize for my voice; I am 
recovering from laryngitis--that, one, the Justice Department is not 
the Department that handles the fairness doctrine. Out of fairness to 
Mr. Holder, that is not a matter that comes before the Attorney 
General.
  Secondly, I asked Mr. Holder specifically a question about his views 
on the Second Amendment--because we do not have in Vermont the 
restrictive gun laws that the people in Oklahoma have supported or the 
restrictive gun laws the people of Texas or Pennsylvania have 
supported. We have less restrictive gun laws than any State in the 
Union. I own many firearms myself. I asked Mr. Holder specifically if 
he would, in a State without restrictive gun laws, such as Vermont, 
seek to replace those State laws with more restrictive Federal gun laws 
similar to those of the many other States represented on the Judiciary 
Committee, and he said no.

[[Page S1250]]

  Madam President, I yield 10 minutes to the Senator from Illinois.
  Mr. SPECTER. Madam President, if I could have the attention of the 
chairman.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Pennsylvania.
  Mr. SPECTER. I wish to yield 20 minutes to Senator Cornyn at the 
conclusion, but do we have an idea as to how long, or when that will 
be?
  Mr. LEAHY. Next will be Senator Burris and then Senator Dorgan. I ask 
the Senator from North Dakota, Madam President, approximately how much 
time he wants.
  Mr. DORGAN. Ten minutes.
  Mr. LEAHY. I would seek to yield 10 minutes to the Senator from 
Illinois and 10 minutes to the Senator from North Dakota, and then 
yield back time.
  Mr. SPECTER. Then I would give 20 minutes to Senator Cornyn.
  Mr. CORNYN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to that effect.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from Illinois is recognized.
  Mr. BURRIS. Madam President, with humility for an honor neither 
sought nor expected, I rise for the first time as a U.S. Senator.
  At a time of great consequence for our country's long march toward 
justice--and the moral compass we call the Constitution that guides our 
path--I rise to strongly support President Barack Obama's nominee for 
the office of U.S. Attorney General, Eric Holder.
  As we look toward the future, I begin with a few words about the 
past. Back in the 1950s, there was a place in my hometown of Centralia, 
IL, called the pig wobble, and it wasn't hard to figure out why: Pig 
wobble was the place where the horses, the cows, and, yes, the pigs, 
from all nearby farms came to drink water. It was also the place where 
African-American children came to swim in the summertime.
  My friends and I swam in the pig wobble until the summer of my 16th 
birthday, in 1953, when, after previous efforts to integrate the park 
swimming pool where only white children swam had failed. My dad finally 
had enough of his children swimming with the farm animals while the 
White children went off to the nice clean neighborhood pool. My dad and 
his minister, who ran the local chapter of the NAACP, determined that 
the time had come for Black children to swim in the community pool. 
They decided they would need an attorney to represent us. There were no 
Black lawyers in Centralia, so my father traveled to Chicago seeking 
legal assistance, but no lawyer was interested in representing us. He 
returned home, and the following day went to East St. Louis, IL, and 
retained a Black attorney to represent us.
  When the pool opened on Memorial Day, my brother and I, along with 
three brothers from another family, swam and integrated the pool 
without incident. Later, we were home celebrating our accomplishments, 
but when my dad returned home he was very upset. We questioned why, and 
he explained that the lawyer he had hired did not show up. My father 
then said these words:

       If we as a race of people are going to get anywhere in our 
     society, we need lawyers and elected officials who are 
     responsible and responsive.

  From that conversation with my father when I was 16, I set a goal for 
myself that I would try in my life and career to be responsible and 
responsive to the cause of justice.
  When President Obama nominated Eric Holder to be Attorney General of 
the United States, my father's words came to mind. Eric Holder is the 
embodiment of what my father envisioned on that day. Mr. Holder has 
been responsible and responsive his entire career. He has been a leader 
in the long march toward justice, not just for African Americans but 
for all Americans who treasure our Nation's founding principles of 
freedom, equality, and personal liberty. Once confirmed, he will open 
the gates of justice once again to the public interest, not the special 
interests, and to those who are concerned not with the expansion of 
power but with the use of power for the common good.

  The mission of the Department of Justice is to enforce the law, to 
ensure the public safety, to prevent crime, and to seek fair, impartial 
justice for all Americans. Sadly, for the past 8 years, the Department 
has not lived up to the promise of that sacred mission. Americans, 
particularly those of us in the legal community, have seen the Justice 
Department sink further into corruption, cronyism, and gross 
mismanagement.
  I have watched with particular despair as the Federal initiatives to 
fight violent crimes against women, a program similar to the one I 
enacted as Attorney General in my State of Illinois, was underfunded, 
politicized, and largely abandoned. We have the chance today to turn 
the page by confirming Eric Holder.
  At a time when the Department of Justice has lost dozens of 
competent, effective career attorneys, it is long past time for an 
Attorney General to put competence first. At a time when the Civil 
Rights Division, long known as the crown jewel of the Justice 
Department, has seen its mission undermined and misdirected, it is time 
for an Attorney General who will keep justice blind and put our 
Constitution first. At a time when our moral authority in the world is 
threatened by the immoral acts that were sanctioned from the top, we 
need an Attorney General who will put civil liberties first. At a time 
when the threat of terrorism continues to haunt us, we need an Attorney 
General who will put public safety first. At a time when the crimes of 
a Wall Street few have spoiled an economy for the Main Street many, we 
need an Attorney General who will put people first.
  We can be certain that Eric Holder will do these things because he 
has spent his entire career building and broadening a deep well of 
public trust.
  After graduating from Columbia Law School, Eric came to the Justice 
Department in 1976 to serve in the Attorney General's Honors Program, 
where his focus was prosecuting corrupt officials at the local, State, 
and Federal levels. In 1988, he was appointed by President Reagan as an 
associate judge of the Superior Court of the District of Columbia, 
where he presided over countless trials of homicides and other violent 
crimes.
  In 1993, President Clinton nominated Eric to become the U.S. Attorney 
for the District of Columbia, the first African American to hold that 
post. In that role, he created a domestic violence unit, went after 
perpetrators of crime with an unmatched intensity, and worked hand in 
hand with the community to give the people a voice in law enforcement. 
In 1997, President Clinton promoted Eric Holder to the position of 
Deputy Attorney General, where he went after crimes against children 
and cracked down on white-collar crimes.
  At every step along the way, Eric Holder has proven there is no 
conflict between fighting crime and upholding civil liberties; that 
making America safe and more just must go hand in hand. That is exactly 
what he will do as U.S. Attorney General.
  It is the honor of a lifetime to rise from the desk that previously 
belonged to our President Barack Obama, and before that to another 
legend from the land of Lincoln, Senator Paul Simon. As long as this 
desk is in my care, I will try to honor those who served before me and 
work to brighten the lives of every citizen of Illinois.
  If you look back further through the years, this desk belonged to 
Senator Robert F. Kennedy, who as U.S. Attorney General breathed life 
into the flames of justice. I know Eric Holder will do the same in our 
time. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this outstanding 
nominee.
  I thank the Presiding Officer and my colleagues for the opportunity 
to share my thoughts in supporting the nomination of Eric Holder for 
Attorney General of the United States of America.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Vermont is recognized.
  Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, I thank the Senator from Illinois for his 
excellent statement. I was touched by the fact that the Senator from 
Illinois mentioned he is at the desk once occupied by both Senator Paul 
Simon and Senator Barack Obama. I had the privilege of serving with 
both Senators from Illinois, both great people. I know it is safe to 
say that Senator Obama, now President Obama, will appreciate the 
statement made by Senator Burris today.
  Having known Senator Paul Simon, I think it safe to say he also would 
have

[[Page S1251]]

been proud of the statement. Somewhere he is looking down and seeing 
this.
  Last, it was my privilege as a young law student to be recruited by 
then-Attorney General Robert Kennedy, who made it very clear that the 
Justice Department was for all Americans and nobody, not even his 
brother, the President, would be allowed to interfere with criminal or 
civil rights prosecutions. I knew he meant it. I know the Senator from 
Illinois shares my feelings in that.
  I welcome him to this body, and I thank him for his statement.
  I yield to the Senator from North Dakota.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota is recognized.
  Mr. DORGAN. Madam President, let me thank my colleague, the Senator 
from Vermont, the chairman of the committee, for his work on the 
Judiciary Committee. I do not serve on that committee, but I come to 
talk just a bit about the nomination of the new Attorney General and 
about the Department of Justice.
  The reason I say I appreciate the Senator from Vermont is because he 
waged a relentless struggle at a time when the Justice Department was 
involved in the long shadow of scandal, at a time when words from the 
Justice Department, from the Attorney General at that point, seemed to 
suggest torture was OK. It was a time when the Department of Justice 
seemed to say that people could be detained on the streets of America 
and held incommunicado without a right to an attorney. These were 
things that I believed were far afield from what we expect as basic 
rights in our country and the Chairman of the Judiciary Committee waged 
a long and brave battle against them. And, I want to thank him for 
that.
  But, let me talk about Eric Holder in the context of what I just 
described and why I think this nomination is so important. You have 
heard a lot about how highly qualified Eric Holder is--about his 
lifetime of impressive public service, about his history as an 
independent, tough-as-nails prosecutor, about the long list of 
organizations that support him as very qualified, and about the many 
prominent Democrats and Republicans that support him.
  But, I want to talk about Eric Holder as a key part of restoring 
justice to the Department of Justice.
  We have been through a long period of difficulty at the Justice 
Department. I am not talking now about the stewardship of Mr. Mukasey. 
I am talking about specifically a period when Attorney General Gonzales 
was in charge.
  The Attorney General is the senior person in our country responsible 
for ensuring that justice is done. That means many things. It means, 
certainly, evenhandedness; it means justice under the law; it means 
occasionally saying no to those who want to do the wrong thing, no 
matter how powerful or important they might be. It means everyone, from 
the lowest to the highest, gets treated equally and fairly under the 
law in this country.
  The Attorney General is the senior most Government official 
responsible for justice. That is the person who has to stand for, and 
stand up for, our country as a nation of laws. That is the person who 
needs to be the defender of human rights, who must believe in America 
as a beacon of hope in the world, a beacon that shines from America 
into the darkest places at the darkest times.
  The Attorney General, as the head of the Justice Department, is the 
one who is involved in that kind of activity and sends that message 
from our country. An Attorney General should be someone who can say 
torture is un-American because it is. No splitting hairs, no fancy 
words, no legal distinctions--just these simple words: Torture is 
wrong.
  Mr. Holder has said that to us in his nomination hearings. He said, 
``Torture is wrong'' and ``No one is above the law.'' Those are very 
simple and straightforward words from this nominee, but I think they 
are timeless principles, timeless truths that America has exhibited now 
for nearly 200 years.
  Why is that important for us? The most powerful weapon in our country 
is what we stand for. That has always been the most powerful weapon in 
America.
  We had a long struggle in the Cold War against the Soviet Union and 
totalitarianism. The Cold War occasionally flared up to a hot war with 
bombs and bullets. But, it was not the bombs and bullets that won the 
Cold War with the Soviet Union. It was American values that won that 
Cold War.
  That is why we prevailed. We must never forget that American values 
were so strong that they shined the light of hope into the darkest 
cells of the gulag prisons in the outermost reaches of the Soviet 
Union. Many of those prisoners died in their cells, but some survived 
and talked about how inspired they were by the ideas and values of what 
was America. Our country gave them hope. The idea of America, as I 
said, reached to the farthest and darkest places on this Earth and 
offered hope to people--people struggling, people in grave difficulty.
  There was a very clear and distinct difference between us and the 
Soviet Union during that Cold War, and everyone knew what it was. It 
wasn't our military might or the comparison of our military 
capabilities. It wasn't our bombs or bullets. It was what each country 
stood for. When the people of the Soviet Union and their client states 
finally had a choice, they chose democracy and freedom and liberty. 
That is how powerful the idea of America has become.
  This moral ground has always been our country's strength. We must 
insist on keeping that high moral ground--not only because it is 
effective, but because it is right and because it is our birthright as 
Americans.
  From the very beginning our country has held itself to a higher 
standard, as in the story of George Washington and the fight to found 
America. He led the Continental Army in the war for independence. It is 
a pretty interesting story, if you go back and read it.
  Madam President, 5,000 were in the Continental Army that George 
Washington commanded, 5,000--but not trained soldiers. They were 
shopkeepers, farmers and tradesmen going up against a 50,000-man 
trained army of British soldiers. We know the result, but we don't 
always remember the battles along the way, military battles and, yes, 
battles over values and ideals.
  There were many difficult periods during that war, and there were 
some very dark days. During one very difficult period, at a time when a 
large number of his troops were captured, Gen. Washington and his 
troops saw the Hessian mercenaries, who at that point were fighting 
along with the British, slaughtering unarmed prisoners. Washington, 
when he captured Hessian prisoners, refused to do the same. Washington 
insisted we were different; we were going to treat people the way they 
should be treated not the way they treated us.
  That was George Washington's notion about who we are and why we are 
different. That has been America's birthright since the beginning of 
our country.
  It is why this issue of torture is so important. It is why the 
discussions about detainee treatment and enemy combatants and habeas 
corpus are so important. These issues are about who we are as a 
country, as a people, and who we want to be.
  I remember reading one day that a man was picked up at a New York 
City airport and then sent away, not to be heard from for a long while 
by his family or by anybody. It turns out he was sent to Syria where he 
was tortured for 8 to 9 months, kept underground in concrete cells in 
isolation. It turns out it was a huge mistake. This person was not who 
he was thought to be; he was not a terrorist.
  Yet, on American soil, he was detained and then sent away to be 
tortured. He was a Canadian. The Government of Canada, by the way, has 
apologized to that citizen for that situation. But it describes why it 
is so important that the rule of law always be applied.
  So this discussion about the Attorney General, about this nomination, 
about the Department of Justice, is about much more than just 
nominating someone for a Cabinet position. It is about what do we 
aspire to for our country and ourselves. What kind of Government do we 
want? What kind of Government will we allow? What kind of country do we 
want?
  I go back again, as I said, to the long, dark shadow that was cast 
for a period of time over the Justice Department, when it was engaged 
in scandals and

[[Page S1252]]

scandalous conduct. There were very important questions about what was 
happening at the Department of Justice. Frankly, there were grave 
questions of what was happening to justice at the Department of 
Justice.
  The Senate Judiciary Committee was relentless in trying to understand 
it and hold hearings and get answers. Very few answers, frankly, were 
forthcoming. Thankfully, those days are over.
  We now have the nomination of Eric Holder. The Judiciary Committee 
voted 17 to 2 to support his nomination. Like them, I believe Eric 
Holder represents an opportunity for our country to have someone at the 
Justice Department who does understand what the Department of Justice 
stands for and where it fits in our value system. I am pleased to come 
to the floor of the Senate today to say, when we discuss these issues 
we must discuss what are the values, the ideals, that this country 
stands for and how those whom we intend to put in very high places--how 
do they comport to those standards and values? How will they conduct 
the office for which they are nominated?
  I believe strongly in the nomination of Eric Holder. As you have 
heard, he is highly qualified in experience, skills and temperament. As 
important, he understands the values of our country and the importance 
of justice. I have no doubt that Eric Holder will be an excellent 
Attorney General, will restore justice to the Department of Justice, 
and will uphold and further the historic values and ideals of our 
country, which will again be a bright shining light for justice and 
hope throughout the world.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. Madam Chairman, I have decided to support Mr. Holder's 
nomination to be the next Attorney General of the United States. 
However, I want to make clear that just because I am voting to support 
Mr. Holder, this nominee does have a few issues that give me some 
concern.
  For example, I am concerned about Mr. Holder's overly restrictive 
views of the second amendment. In last year's challenge to the District 
of Columbia's gun ban in the U.S. Supreme Court case District of 
Columbia v. Heller, Mr. Holder joined an amicus brief arguing that the 
second amendment does not provide an individual right for citizens to 
own firearms. However, a majority of the Supreme Court held that the 
second amendment does indeed guarantee an individual right to keep and 
bear arms. I am a strong supporter of the second amendment, so I am 
concerned that Mr. Holder's views may be too limited. I am also 
concerned about Mr. Holder's reluctance to expand programs that enforce 
current gun laws, such as ``Project Exile.'' This highly effective 
initiative started in the 1990s, but was only implemented in a few 
targeted cities. I don't understand why Mr. Holder is willing to 
consider the need for new gun laws and regulations, when we could be 
embracing a nationwide expansion of a proven, successful program 
enforcing existing gun laws. In my opinion, Mr. Holder should 
reconsider this position.
  I find Mr. Holder's involvement with the FALN clemencies to be 
troubling. Mr. Holder played a pivotal role in obtaining clemencies for 
the FALN terrorists. He fired pardon attorney Margaret Love who had 
issued a report in 1996 against clemency, and instructed the new pardon 
attorney Roger Adams to issue an ``options'' memo keeping clemency on 
the table, even though the pardon attorney, U.S. prosecutors, Bureau of 
Prisons and FBI were all very much against clemency. Mr. Holder met 
with a number of groups and politicians who supported the clemencies, 
but never met with the victims. Mr. Holder testified that his 
recommendation to support the FALN clemencies was ``reasonable'' and 
``appropriate.'' This is remarkable, especially since the FALN pardons 
were criticized by the public and condemned by Congress.
  Mr. Holder's handling of the Marc Rich pardon is also problematic. He 
recommended Mr. Rich's pardon to President Clinton as ``neutral, 
leaning favorable,'' even though Mr. Rich was the biggest tax cheat in 
U.S. history, a fugitive of the law, and an individual who traded with 
the enemy. Mr. Holder did not provide the Judiciary Committee with a 
good explanation--legal, political or factual--for why he was 
``neutral, leaning favorable'' on the pardon. Mr. Holder assisted Jack 
Quinn--President Clinton's former White House counsel--in bypassing the 
U.S. prosecutors and other DOJ officials who opposed the pardon, and 
advised Mr. Quinn on how to deal with the media and other logistics 
after the pardon was issued. Although Mr. Holder did acknowledge that 
he made a mistake with respect to the Rich pardon, I am troubled by Mr. 
Holder's deliberate maneuvering around the established Justice 
Department pardon processes. Also, I believe that Mr. Holder made 
statements to the Senate Judiciary Committee about his involvement in 
the Rich pardon that appear to be at odds with the facts as recorded in 
documents written at the time and testimony provided by other 
witnesses. Mr. Holder has indicated that he will be responsive and 
candid with Judiciary Committee requests, and that he will respect DOJ 
internal processes and exercise better judgment with respect to DOJ 
matters. I am hopeful that Mr. Holder will meet that commitment.
  The U.S. Constitution requires Senators to fully vet the 
qualifications and fitness of presidential nominees and to exercise 
their independent judgment when they decide whether to ultimately 
consent to them. This has been a difficult decision for me--
particularly because of the concerns that I have just outlined. 
However, Mr. Holder is an experienced individual with extensive 
credentials. He has very good qualifications. Mr. Holder's a good 
lawyer. He has a lot of support in the law enforcement community. 
Moreover, Mr. Holder has acknowledged some of the mistakes he made--
even though I believe he could have done a lot more. We had a 
productive meeting when he came in to talk about his nomination last 
year, and he seemed to be responsive to the issues that I raised with 
him. He has committed to work with me on a number of matters that are 
important to me, such as the False Claims Act. He has pledged to 
cooperate with my oversight efforts and to be responsive to my document 
requests. He has pledged to cooperate with Judiciary Committee 
investigations and requests for information. So I will support Mr. 
Holder's nomination. But I plan to hold Mr. Holder's feet to the fire 
to make sure that he leads the Justice Department in the right 
direction and keeps Americans safe from criminals and terrorists.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. Madam President, today I wish to support the nomination 
of Eric Holder to be Attorney General of the United States. This is an 
historic nomination--Eric Holder is the first African-American to be 
nominated to serve as the country's chief law enforcement officer. This 
is a much needed nomination. The Department of Justice, DOJ, is on life 
support, plagued with politics and partisanship. Under the previous 
administration the Department of Justice authored torture memos, fired 
U.S. Attorneys for their political beliefs, funded pet projects, and 
spent taxpayer dollars on lavish conferences.
  This country needs an Attorney General who will restore confidence 
and integrity to the Justice Department. We need an independent thinker 
who is not influenced by politics or fear and who is dedicated to rule 
of law--not rule of ideology. We need a leader to hold the Department 
accountable--one who will provide fiscal accountability and stewardship 
of taxpayer dollars and stand sentry against waste, fraud, and abuse. 
No more $5 Swedish meatballs.
  I have three criteria for nominees to the executive branch: first, 
the nominee must possess competence; second, the nominee must have a 
commitment to the mission of the agency; and finally, the nominee must 
have the highest integrity. Eric Holder passes all of these tests with 
flying colors.
  First, his competence cannot be questioned. He was the No. 2 at the 
Department of Justice under the Clinton administration; he was U.S. 
attorney for the District of Columbia; he was nominated by President 
Reagan and confirmed by the Senate to serve as a Superior Court judge 
for the District of Columbia; and he was a career prosecutor in DOJ's 
Public Integrity Section.
  Second, he has shown an unwavering commitment to the Justice 
Department's mission to uphold the Constitution, fight corruption, 
prosecute criminals, and protect victims. He has fought throughout his 
career to make

[[Page S1253]]

sure our Nation's laws are applied fairly and that everyone gets a fair 
shake.
  Third, Eric Holder possesses strong integrity. He has a history of 
fighting to root out corruption and prosecute criminals. He is the son 
of immigrants and has worked hard to get to where he is.
  As chairwoman of the Appropriations Subcommittee that funds the 
Justice Department, I want to make sure that the Department has what it 
needs to protect this country from predatory attacks by terrorists and 
predatory attacks in our neighborhood. I have fought to put dollars in 
the Federal checkbook to support the agency's efforts to combat 
terrorism and violent crime. I have fought to make sure that hard-
working, dedicated individuals who are responsible for carrying out 
that mission have the resources they need.
  The Justice Department needs an Attorney General who supports 
enforcing our country's laws, will protect the vulnerable, and will 
restore morale and confidence. I believe Eric Holder is just the right 
man for the job. For the past 8 years, the previous administration has 
ignored the Constitution, supported torture, denied basic access to 
courts for detainees, slashed funding for cops on the beat, and spied 
on innocent Americans. We need an Attorney General who will restore the 
rule of law and demand accountability for wrongdoing. We need an 
independent thinker--not a rubber stamp for the President.
  Eric Holder is a heavyweight lawyer. He has vigorously prosecuted 
corrupt public officials from both parties. He put a mob boss behind 
bars for trying to bribe a juror. He is willing to take on the strong 
and powerful because he believes no one is above the law.
  Yet the Department of Justice is not only responsible for upholding 
the Constitution. Part of its core mission is to protect the most 
vulnerable. As a social worker, I have seen firsthand the despicable 
crimes committed against children and know how important it is to hold 
these abusers accountable in order to keep our children safe. Now, new 
technology puts children at even greater risk. There are sophisticated 
cyber-predators posing as children on the Internet and are harder to 
catch. Eric Holder is a career prosecutor who has dedicated his life to 
protecting the public and getting criminals off the street. As the U.S. 
Attorney for D.C., Holder created the Domestic Violence Unit, which was 
a dedicated, one-stop shop for domestic violence survivors; he also 
spearheaded initiatives to protect children from abuse, sexual 
predators and cyber stalkers. I am confident that as Attorney General, 
the country's chief of police, he will protect our children and our 
neighborhoods from violent and heinous crimes.
  Not only does the country need Holder, the Department of Justice 
does. A recent DOJ Inspector General report found one of the top ten 
management challenges at the Justice Department is to restore 
confidence at the Department. The mission of the Justice Department has 
been sidelined and politics--not evidence--has driven hiring and firing 
decisions. The prosecution of civil rights violations had dramatically 
dropped, while claims of workplace discrimination are on the rise. We 
need a leader to put the Department back on track and restore integrity 
and independent thinking. It is time to get back to doing business that 
is free from politics and ideology. Time to enforce our civil rights 
laws, prosecute financial corruption and cronyism, bolster local law 
enforcement to fight crime and protect the vulnerable. Eric Holder has 
served as the Deputy Attorney General at Justice and has experience 
managing and leading. He knows the challenges the Department faces. He 
will work with President Obama to restore the Department's reputation.
  In conclusion, Eric Holder has spent his legal career protecting the 
public from dirty public officials, violent criminals and predators, 
scheming corporate greed. I know as Attorney General, Eric Holder will 
make sure the Justice Department is working for the American people--
not some political agenda. This is why I will vote to confirm Eric 
Holder to be the next Attorney General of the United States.
  Mr. GRAHAM. Madam President, I am pleased to support the nomination 
of Eric Holder as Attorney General. I am convinced that he understands 
the threat to our Nation posed by terrorism. In the Judiciary 
Committee's hearing on the nomination, Mr. Holder agreed with me that 
the United States is undoubtedly at war with a vicious and shadowy 
enemy, and that the war began before the attacks of September 11, 2001. 
Further, Mr. Holder and I agreed that the battlefield in the war on 
terror is the entire globe--not only the combat zones of Afghanistan 
and Iraq but also the financial system through which terrorist networks 
are funded and the Internet through which terrorists communicate and 
spread their message of violence and hatred. Indeed, the tragic events 
of 9/11 proved that the battlefield even extends within our Nation's 
own borders. The question of how best to win the war on terror is the 
most profound issue facing the next Attorney General. Mr. Holder 
understands the nature of this enemy and this conflict.
  There are some in this body who will argue that Mr. Holder's previous 
mistakes should bar him from serving as Attorney General. In expressing 
my support for Mr. Holder, I do not mean to minimize those 
misjudgments. Indeed, Mr. Holder faces his past mistakes fully--
admitting them, learning from them, and promising to exercise better 
judgment in the future. While I understand concern with Mr. Holder's 
past errors, it would be a mistake in its own right to reject on that 
basis this qualified nominee who so comprehends the challenge our 
Nation faces in defeating terrorism.
  I look forward to working with President Obama and Mr. Holder to 
fashion a system of detention for the war on terror involving all three 
branches of government and of which all Americans can be proud. Mr. 
Holder and I agree that in order to maintain the moral high ground in 
this war, which is critical, we must treat detainees fairly, with more 
process than they would necessarily provide us. We also agree that we 
must not release dangerous warriors back to the fight against our 
Nation. Criminalizing this war would be a terrible mistake, and Mr. 
Holder understands that.
  Four years ago, President Obama, then Senator Obama, stated on the 
floor of this chamber that the test of a nominee for Attorney General 
is, ``whether that person is ready to put the Constitution of the 
people before the political agenda of the President.'' I am confident 
that Eric Holder meets that test, and I ask my colleagues to support 
his nomination.
  Mr. FEINGOLD. Madam President, this is a momentous day for the 
Senate. We are about to confirm a nominee for Attorney General of the 
United States who with two short declarative sentences uttered at his 
confirmation hearing--without caveats, without parsing words, without 
equivocation--signaled a new direction for the Department of Justice 
and a turning of the page in the constitutional history of this 
country.
  ``Waterboarding is torture.''
  ``No one is above the law.''
  With these simple words, Eric Holder reassured the Nation that the 
Department of Justice will be run by someone who believes in the rule 
of law and in impartial justice. It is sad, of course, that this is 
something remarkable. But that is where the last 8 years have left us.
  The election of 2008 had many consequences. But none is more 
important than a chance to restore the rule of law and repair the 
damage to the Department of Justice that has been done by the past 
administration. Eric Holder is well equipped to take on this important 
and difficult task for three reasons.
  First, he has spent over 25 years pursuing justice in public service, 
as a trial attorney in the Public Integrity Section of the Department, 
as a DC Superior Court judge, as U.S. attorney for the District of 
Columbia, and as Deputy Attorney General. He knows the Department of 
Justice as well as any person alive, he respects its history, and he 
has the respect and support of career lawyers in the Department and 
former Attorneys General and Deputy Attorneys General from both 
parties.
  Second, he appears to have the independence and strength of character 
needed to fulfill the special role that the Attorney General has in the 
President's Cabinet. He prosecuted powerful members of his own party 
when working in the Public Integrity Section and

[[Page S1254]]

as U.S. attorney. He recommended expanding the scope of Ken Starr's 
investigation of President Clinton. This record indicates that Mr. 
Holder understands the difference between being the people's lawyer and 
being the President's lawyer.
  Third, he understands the need to revitalize the traditional missions 
of the Department--fighting crime, protecting civil rights, preserving 
the environment, and ensuring the fairness of the marketplace--while at 
the same time devoting himself to protecting the American people from a 
terrorist attack. I am optimistic that he will fight for the resources 
and the policies needed to do justice. Similarly, he understands that 
security and liberty shouldn't be balanced or traded off against each 
other. They must be twin goals, both achievable, together, with hard 
work and dedication to our national values. I was struck by words from 
a speech Mr. Holder made in 2005, after he had left the Government:

       Those who tell us that we must engage in warrantless 
     domestic surveillance, ``enhanced interrogation'' or 
     ``extraordinary rendition'' or we cripple ourselves in 
     combating terrorism offer a false choice. There is simply no 
     tension between an effective fight against those who have 
     sworn to harm us and a respect for our most honored civil 
     liberties traditions.

  I could not agree more. I am very pleased that a person who so 
strongly and unapologetically believes in the promise of our 
Constitution, now more than ever, will soon be the Attorney General of 
the United States.
  Let me say just a word about the Marc Rich pardon controversy, which 
is one of the areas on which opponents of Mr. Holder's nomination have 
focused. I thought that pardon was a misuse of the President's power, 
and I said so at the time. Mr. Holder did not exercise his role in the 
pardon process with the care or diligence he should have, and I 
appreciate the concerns that have been expressed about his involvement 
in this matter. But it is significant that, starting shortly after the 
pardon and continuing to this day, Eric Holder actually stood up and 
admitted that he made mistakes.
  We have seen far too little of that in the past 8 years from the 
leadership at the Department of Justice and from the Bush 
administration as a whole for that matter. Months and months of work on 
the Judiciary Committee was needed, essentially, because Attorney 
General Gonzales insisted that nothing he did in connection with the 
U.S. attorney firings was a mistake. Our country cannot afford 
leadership like that at the Department any more. The problems we face 
are too grave and too complicated for our leaders to insist on 
defending indefensible conduct or continuing with policies that aren't 
working simply because they don't want to admit they were wrong.
  Madam President, just a little under 8 years ago, I voted for the 
nomination of John Ashcroft to be President Bush's first Attorney 
General. I did so because despite significant policy differences, and 
not insignificant criticism of some of his actions as a Senator, I 
believed that he was qualified for the job, and, most important, 
because I believed that a President is due great deference in filling 
his Cabinet. I still believe that today. I am pleased that many of my 
colleagues on the Republican side have decided to show that same 
deference to President Obama. Eric Holder is highly qualified for this 
position, his overall record and testimony suggest he will exercise his 
responsibilities with care and judgment, and he is the President's 
choice. He should be confirmed.
  Mr. CHAMBLISS. Madam President, I rise to discuss my support for Eric 
Holder's nomination. When Mr. Holder was first nominated I had serious 
concerns--concerns about his stance on the second amendment, which is 
important to me and so many Georgians I represent, concerns about the 
potential prosecution of those who interrogated detainees in accordance 
with legal opinions issued by the Department of Justice's Office of 
Legal Counsel, and concerns about his role as Deputy Attorney General 
in some of President Clinton's pardons.
  I had a long discussion with Mr. Holder last week and we talked 
extensively about the concerns that I had and that I know many of my 
constituents have. After our conversation, I was convinced that he will 
competently serve as our next Attorney General, and will keep the best 
interests of the American people in mind.
  With respect to the second amendment, Mr. Holder recognizes the 
decision of the U.S. Supreme Court in District of Columbia v. Heller, 
holding the second amendment to be an individual right, to be the law 
of the land. With respect to former interrogators, he recognized that 
it does not make sense to prosecute those clearly acting under the 
authority of the Office of Legal Counsel. Finally, with respect to his 
role in President Clinton's pardoning of Marc Rich, Mr. Holder fully 
recognized his mistakes and stated if he had to do it again, he would 
have done things differently. I believe he will take that learning 
experience with him into his role as Attorney General.
  Finally, Mr. Holder has been unanimously confirmed by the U.S. Senate 
on three separate occasions. He was praised by a Georgian and former 
Attorney General, Griffin Bell, who recently passed away and for whom I 
had the utmost respect. President Obama deserves great deference in 
filling out his Cabinet positions, and because of the very candid 
conversation I had with Mr. Holder, and my belief that he is up for the 
task before him, I am pleased to support his nomination.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Vermont is recognized.
  Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, I understand the Senator from Texas has a 
request to make.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Texas is recognized.
  Mr. CORNYN. Madam President, I understand under the previous order I 
have been recognized for the next 20 minutes on this side, but I have 
been asked on this side to ask unanimous consent that the following 
Republican Senators be recognized in this order during the remaining 
time, going back and forth, as the distinguished chairman knows: 
Following my remarks, Senator Hatch for 10 minutes, Senator Bunning for 
5 minutes, Senator Sessions for 5 minutes, Senator Bond for 10 minutes, 
and Senator Hutchison for 5 minutes. I ask Republican speakers be 
recognized in that order on this side.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, reserving the right to object, and I do 
not intend to object, but has the distinguished Senator from Texas left 
time for the ranking member if he wants it?
  Mr. CORNYN. It is my understanding we have reserved sufficient time 
for the ranking member to close.
  Mr. LEAHY. I see a nod of affirmation from the staff. Being one who 
understands that we Senators are merely constitutional necessities to 
the staff, Madam President, I have no objection to this with the 
understanding that we follow the usual comity of going from side to 
side.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. The 
request is agreed to. The Senator from Texas is recognized.
  Mr. CORNYN. Madam President, I come to the floor more with regret 
than anything else to say I oppose the nomination and confirmation of 
Eric Holder to be the next United States Attorney General. I say this 
to my colleagues because I have approached this nomination with an open 
mind and actually a predisposition to vote for his confirmation. But, 
of course, we Senators have a constitutional duty--in providing advice 
and consent to the executive branch's executive nominations like this 
one--to ask hard questions and to get the answers to those questions so 
our advice and consent may be an informed consent.
  While I approached this nomination with an open mind and a 
predisposition to vote for Mr. Holder's confirmation, I ultimately 
concluded that, as a result of the reasons I will detail momentarily, I 
could not vote for his confirmation in good conscience.
  Mr. Holder's experience in many ways uniquely qualifies him for this 
promotion as Attorney General, but it is that very same experience when 
he served as Deputy Attorney General that calls into question his 
independence and judgment, particularly when the President of the 
United States at the time, President Bill Clinton, basically wanted 
something out of the Department of Justice. This had to do specifically 
with two clemency petitions, one for the FALN terrorists and the other 
for the notorious Marc Rich. These two actions--where President Clinton 
commuted the sentence of 16

[[Page S1255]]

Puerto Rican terrorists and the recommendation to pardon the 
billionaire fugitive, Marc Rich--raised serious questions about Mr. 
Holder's independence and judgment.
  When Mr. Holder came to my office, I asked him: Is there any reason 
you would resign rather than carry out the orders of a President if you 
were Attorney General?
  He quickly said: Of course. If the President asked me to do something 
illegal or unethical, then I would resign rather than carry out those 
instructions.
  Well, no one is suggesting that what Mr. Holder did was illegal, 
given the fact that the President of the United States solely had the 
prerogative whether to grant these commutations, but I think any 
fairminded consideration of Mr. Holder's conduct under these 
commutations raises some serious questions whether he could hold 
himself to the very same standard that he articulated in my office.
  Two other aspects of Mr. Holder's record concern me. One is his 
demonstrated lack of seriousness regarding the profound threat posed by 
radical Islamic terrorism; secondly, as some Senators on my side of the 
aisle have already pointed out, his apparent hostility to the second 
amendment, the right to keep and bear arms, under our Constitution.
  In the Judiciary Committee, on which I am proud to serve, Mr. Holder 
failed to answer my questions and the questions of my colleagues in a 
way that alleviated these concerns. In fact, I found many of his 
responses to be simply evasive.
  As I said earlier, I have four reasons for opposing this nomination: 
one, Mr. Holder's role in the FALN and Los Macheteros commutations, his 
role in the Marc Rich pardon, his misjudgments and shifting opinions on 
the war on terrorism, and his record of hostility to the individual 
right to keep and bear arms.
  I think it is important to point out the facts of the commutations 
because they really are alarming, and many of our memories may have 
been dimmed because many of these events occurred long in the past.
  In August 1999, President Clinton offered clemency to 16 members of 
two Puerto Rican separatist terrorist organizations, the FALN and Los 
Macheteros. Deputy Attorney General Eric Holder made the recommendation 
that he should do so.
  The FALN, in case people do not recall, was a clandestine terrorist 
group devoted to bringing about the independence of Puerto Rico through 
violent means. Its members waged open war on America, with more than 
150 bombings, arsons, kidnappings, prison escapes, and threats and 
intimidation, all of which resulted in the deaths of at least 6 people 
and injuries to many more between 1974 and 1983.
  The most gruesome of these attacks occurred in 1975 at a bombing in 
Lower Manhattan. Timed to explode during lunchtime, the bomb 
decapitated 1 of the 4 people killed and injured another 60. It is hard 
for us to imagine what it would be like today if this were to occur, 
but that, in fact, is what the FALN was found guilty of.
  In another attack in Puerto Rico, Los Macheteros terrorists opened 
fire on a bus full of U.S. sailors, killing two, wounding nine.
  Fortunately, much of the leadership of these terrorist groups was 
captured and brought to justice in the 1970s and 1980s. But by the mid-
1980s, thankfully, the worst of their reign of terror was over.
  In the early 1990s, sympathetic activists petitioned for clemency on 
behalf of members of these groups. It was an easy call for the Pardon 
Attorney. That is the title of the individual whose responsibility it 
is to screen requests for clemency. These unrepentant terrorists had 
not even bothered to petition for clemency themselves. So Pardon 
Attorney Margaret Love, who worked for then-Deputy Attorney General 
Jamie Gorelick, recommended against clemency for any of these 
prisoners, and her recommendation was transmitted to the President. But 
after Eric Holder became Deputy Attorney General, he rescinded that 
recommendation opposing clemency and he recommended that President 
Clinton grant clemency to these unrepentant terrorists.
  Strangely, and really inexplicably, from my perspective, Mr. Holder 
now continues to stand by these recommendations as ``reasonable.'' But 
I do not think the reasons he gives are persuasive.
  Mr. Holder, first of all, claims these individuals are not ``linked 
to violence.'' That is clearly false. These men were active members of 
terrorist groups that committed dozens of violent crimes, as I 
described a moment ago. It is true that they individually were not 
prosecuted for the worst of those crimes, but by that standard, anyone 
who conspires to commit violence and murder is not linked to violence, 
only those who actually execute the orders of the higher ups.
  These commutations were, at the time, widely believed to be 
politically linked. Indeed, the Clinton White House discussed how the 
clemencies would affect then-Vice President Gore's aspirations for 
higher office, particularly among the Puerto Rican community. For this 
reason, I believe a full accounting of the individuals Mr. Holder met 
with, what they discussed, and what went into his decisions in 
recommending these commutations is in order.
  But there is another reason these questions should be answered; that 
is, it is only fair and just that the victims of the violence of these 
two terrorist groups be provided answers.
  I would encourage all of my colleagues before voting to review the 
testimony of Joseph Connor, whose father was killed in the bombing in 
Lower Manhattan. Mr. Connor testified that Mr. Holder did not consult 
with him, did not contact him or his family or other victims before 
recommending that the FALN terrorists go free. I cannot vote for Mr. 
Holder's nomination until I can explain my vote to Joseph Connor.
  Less than 2 years after the controversial recommendation for 
commuting the sentences of these FALN terrorists and Los Macheteros 
terrorists, on the very last night of the Clinton administration, Mr. 
Holder made a very similar error in judgment when he recommended that 
President Clinton pardon the notorious fugitive Marc Rich. At the time, 
Mr. Rich was No. 6 on the FBI's Most Wanted list.
  In 1983, then-U.S. attorney Rudy Giuliani got an indictment of 
international commodities trader Marc Rich and his business partner 
Pincus Green. The indictment charged 65 counts of tax evasion, 
racketeering, and trading with the enemy. Specific charges include 
illegally trading with the Ayatollah Khamenei's Iranian terrorist 
regime, in violation of U.S. energy laws and the trade embargo against 
Iran. Indeed, Mr. Rich made a fortune trading with the Ayatollah's 
regime at the same time that 52 American diplomats were being held 
hostage in Tehran. Mr. Rich profited by trading with Cuba, Libya, and 
South Africa during apartheid, all despite U.S. embargoes.
  Rather than face the charges, Mr. Rich fled to Switzerland, where he 
remained a fugitive for 17 years. Law enforcement, including CIA, the 
NSA, and other Federal agencies, expended substantial resources in 
trying to apprehend Mr. Rich. These efforts included extradition 
requests and attempts by U.S. marshals to seize him abroad.
  Mr. Rich refused to return to the United States despite an offer by 
prosecutors that they would actually drop the racketeering charges in 
exchange for his return. In a final effort to avoid extradition, Mr. 
Rich went so far as to renounce his U.S. citizenship. He tried to 
become a citizen of Bolivia.
  It is hard for me to imagine anyone less deserving of clemency by the 
President of the United States than a fugitive from justice accused of 
trading with the enemy. Mr. Rich's own lawyer told him that he ``spit 
on the American flag'' by avoiding the jurisdiction of our courts.
  On the last evening of the Clinton administration, White House 
Counsel called Mr. Holder to solicit his views on the Rich pardon. As 
Deputy Attorney General, Holder was effectively speaking for the entire 
Department during this crucial call. Strongly disregarding the views of 
the hundreds of DOJ prosecutors and FBI agents who had worked nearly 
two decades to bring Mr. Rich to justice, Holder told White House 
Counsel Beth Nolan that he was ``neutral, leaning favorable.''

[[Page S1256]]

With this recommendation from the Deputy Attorney General in hand, 
President Clinton granted the Rich pardon, in one of his last and most 
inexplicable actions.
  Senator Specter, the distinguished ranking member from Pennsylvania, 
correctly recounted what former FBI Director Louis Freeh said about 
that pardon. He called it a ``corrupt act.'' Now, Mr. Holder has, 
during hearings, accepted fault and admitted that he made a mistake. I 
do not know how he can do any differently. But never in a full day of 
hearings and written questions did Mr. Holder offer a good reason for 
supporting the pardon in the first place. He defends himself by saying 
he was naive. He admits it was a mistake and promises he will not make 
the same mistake again. But this is difficult to square with the fact 
that 2 years earlier, Mr. Holder agreed that the FALN commutations were 
a reasonable act. It appears to be something of a trend here.
  The other area I am very concerned about, as I mentioned earlier, is 
the questions I asked Mr. Holder about the war on terrorism. Of course, 
it is hard for us now to recount the horrors of 9/11 when al-Qaida 
commandeered airplanes and hit here in Washington, DC, and New York, 
killing 3,000 Americans. It was in the wake of that that, of course, 
the Congress authorized the use of military force against al-Qaida in 
Afghanistan and against the Taliban. It is in the wake of that that 
Congress passed the PATRIOT Act to provide enhanced tools to our law 
enforcement agencies and our intelligence agencies to try to make sure 
9/11 never, ever happened again.
  The Department of Justice, particularly in the Office of Legal 
Counsel, was struggling with new efforts to try to figure out how to 
protect Americans from future attacks. I believe they struggled in good 
faith to try to come up with legal guidance for our President, his 
administration, and the intelligence authorities to make sure they were 
operating within the limits of the law, which, of course, prohibits 
torture. But I want to recount what Mr. Holder said in January 2002, 
which is at stark odds with what he has said now in 2008. He said in 
January 2002 that captured al-Qaida terrorists ``are not, in fact, 
people entitled to the protection of the Geneva Conventions. They are 
not prisoners of war.'' He went on to endorse indefinite detention of 
terrorists at Guantanamo Bay and argued that such prisoners should not 
be afforded Geneva Convention protections so that they could be 
interrogated and provide actionable intelligence that could prevent 
future attacks. But more recently, taking perhaps a more political or 
ideological bent, he chastised the Bush administration for policies he 
now seems to believe defy the law.
  I want to quote at length from an Associated Press article entitled 
``Obama AG pick defended Guantanamo policy,'' dated November 22, 2008. 
According to this article, when asked whether terrorism suspects could 
be held forever, Holder responded:

       It seems to me you can think of these people as combatants 
     and we are in the middle of a war.

  Holder said in a CNN interview in January 2002:

       And it seems to me that you could probably say, looking at 
     precedent, that you are going to detain these people until 
     the war is over, if that is ultimately what we wanted to do.

  Just weeks later, this article goes on to say, Holder told CNN he did 
not believe al-Qaida suspects qualified as prisoners of war under the 
Geneva Conventions.
  He said:

       One of the things we clearly want to do with these 
     prisoners is to have an ability to interrogate them and find 
     out what their future plans might be, where other cells may 
     be located. Under the Geneva Conventions, you are really 
     limited in the amount of information that you can elicit from 
     people.

  Holder said it was important to treat detainees humanely, but he said 
they ``are not, in fact, people entitled to the protection of the 
Geneva Convention. They are not prisoners of war.''
  In this article, he also downplayed criticism that these detainees 
were being mistreated. Now, these were essentially the same arguments 
being made by the Bush administration in the wake of 9/11. Since then, 
those arguments, as we all know, have been criticized by human rights 
groups, leading Democrats, and, surprisingly enough, Mr. Holder 
himself.
  He gave a speech to the American Constitution Society in June of 2008 
where he said, ``We must close our detention center at Guantanamo 
Bay.''
  He said:

       A great nation should not detain people, military or 
     civilian, in dark places beyond the reach of law. Guantanamo 
     Bay is an international embarrassment.

  He added that he never thought he would see the day where ``The 
Supreme Court would have to order the President of the United States to 
treat detainees in accordance with the Geneva Convention.''
  Those sharply contrasting positions from 2002 to 2008 make me wonder 
if this is the same person, the same Eric Holder. Moreover, it makes me 
wonder what it is he truly believes. In 2008, Mr. Holder, in a speech 
before the American Constitution Society, attacked many of the 
positions he once held as ``making a mockery of the rule of law.'' In 
that speech he called for ``a reckoning'' over the Bush 
administration's ``unlawful practices in the war on terror.'' He also 
accused the Bush administration of ``act[ing] in direct defiance of 
Federal law'' and railed against counterterrorism policies that he 
claimed ``violate international law and the United States 
Constitution.'' It is one thing to change your mind; it is another 
thing to change your mind and attack the very position you once held as 
one that could only be held in bad faith. It is cynical to characterize 
a position you once held later as ``making a mockery of the rule of 
law.''
  The recent attacks in Mumbai have reminded Americans of the 
possibility of another attack, literally anywhere in the world by 
committed terrorists. On November 26, 2008, Mumbai was ravaged by a 
gang of terrorists. More than 170 people died as a result of bombings 
and gunfire, including 6 Americans. If an American city were targeted 
in the same manner as Mumbai, or worse--let's say these terrorists had 
a biological, chemical, or nuclear device--it is critical that our laws 
give law enforcement personnel, intelligence personnel, the President 
of the United States the very intelligence they need in order to detect 
and defeat those attacks. Our intelligence officials and those who act 
consistent with interpretations of the law from the Office of Legal 
Counsel at the Department of Justice need to know the law is not going 
to change after they act consistent with what they understand the law 
to be in order to protect American citizens from future attacks.
  I worry about Mr. Holder's shifting opinions on what the law provides 
for and what it does not. I worry about the chilling effect it will 
have on future intelligence officials who may decide rather than risk 
prosecution by shifting opinions on what the law provides or does not, 
rather than risking everything I have worked a lifetime for, including 
what I have provided for my family, I am going to play it safe. From 
what we learned on 9/11, according to the 9/11 Commission, when we 
treat it safe, when we treat terrorism as a criminal act alone, we 
invite future attacks against our country.
  For all these reasons, I oppose the nomination.
  I ask unanimous consent that a letter from a number of hunting 
groups, anglers, landowners, and conservation groups in my State be 
printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                                 February 2, 2009.
     Hon. John Cornyn,
     Hart Senate Office Bldg.,
     Washington, DC.
     Hon. Kay Bailey Hutchison,
     Russell Senate Office Building,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senators Cornyn and Hutchison: The organizations 
     listed above represent hunters, anglers, landowners, 
     conservationists, natural resource professionals and many law 
     abiding gun owners in Texas. These groups and individuals 
     share a strong interest in sustaining and protecting our 
     current and future conservation initiatives, our long 
     standing hunting heritage, and ensuring our success to 
     effectively manage Texas' fish and wildlife resources. The 
     listed groups want to express their strong opposition to the 
     approval of Eric Holder's nomination as Attorney General of 
     the United States.
       Mr. Holder has consistently demonstrated opposition to our 
     Second Amendment Rights and has argued against the individual 
     right to keep and bear arms, as determined by the

[[Page S1257]]

     U.S. Supreme Court in Washington, D.C. vs Heller. He has 
     advocated for what we consider extreme gun restrictions. We 
     believe that Mr. Holder, as a preeminent legal expert and 
     outspoken advocate on stricter gun laws, would be in a 
     particularly powerful position to implement bureaucratic 
     measures and create procedural mischief that would erode gun 
     ownership rights.
       We are forced to logically contend that increased gun 
     control will result in a direct reduction in sales of 
     firearms and ammunition leading to a reduction in Federal Aid 
     funds available through the Sport Fish and Wildlife 
     Restoration Act. This will mean a reduction in funding to 
     financially support state fish and game agencies across the 
     nation and specifically the Texas Parks and Wildlife 
     Department in Texas, thus reducing our ability to conserve 
     our fish, wildlife and natural resources. This is a critical 
     issue for the hunter, angler and conservation community.
       While there seems to be a sense that President Obama is 
     still in a ``honeymoon period'' with his appointments that 
     are being reviewed by the Senate, this nomination clearly 
     must be thoroughly vetted and Mr. Holder's positions clearly 
     exposed and challenged. A lopsided vote without direct 
     confrontation over these extreme gun control positions would 
     send the wrong message and certainly erode progress that has 
     been made on Second Amendment issues and the individual right 
     to keep and bear arms.
       Thank you in advance for at the least speaking out and 
     highlighting these concerns during the upcoming vote. America 
     must be on record that his actions and decisions will be 
     closely monitored, and we encourage you to vote against the 
     nomination of Mr. Holder to clearly showcase these concerns.
       If you have any questions please contact Kirby Brown, 
     Chairman of the Texas Outdoor Partners.
           Sincerely,
         Anglers Club of San Antonio; Dove Sportsmen's Society; 
           Exotic Wildlife Association; Gulf Coast Chapter of SCI; 
           Houston Safari Club; Kayak Anglers Society of America; 
           National Wild Turkey Foundation--Texas Chapter; Quality 
           Deer Management Association; Recreational Fishing 
           Alliance--Texas; Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation, Texas 
           Chapter.
         San Antonio Metropolitan League of Bass Clubs; Safari 
           Club International, Austin Chapter; Sensible Management 
           of Aquatic Resources Team; Texas Association of Bass 
           Clubs; Texas BASS Federation Nation; Texas Black Bass 
           Unlimited; Texas Chapter of The Wildlife Society; Texas 
           Deer Association; Texas Dog Hunters Association; Texas 
           Gulf Coast Stewards.
         TexasHuntFish.Com; Texas Organization of Wildlife 
           Management Associations; Texas Outdoor Council; Texas 
           Quail Unlimited Chapters; Texas Sportsman's 
           Association; Texas State Rifle Association; Texas 
           Trophy Hunters Association; Texas Wildlife Association; 
           Wild Boar USA; Wildlife Habitat Federation.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Vermont.
  Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, I know the distinguished senior Senator 
from Minnesota, the distinguished only Senator from Minnesota, seeks 
recognition, the newest member of the Judiciary Committee, an 
extraordinarily valued addition to the committee. We are especially 
happy whenever we have a former prosecutor come on the committee.
  I yield to the Senator from Minnesota.
  Ms. KLOBUCHAR. I thank the Senator from Vermont.
  I rise today in support of Eric Holder to be the next Attorney 
General of the United States.
  The next Attorney General will need to hit the ground running, from 
beefing up civil rights and antitrust enforcement to addressing white-
collar crime and drug-related violence, to helping keep our country 
safe from terrorist attacks. As I told the Judiciary Committee last 
week when I voted in favor of his nomination, Eric Holder is the right 
man to do the job. He is the right man to lead the Department of 
Justice at this critical time. And most importantly, coming from a 
State that had our own share of problems with a political appointee put 
in place as U.S. Attorney, he is the right man to get the Department 
back on course, to put the law first, when it comes to the Department 
of Justice.
  First, as I look at the reasons why I am supporting his confirmation, 
at a key time in our Nation's history, where we deal with terrorist 
acts not contemplated in simpler times--from cyber battlefields to 
sophisticated crimes, from market manipulation to financial fraud--Eric 
Holder has a clear command of the legal issues confronting our country. 
That was apparent in the discussions that took place during the 
nomination hearing. There were a number of Senators, particularly those 
on the other side of the aisle, who had some very good questions. When 
you listened to the discussion Eric Holder had with Senator Kyl 
regarding some of the ongoing foreign intelligence issues, from 
multipoint wiretap authority to lone-wolf surveillance authority, it 
was obvious that Eric Holder knew what he was talking about. He was 
convincing to Senator Kyl as they discussed this. The discussions he 
had with Senators Hatch and Feingold regarding executive power and 
congressional authority and the important back and forth with Senators 
Sessions, Graham, and Feinstein regarding terrorism cases, regarding 
the unique nature of those cases, regarding the issues facing our 
agents and soldiers in the field and the prosecution of detainees, 
despite what we recently heard from my colleague from Texas, it is no 
surprise to me that after hearing Eric Holder's command of the law and 
the issues facing the country, the vote on the committee was 
overwhelming. The vote was 17 to 2. So many of my Republican colleagues 
who earlier had expressed concerns about Eric Holder ended up 
supporting him and voting for him and asking that he be the next 
Attorney General.
  The second reason I am glad to support Eric Holder is he is committed 
to the bread-and-butter work of the Justice Department. As Chairman 
Leahy noted, before I came to the Senate I was a prosecutor for 8 
years. I ran an office of 400 people. I had some sense of the 
importance of going after not only the big crimes but also the little 
crimes. Eric Holder was a pioneer in this area when he was U.S. 
attorney and established a community prosecution initiative. It is 
built on the idea of community policing. It goes back to the basics. 
The idea is instead of a prosecutor sitting in the office looking at a 
bunch of files, none with any relation to the neighborhood we are 
supposed to protect, the prosecutor is assigned to a certain area to 
work with the same police, to work with the same neighborhood groups. 
While there may be some crimes committed in the government centers in 
this country, for the most part they are not. This idea of community 
prosecution connects what goes on in those four walls of the government 
centers, in those four squares of the centers to the neighborhoods out 
in the field, to the people out in the field. When we did this in 
Hennepin County by assigning prosecutors by geographic area to work 
directly with a set group of police and neighborhood groups, we got 
better results for liveability crimes. We got stronger sentences, and 
we saw a 120-percent reduction in crime. Again, Eric Holder, when he 
was U.S. Attorney in the District of Columbia, which involves not just 
doing U.S. attorney type prosecution but also the bread-and-butter work 
of prosecutions in the District because of its unique nature, he was 
one of the pioneers for community prosecution. It shows his command and 
explains why he has so much support from law enforcement.
  I remember actually during this time we had a visit--this is way 
back, years ago--from a Presidential candidate to one of our suburban 
areas. I said to one of the police officers: Do you want to meet this 
person? He said: Well, not really. I want to know if Terry Froling is 
here. She was our community prosecutor we had assigned to that suburb 
of Bloomington, MN, whom he had gotten to know and respect. It brought 
home to me again how important this program was. You can see the faith 
that law enforcement has put on Eric Holder by the number of bipartisan 
endorsements he has received. You also see the endorsements of 
Republican-appointed prosecutors such as my law school classmate Jim 
Comey. That means a lot to me, and it should mean a lot to Members of 
the Senate.
  Third, Eric Holder is a humble person who is willing to admit 
mistakes. From my brief 2 years here, we need a little bit more of that 
in Washington. As a former prosecutor, I am not a big fan of pardons. I 
told this to Mr. Holder. But anyone who has worked in the criminal 
justice system, whether as a police officer or prosecutor or a public 
defender or a judge, anyone who has worked in the system for any length 
of time knows that people make mistakes. For 8 years, when I managed 
our office, I saw the gut-wrenching decisions--and I had to make some 
myself--that the people have to make on the frontline.

[[Page S1258]]

From the momentary decisions that police officers need to make at a 
fast-moving crime scene, whether to shoot, whether to knock down a 
door, to the decisions prosecutors need to make about whether to call a 
certain witness or whether to plea down a case when the case is falling 
apart and they know their own hope to get someone off the street they 
consider dangerous is to accept that plea--those are the tough 
decisions that may not make good television, but they are the true 
decisions that prosecutors need to make every day.
  If you want someone with experience for this job, they are going to 
have made some decisions you don't like or that I don't like. There is 
absolutely no doubt about it. People who are in this field have to make 
literally dozens of decisions a day. They are going to make some 
decisions you don't like. They will have made some mistakes. I am glad 
they were discussed and brought up at the nomination hearing and glad 
that so many of my committee colleagues actually took the time to 
listen to the nominee. He explained that one thing was a mistake, that 
he wouldn't have made that decision if he had more information. He 
admitted that, and we were able to question him at length. He explained 
some things that he still supported that they didn't agree with or that 
the times had changed and they had more information and there is reason 
they didn't agree with it now. Those discussions were had and he was 
candid.
  What we have learned from that committee hearing is that in the end, 
so many of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle looked at this man 
as a whole, and they decided that as a whole his experience, while 
there may have been flaws in his experience, led them to support him 
for this job, which leads to my last reason.
  Eric Holder's background is, first, as a prosecutor in the field. But 
just as importantly, it is also as a sound, solid, competent manager 
who is guided by justice, someone who will lead quietly but firmly, 
someone who will work to build the morale of a department that has 
suffered for too long. As I mentioned, I saw it in my own State when 
one bad decision made up on high, when the Attorney General was Alberto 
Gonzales, putting an inexperienced political appointee into the top 
spot of a gem of a U.S. Attorney's Office in Minnesota, created 
absolute havoc in our State and in that office. I had worked with that 
office for years. I know the people who work there. I know how high 
quality they are. That one decision wreaked havoc in that office. 
Thanks to General Mukasey, that office is now steady. I appreciate how 
he consulted with me about the replacement for that job. I also 
appreciate how our State's acting U.S. Attorney Frank Magill has 
skillfully guided the office through a difficult time and restored 
morale. But that experience with the U.S. Attorney's Office in my State 
has brought home to me the importance of having an Attorney General who 
puts the law and not politics at the helm of the Department of Justice. 
As former Attorney General Dick Thornburg said, Attorney General for 
Presidents Reagan and George H.W. Bush:

       The next Attorney General will need to restore the image of 
     the Department of Justice as a nonpartisan organization 
     dedicated to the rule of law.

  I couldn't agree more. We need to put justice and the law at the 
helm. I support the Holder nomination to be Attorney General because I 
believe Eric Holder can steer this big ship and get it back on course 
and put justice at the helm.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Udall of New Mexico). The Senator from 
Kentucky.
  Mr. BUNNING. Mr. President, I need about 7 or 8 minutes.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, point of inquiry. I certainly don't want to 
interfere with the Senator from Kentucky, but I think Senator Cornyn 
had locked in a specific amount of time for the Senator from Kentucky; 
am I correct?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. That is correct, 5 minutes.
  Mr. BUNNING. All right. I will not argue with the Senator from 
Vermont.
  I rise today to discuss the nomination of Eric Holder to be U.S. 
Attorney General. Unfortunately, I cannot support his nomination to 
this post.
  While Mr. Holder certainly has the experience and credentials that 
one would want to see as head of the Department of Justice, his 
judgment is lacking. As a Deputy Attorney General in the Clinton 
administration, Mr. Holder approved several controversial pardons.
  First, I wish to mention the case of Marc Rich. At the close of the 
Clinton administration, a pardon was issued for this infamous fugitive 
financier. Mr. Rich was charged in the early 1980s with 51 counts of 
tax fraud for evading more than $48 million in taxes.
  He was also indicted for conducting illegal oil deals with the 
Iranian Government at the time Iran was holding 52 U.S. citizens 
hostage. Mr. Rich then fled the country and allegedly renounced his 
U.S. citizenship to avoid extradition. This was enough to land him on 
the FBI's ``Ten Most Wanted List.''
  Mr. Holder's recommendation on this pardon of Mr. Rich was ``neutral, 
leaning favorable.'' Accounts indicate he did this without consulting 
the prosecutors handling the Rich case in the Southern District of New 
York. His willingness to push this pardon ahead is troubling, to say 
the least.
  The second questionable pardon involving Mr. Holder concerns 16 
members of the terrorist group, the Armed Forces of National 
Liberation, better known as FALN. This radical group supports Puerto 
Rican independence and was labeled as a terrorist group by the FBI. 
Between 1974 and 1983, FALN claimed responsibility for more than 120 
bombings in the United States. These bombings killed six people and 
injured many more.
  Mr. Holder overturned previous denials of clemency for these 
terrorists. The pardons were also opposed by two U.S. attorneys who 
prosecuted FALN cases, and by the FBI. According to the Los Angeles 
Times, Mr. Holder even overruled the Office of the Pardon Attorney at 
the Department of Justice. In fact, Mr. Holder never reached out to 
opponents of this clemency or one family of the victims. The son of a 
man killed in an FALN bombing first learned about the pardons from 
reading the newspaper.
  I am also very concerned about Mr. Holder's views on second amendment 
rights. During his confirmation hearing before the Senate Judiciary 
Committee, he was consistently vague and would not answer directly on 
questions regarding the second amendment.
  I find this to be unsettling and unsatisfactory. However, past 
statements and actions indicate a nominee who has shown hostility 
toward the right of Americans to keep and bear arms. The Supreme Court 
decision last year in the Heller case reaffirmed that the second 
amendment is an individual right, and Mr. Holder opposes this decision. 
He seems to hold the view that gun possession is not a right, as the 
Heller case confirmed, but more a privilege or hobby that needs to be 
strictly regulated.
  Mr. Holder is supportive of old ideas for gun control that have never 
proven to make people safer at the expense of taking away their rights. 
He has indicated he will favor licensing and registering all gun 
owners, a policy I do not think will sit well with Americans.
  Lastly, the Attorney General of the United States is the Nation's top 
law enforcement official. He cannot pick and choose which of our rights 
he will defend and which ones he will overrun. His views on the second 
amendment make me very wary of his confirmation to this great position 
he is being considered to be confirmed to. Coupled with his handling of 
the Clinton era pardons, I think this nomination is very worrisome. It 
is unfortunate, but I cannot support this nominee. I will be voting 
against his confirmation, and I urge my colleagues to do the same.
  Thank you, Mr. President.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Vermont.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, seeing the Senator from California on the 
floor, how much time would the Senator wish to have?
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I do not believe I will use it, but if 
I might have 10 minutes.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I yield the distinguished senior Senator 
from California 10 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from California is recognized for 
10 minutes.

[[Page S1259]]

  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Thank you very much, Mr. President.
  Mr. President, I respectfully strongly disagree with the 
distinguished Senator.
  In my 16 years on the Judiciary Committee, I have never seen a more 
qualified nominee. Mr. Holder has been a prosecutor in the Public 
Integrity Section of the Department of Justice; a Superior Court judge 
for the District of Columbia; the U.S. attorney for the District of 
Columbia; an attorney in private practice; and the Deputy Attorney 
General of the United States, the No. 2 position in the Department. I 
do not think you can beat these credentials.
  Now, people find one two decisions out of a multiplicity of decisions 
Mr. Holder has made with which they disagree--and they are welcome to 
disagree--but that does not destroy his value or his worth as Attorney 
General.
  President Reagan first appointed Holder to be a Superior Court judge, 
and President Clinton then named him U.S. attorney and Deputy Attorney 
General. On all three occasions, he was unanimously confirmed by the 
Senate.
  Today, his nomination is being broadly supported by Members of both 
parties. We have received letters from people such as the former FBI 
Director, Louis Freeh; former Deputy Attorneys General Jim Comey, Paul 
McNulty, and Larry Thompson; former Solicitor General and Republican 
Ted Olsen; and President George H.W. Bush's Attorney General, William 
Barr.
  Virtually every single law enforcement agency in the country has come 
out to endorse him: the Fraternal Order of Police, the National 
Association of Attorneys General, the Attorneys General of over 30 
States, the National Criminal Justice Association, and on and on.
  He has unified support among the civil rights community: the NAACP, 
the Asian-American Justice Center, the Mexican-American Legal Defense 
and Educational Fund, and the Human Rights Campaign.
  It is rare to see such bipartisan support for a candidate. In Mr. 
Holder's case, I believe it is very well deserved. He is a man of 
integrity, intelligence, humility, and heart.
  I remember our prior Attorney General, Mr. Gonzales, making the 
statement that he wore two hats. At the time he said it, I did not 
realize what the implication was. He stated, and on the record, that he 
represented the President of the United States and he represented the 
people of this Nation.
  Well, we saw in spades what a double-hatted Attorney General can do. 
We saw the politicization of that Department. We saw the top people in 
the Department acting politically with appointments. We saw the 
diminution of the Civil Rights Division. We saw at least 9 U.S. 
attorneys terminated because the administration did not agree with the 
decision they either refused to make or made. That is not the way the 
Attorney General should run what is a very large Department.
  This is a $25 billion agency. It has over 100,000 employees. It is 
charged with fighting terrorism, stopping violent crime, upholding our 
civil rights laws, and enforcing our civil liberties. As those of us on 
the Judiciary Committee know well, the Department is badly in need of 
repair.
  In January of 2007--as a matter of fact, I remember it well--I came 
to the floor, and I said someone, a Republican, had called me and said 
that on a given day in December, seven U.S. attorneys had been fired. 
Well, I checked, and in fact that was correct. On December 7, seven 
U.S. attorneys had been fired. What he also told me: It was all for the 
wrong reasons. And he said: Look into it.

  Under the leadership of the chairman of the committee, Pat Leahy, we 
did look into it. What we found was a trend in the middle of the term 
to essentially take certain U.S. attorneys and terminate them for one 
reason or another: some, I believe, because they would not bring a 
certain prosecution and some, I believe to this day, because they did 
bring a certain prosecution.
  Last year, Inspector General Glenn Fine released four separate 
reports documenting violations of civil service laws and politicized 
hiring throughout the Department. Well, there is a big job to do, and 
it is going to be Mr. Holder's duty to turn this Department around, to 
restore its credibility.
  This is a proud Department, and I believe Mr. Holder gave every one 
of us on the committee confidence last month when he stated this:

       [T]he notion that the Justice Department would ever take 
     into account a person's political affiliation or political 
     beliefs in making [career] hiring decisions is antithetical 
     to everything that the Department stands for. Now, that is a 
     substantial commitment, and those of us on the Judiciary 
     Committee will be watching him carry it out. So I am 
     delighted this new Attorney General--I believe will be 
     confirmed at 6:15 tonight--will restore the integrity and the 
     professionalism of this great Department.

  In my view, despite differences on certain judgments, there is no 
one--no one--more qualified to become Attorney General of the United 
States than Eric Holder, and I will proudly cast my vote for him.
  Thank you very much, Mr. President.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Vermont.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, how much time is remaining on the 
Republican side, and how much time is remaining on the Democratic side?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Democratic side has 31 minutes 40 seconds, 
and the Republican side has 31 minutes 5 seconds.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I thank the distinguished Presiding 
Officer. I do not see any Republicans in the Chamber, although it would 
be their turn to speak next on this confirmation. While we are waiting, 
I will mention a couple things, and do this on the Democratic time.
  There has been a lot of criticism of pardons and clemencies that 
former President Clinton granted. I would note that it was not Eric 
Holder who granted any of these clemencies or pardons. It was President 
Clinton.
  Now, I know for the last 8 years, certainly while the Republicans 
were in charge, we would have one hearing, one investigation after 
another about the Clinton years, and it seemed to be kind of on 
automatic pilot. I heard a lot of outrage on the Republican side about 
pardons granted by President Clinton, and I shared my disappointment in 
some of those. I have heard them say people should have spoken out 
immediately. Well, many of us did.
  But I was not able to find a single one who spoke out showing any 
outrage a few months ago when Republican President Bush gave a pass to 
Scooter Libby, Vice President Dick Cheney's former Chief of Staff, who 
commuted his prison sentence a very short time before he was about to 
begin that sentence. That was an extraordinarily serious case that 
involved leaking the name of a covert CIA operative for a political 
purpose, and the decision to communicate that leak was made by 
President Bush, despite objections from the prosecutor, despite 
objections from the victim, and despite objections from the public. I 
do not recall any Republicans objecting to President Bush's decision.
  Now, they say they are objecting to something President Clinton did. 
I do not want to suggest in any way that the objections are partisan, 
but they certainly are not consistent.
  I know Republicans set the standard as to who should be Attorney 
General. They voted unanimously for Attorney General Alberto Gonzales. 
Afterwards, many quietly talked to the White House about getting rid of 
Attorney General Gonzales because he was not up to par, but they were 
not going to vote against him. Now we have somebody far more qualified, 
and the Republicans talk about voting against him.
  On the subject of the FALN, I should not that we have already had 
many hearings on this issue. I, for one, was critical of the 
commutations made by President Clinton, but let's look at the record 
and let's look at the facts. As Deputy Attorney General, Mr. Holder had 
no final decision-making power to grant clemency or pardons. Mr. 
Holder's memo to the White House made no recommendation on clemency for 
the prisoners. It simply provided the analysis that is expected to be 
provided to the White House with multiple options for each prisoner. 
None of the FALN members offered clemency by President Clinton were 
present when individuals were killed or injured. The prisoners who were 
offered clemency were released under strict supervision by Federal 
probation authorities. None have caused any future harm. The only ones 
who were given clemency were

[[Page S1260]]

those who announced their willingness to renounce violence and had 
already served from 17 to 19 years. This was not a get-out-of-jail free 
card.
  The clemency provided by President Clinton was supported by various 
Members of Congress; numerous religious, human rights, labor, Hispanic, 
civic and community groups; as well as Archbishop Desmond Tutu, and 
other Nobel prize recipients. I would note that many of the law 
enforcement agencies and law enforcement officials who were critical of 
the FALN clemencies given by former President Clinton are the same 
prosecutors who had prosecuted those cases and who came forward and 
strongly and unequivocally endorsed Eric Holder to be Attorney General 
of the United States.
  So we can talk and talk and talk and talk and talk and talk and set 
up double standards. The fact is, the people most knowledgeable about 
what happened argued in favor of Eric Holder as Attorney General.
  Mr. President, I reserve the remainder of my time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Missouri is recognized.
  Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I rise today to support the nomination of 
Eric Holder for the position of Attorney General of the United States.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Missouri is recognized under 
the previous order for 10 minutes.
  Mr. BOND. I thank the Chair.
  My decision to support Mr. Holder's nomination does not come easily. 
Certainly, Mr. Holder has an outstanding reputation as a career 
prosecutor and an effective litigator, and he has received strong 
support from prominent government and former government officials on 
both sides of the aisle. However, I have been concerned about a number 
of aspects of Mr. Holder's nomination.
  First, I have been deeply troubled by Mr. Holder's poor 
decisionmaking in the case of the pardon of Mr. Rich and the FALN 
members. Also, I have been concerned about his past comments regarding 
the second amendment, even after the Supreme Court rendered its pro-
individual rights decision earlier this year. Most notably, I have been 
concerned about some of the comments related to intelligence activities 
that Mr. Holder made in past public speeches and during his recent 
confirmation hearing.
  As vice chairman of the Intelligence Committee, I want to ensure that 
the intelligence community has the tools it needs to protect the 
country, and I want to make sure we will have an Attorney General in 
place who will help keep America safe.
  In an effort to gain some clarity on Mr. Holder's current thinking on 
these issues and concerns, he met with me privately to discuss them. We 
discussed, for example, the President's Terrorist Surveillance Program, 
the FISA Amendments Act, the intelligence community's Detention and 
Interrogation Program, Guantanamo Bay, various interrogation 
legislative proposals, the applicability of the writ of habeas corpus 
to terrorists, renditions, and media leak investigations. A few days 
later we had a second meeting to discuss further the issues of great 
concern to me and my position on the Intelligence Committee, notably, 
the carrier liability provisions in the FISA Amendments Act and the 
propriety of investigating intelligence officials who acted in good 
faith and with proper authorization in the conduct of intelligence 
interrogations.
  There have been some confusing press reports about my meetings with 
Mr. Holder as well as statements from Senators who were not in 
attendance at those meetings about it. So now is probably a good time 
to set the record straight.
  First, it should go without saying that neither Mr. Holder nor I made 
any pledges or promises with respect to his nomination. We met, rather, 
so that we could share our perspectives on these very important issues. 
In those meetings, Mr. Holder provided me some additional insight that 
assures me he and the Department of Justice will be looking forward to 
keeping the Nation safe.
  I invite my colleagues' attention to the following written assurance 
given by Mr. Holder to Senator Kyl about a week ago concerning the 
investigation of intelligence officials conducting interrogation 
activities. He said:

       Prosecutorial and investigative judgments must depend on 
     the facts and no one is above the law. But where it is clear 
     that a government agent has acted in responsible and good 
     faith reliance on Justice Department legal opinions' 
     authoritatively permitting his conduct, I would find it 
     difficult to justify commencing a full blown criminal 
     investigation, let alone a prosecution.

  During our meeting, Mr. Holder expanded on these remarks and 
explained why he had reached that conclusion--a conclusion with which I 
happen to agree.
  While his public answer to Senator Kyl and my main emphasis during 
our meetings focused on the intelligence officials who followed DOJ 
legal guidance and not on those who either wrote that legal advice or 
authorized the intelligence activities based upon such advice, I told 
him--and I believe he understood--that trying to prosecute these 
lawyers or political leaders would generate a political firestorm.
  Besides interrogation, we focused during both meetings on the issue 
of carrier liability protection under the FISA Amendments Act. During 
Mr. Holder's confirmation hearing, Senator Hatch asked him whether he 
would honor the carrier liability certifications issued by Attorney 
General Mukasey. Mr. Holder answered that he believed he would honor 
those certifications unless circumstances changed.
  I have asked Mr. Holder if he could explain the ``changed 
circumstances'' which would cause him to withdraw the existing 
certifications, noting that it would be difficult for circumstances to 
change since all this happened in the past, was considered by the 
Senate and the House, we wrote a bill, and under which the Attorney 
General made a judgment based on those circumstances. Mr. Holder didn't 
give any specific examples of changed circumstances, but he planned to 
review the certifications to which he has not had access if confirmed. 
Given that those certifications are based upon relatively simple, 
classified facts, I am certain he will reach the same legal conclusion 
as Attorney General Mukasey, and I am comfortable with his thinking on 
the matter as he described it to me.

  I cannot stress enough to my colleagues and the American people the 
importance of the carrier liability protection provisions in the FISA 
Amendments Act. These provisions not only put an end to the frivolous 
lawsuits brought against the carriers alleged to have participated in 
the terrorist surveillance program, they also increase the likelihood 
of future cooperation with the intelligence community by the carriers 
as the community strives to keep us safe within the bounds of law. I 
also stressed the fact that Mr. Holder is not read-in--or given 
access--either to the terrorist surveillance program or the 
interrogation program, so it would not be advisable to make any 
definitive statements about either program without the pertinent facts, 
and he agreed with me on this point.
  I enjoyed my meetings with Mr. Holder. While we did not agree on 
every issue, I appreciated his stated willingness to keep an open mind 
until he has had a chance to review the classified facts involved in 
most of these intelligence issues.
  I found Mr. Holder to be a good listener, which is an important 
prerequisite for any good leader. I believe him when he says he is 
willing to take good ideas from wherever they come. As his predecessor, 
General Mukasey, he will, I believe, be an Attorney General more 
interested in justice than in politics.
  Now, I understand a number of my colleagues will not support Mr. 
Holder's nomination. I respect their legitimate concerns about his 
unsatisfactory performance in the Rich and FALN pardons. I, too, have 
real problems in these matters. Pardoning Marc Rich--an international 
fugitive from justice--was certainly a stain on the Presidency and Mr. 
Holder's record. Mr. Holder told me, as he said publicly, that his role 
was a mistake he regrets. I believe he genuinely knows what he did was 
wrong and would not do such a thing again. Similarly, I suppressed my 
concerns to Mr. Holder regarding his role with the Puerto Rican FALN 
group. I disagree with him that granting clemency to such people even 
after the time they served could ever be appropriate, but he has told 
me that regardless of whether we agree that it was acceptable in a pre-
9/11 world; he would not view similar future requests in the

[[Page S1261]]

same manner in our post-9/11 world. In that respect, I believe Mr. 
Holder fully supports an aggressive stand against terrorists today. I 
am hopeful he has learned important lessons from these events.
  When confirmed, Mr. Holder will be taking over the Department of 
Justice that is stacked with legal talent. I wish to take a moment to 
note that the Nation owes a great debt of gratitude to the Department 
of Justice. During the past several years, we have worked very closely 
with the Department on many important pieces of national security 
legislation, including the PATRIOT Act, the Intelligence Reform and 
Terrorism Prevention Act, the 9/11 Recommendations Implementation Act, 
the USA Patriot Improvement and Reauthorization Act, the Protect 
America Act, and of course, the FISA Amendments Act. I am very grateful 
for the dedicated efforts of the National Security Division, the Office 
of Legal Policy, the Office of Legal Counsel, and the FBI in assisting 
us with these various legislative matters. I also commend those on the 
frontline for their untiring service and efforts to keep us safe from 
the many and diverse threats against our national security while 
ensuring that our civil liberties are protected. I expect that Mr. 
Holder and the Department of Justice will continue this tradition, and 
I look forward to working with Mr. Holder closely on PATRIOT Act sunset 
issues and other important national security matters during this 
Congress to protect our Nation.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Rhode Island is recognized.
  Mr. WHITEHOUSE. Mr. President, I thank the Chair, and I thank the 
distinguished vice chairman of the Intelligence Committee for his 
words. It is a pleasure to work with him on the committee. I think we 
are both looking forward to a new relationship with the Department of 
Justice under a new Attorney General.
  I see my friend and colleague, Senator Sessions, here waiting to 
speak, so I just wanted to make two quick points. The first is that 
this is a man of really exceptional experience. Our distinguished 
Presiding Officer--who I don't think can be seen on the television 
right now--is the distinguished Senator Udall from New Mexico who was 
an Attorney General himself. He understands the value of experience in 
these jobs. This is a man who has been a U.S. attorney, who has been a 
Federal judge, who has been the Deputy Attorney General of the United 
States--the No. 2 position in this Department, and who, by all 
standards, has acquitted himself with remarkable distinction during the 
course of his tenure in those three positions.
  It is also noteworthy that the Department of Justice has fallen on 
very hard times recently. People from both sides of the aisle from 
recent and distant administrations have come forward to try to be 
helpful to express their concern and their dismay about what was 
allowed to happen to this great Department. From all of my experience 
with the--I guess you could call them group of friends at the 
Department of Justice, people who served there and who have great 
affection for that Department, they view Eric Holder as a special 
person who has a unique capacity to fight for the principles the 
Department has long prided itself on: independence, talent, pure legal 
analysis, and courage. I think it is going to be very reassuring for 
the friends and family of the Department of Justice who have been so 
concerned about what has happened to it in the last few months to have 
this man now in charge. There will be a huge sigh of relief. I 
compliment my colleagues on the bipartisan way in which this has gone 
forward. Clearly, there were concerns early on and they were addressed 
fairly. This is a nomination that passed out of the Judiciary Committee 
17 to 2, which, in a highly partisan environment in Washington, is as 
close to a perfect score as I think you are going to get. It continues 
to receive broad support from both sides of the aisle on the floor. I 
know many people who are significant in the history of the Department 
of Justice have spoken in support of Eric Holder, including former 
Attorneys General Barr and Jim Comer, two of the most distinguished 
people who have done so.

  Without further ado, I will yield the floor so my friend, Senator 
Sessions, can speak. I think this is a great moment of opportunity for 
the country and the Department of Justice. I hope we can confirm Eric 
Holder to be Attorney General with a very strong number when we get to 
the vote.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senator from 
Alabama is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I ask to be notified when I have used 3 
minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair will do so.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, Senator Whitehouse and I both served as 
U.S. attorneys. Eric Holder also served as a Federal judge supervising 
prosecutions and tried cases in the District of Columbia as a U.S. 
attorney. He served 4 years as Deputy Attorney General and did many 
good things during that time. He also made several serious errors, 
which I think and believe he has understood. He has committed not to 
make them again. He was influenced by the President, President Clinton, 
to do the pardons, and he should not have been influenced. I note that 
he moved away from that area of judge, prosecutor, and was active in 
the Kerry and Obama presidential campaigns. I have talked to him, and I 
believe he will be a responsible legal officer and not a politician as 
the Attorney General. I intend to support him.
  I want to take a minute to express a growing concern I have about my 
beloved Department of Justice, where I spent 15 years as a prosecutor. 
It is something I respect highly. We do need to eliminate politics from 
that office. Some of the nominees coming up disturb me, and the pattern 
of them is disturbing. One is Elena Kagan, nominated for the Solicitor 
General. While dean of the Harvard Law School, she barred the U.S. 
military from coming on campus as long as she could successfully get 
away with it. She actually filed a brief in the Supreme Court when the 
Congress got so fed up with the idea that American universities would 
not allow the U.S. military to come on campus to ask students if they 
would like to be a part of the American military. She led the fight 
with an appeal all the way to the Supreme Court to reverse the Solomon 
amendment, which would require colleges and universities to either 
allow the military on campus or get no Federal funds. She led that 
battle. It was voted down in the Supreme Court 8 to 0, as well it 
should have been.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair advises the Senator that 3 minutes 
has elapsed.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent for 1 more 
minute.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. LEAHY. On the Republican time?
  Mr. SESSIONS. Yes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Dawn Johnsen, nominated to be assistant Attorney 
General for the Office of Legal Counsel, was the legal director for 
NARAL, the National Abortion Rights Action League, one of the most 
aggressive--probably the most aggressive--pro-abortion group in the 
country.
  David Ogden, nominated for Deputy Attorney General, represented the 
murder defendants in Roper v. Simmons, which led to the unprincipled 
decision about defendants and the death penalty.
  Thomas Perrelli, who represented Michael Schiavo in the Terry Schiavo 
case, is nominated for Associate Attorney General, third in command.
  D. Anthony West, who is nominated for Assistant Attorney General for 
Civil Division, represented John Walker Lindh, the American Taliban who 
has been prosecuted and convicted.
  We are heading into problems on some other nominations. We do not 
need the Department of Justice to become a liberal bastion. It needs to 
be the cornerstone of defending Americans and our safety.
  I yield the floor and reserve the remainder of our time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Mr. ISAKSON. Mr. President, I ask to be recognized for up to 2 
minutes of the Republican time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is recognized.
  Mr. ISAKSON. Mr. President, I will vote today for Eric Holder. I want 
to

[[Page S1262]]

tell this body why. When he was first nominated, I had concerns--second 
amendment concerns and Guantanamo interrogation concerns, and about 
some of the releases that had taken place while he was a deputy U.S. 
attorney. There are three main reasons I am going to support this 
nomination. One, when I called him, he was the most forthright, most 
candid of all the people who have been appointed by the President, and 
I appreciate very much the time he took.
  On the second amendment, he may have had interpretations more strict 
than mine, but he interpreted the Supreme Court to be the law of the 
land, and he would enforce the Supreme Court, which has clearly 
determined that the second amendment is an individual right.
  Secondly, on Guantanamo, he acknowledged that those who had done 
interrogations had done so under the authority of the Department of 
Justice, and the Department of Justice could not undo what it had done. 
I respected that.
  Third, a great U.S. attorney general from Georgia by the name of 
Griffin Bell, who died 2 weeks ago, under Jimmy Carter, sang Eric 
Holder's praises. Also, Larry Thompson of Georgia, deputy U.S. attorney 
under John Ashcroft--when I called him to ask about Holder, he said he 
was as good a lawyer and as fine and forthright a man as he knew. With 
those endorsements and his candid answers to my questions, I will vote 
for his confirmation in the Senate.
  I yield back the remainder of my time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I thank the distinguished Senator from 
Georgia, and I appreciate his support. I understood there were going to 
be other Senators from this side coming to speak. I note that the time 
is running, and they will lose their time if they do not come to speak 
soon. I also add, while we are waiting, that I have had a special and 
significant interest in the Department of Justice from the time I was a 
law student. I watched so many attorneys general who have served at the 
Justice Department, some have been very good, but many have not. There 
is nobody--certainly, since I have been old enough to vote--who has 
been Attorney General with the potential to be as great an Attorney 
General as Eric Holder.
  Like others in the Senate, I supported him when President Reagan 
nominated him for a judgeship, and he was unanimously confirmed. With 
many others in the Senate, I supported him when he was nominated to be 
a U.S. Attorney. He was unanimously confirmed. I also supported him 
when he was nominated to be Deputy Attorney General and for weeks he 
was held up on the floor by an anonymous hold. For some reason, there 
was an anonymous hold against Eric Holder. When that hold was finally 
lifted, lo and behold, nobody voted against him. He was again 
unanimously confirmed.
  I see the distinguished Senator from Maryland, one of the most 
valuable members of the Judiciary Committee, on the floor of the 
Senate. How much time would the Senator like?
  Mr. CARDIN. About 5 minutes.
  Mr. LEAHY. I yield 5 minutes to the Senator from Maryland.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maryland is recognized.
  Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, first, I thank the Senator from Vermont, 
the chairman of the Judiciary Committee, for his work regarding the 
Eric Holder nomination. I think the confirmation process has been very 
fair. I must point out that when then-President-elect Obama indicated 
that his choice for Attorney General would be Eric Holder, I was very 
excited and supportive of his selection.
  The confirmation process of the chairman of the Judiciary Committee 
has been conducted in a very fair and open manner. It has only made my 
support for Eric Holder more strong. The documents made available to 
the committee and the letters we have received from interested 
parties--many from those who have served in the Department of Justice 
under Republican administrations--have all strongly endorsed Eric 
Holder to be the next Attorney General of the United States.
  I am convinced he is the right person at the right time for many 
reasons. First, his experience; he brings a wealth of experience to the 
position of Attorney General. He was a former judge and a former U.S. 
attorney. He has been in the Office of the Attorney General in the 
Department of Justice, and he has been a private attorney. He brings a 
sense of independence that we need in the Office of the Attorney 
General. He must be the Attorney General for the people of this 
country. He doesn't serve one person or just the President; he serves 
all Americans. We need an Attorney General who is going to be 
independent and willing to stand for what is right; stand up to a 
Cabinet Secretary or even the President with independent advice as to 
what the law states.
  We are a nation of laws. The rule of law is extremely important. Eric 
Holder, throughout his career, has demonstrated that independence. I 
will give you one example. When Ken Starr, who was investigating former 
President Bill Clinton, wanted to expand his investigation of the 
President, it was up to Eric Holder to make that recommendation, and he 
made that recommendation in favor of the Independent Counsel. So he has 
shown his ability to do what is right, even if it is not popular to the 
person who appointed him, the President.
  Secondly, I believe Eric Holder will restore the right priorities for 
the good of justice. When asked about torture, without any equivocation 
he said torture is illegal and cannot be accepted under any situation. 
He didn't equivocate. We know when we need to restore the strength of 
the Civil Rights Division in the Department of Justice, he said he 
would do that. He clearly will restore to the Department of Justice the 
priorities that are most important for the Department of Justice.
  Let me point out, in short, Eric Holder will restore the reputation 
of the Department of Justice, and he will retain and recruit the very 
best legal minds to represent the interests of all of the people of our 
Nation. I strongly endorse his confirmation and urge my colleagues to 
do that. With that, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senator from 
Texas is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I rise to speak on the nomination of 
Eric Holder for the position of Attorney General of the United States. 
We place enormous trust in the nominee for this position to not only 
enforce the laws of our land but also to advise the President on legal 
and constitutional matters. One of the important freedoms that we have 
in the Constitution is the right to keep and bear arms, guaranteed to 
us in the second amendment of the Constitution. Many jurisdictions 
around our country do not have the ability to own a gun, and there are 
restrictions in jurisdictions all over our country for the use of a 
gun. Nowhere is it more strict than in Washington, DC.
  In 1976, in Washington, DC, the City Council passed the toughest gun 
control laws in the Nation, banning handguns and requiring rifles and 
shotguns to be registered, stored unloaded, and either locked or 
disassembled. These were the most restrictive laws in our Nation 
regarding gun ownership. I thought they were not only incomprehensible 
but certainly unconstitutional.
  I introduced a bill with a number of my colleagues to repeal these 
prohibitive measures.
  This prohibition, however, was challenged in court before my bill 
could get through Congress, and the DC Circuit Court of Appeals agreed 
that the District's ban was unconstitutional.
  When the District appealed to the Supreme Court, I filed an amicus 
brief with our colleague Jon Tester that was supported by 53 Senators 
and 250 Members of the House of Representatives. This was on the 
interpretation of the second amendment as preserving an individual 
right to keep and bear firearms. Our brief contained the most 
congressional signatures on any amicus brief ever in the history of our 
country.
  In another amicus brief in this same district court opinion that was 
appealed to the Supreme Court, the nominee before us, Mr. Holder, along 
with 12 other former Justice Department officials, argued in favor of 
the gun ban in Washington, DC. His brief stated:

       The second amendment does not protect firearms possession 
     or use that is unrelated to participation in a well-regulated 
     militia.


[[Page S1263]]


  Fortunately, on June 2, 2008, the Supreme Court affirmed the intent 
of the Founders: that the right to bear arms is an individual right 
protected by the Constitution. This was a major ruling on the second 
amendment because local governments that seek gun control measures have 
made the argument that Mr. Holder made in his brief. That is the basis 
for gun control ordinances and laws around our country.
  The ruling in the DC case was a victory for the rights of all 
Americans to protect themselves and their families. The Supreme Court 
sent a clear message that the law of the land, the individual right to 
keep and bear arms, cannot be unreasonably infringed.
  The Founding Fathers knew what they were doing when they put the 
right to keep and bear arms in the Constitution. They knew from their 
experience in the Revolutionary War that a free people must have the 
right to possess and bear arms. In 1775, the American Revolution 
started because ordinary farmers decided to fight back against foreign 
tyranny. Many in George Washington's regiments used their own guns.
  I was alarmed to learn that while serving as Deputy Attorney General 
in the Clinton administration, Mr. Holder said in an appearance on 
ABC's ``This Week'' that the second amendment ``talks about bearing 
guns in a well-regulated militia. And I don't think anywhere it talks 
about an individual.''
  This interpretation, while interesting in academic circles, is not 
mainstream, nor is it reflective of public opinion. Indeed, in our 
brief that we filed, we cited every congressional action that has 
happened throughout the history of our country that affirmed that 
Congress believes the second amendment is an individual right.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent for an additional 5 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I have no objection, but it will have to 
come from the Republican side, of course.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, the Framers did not intend for this 
right to be collective. If that was their purpose, it would have been 
satisfied with article I, section 8 of the Constitution, which gives 
Congress the power ``to provide for calling forth the Militia to 
execute the Laws of the Union, suppress insurrections and repel 
Invasions.''
  The Framers went further than that. They wanted to ensure that gun 
ownership was recognized by posterity as an individual right. They put 
it in the Bill of Rights for that purpose. It is a compilation of 
individual rights of free speech, freedom of religion, a fair trial, 
and the right to keep and bear arms.
  The Framers looked at the governments of Europe. James Madison said:

       The governments of Europe are afraid to trust the people 
     with arms. If they did, the people would surely shake off the 
     yoke of tyranny, as America did.

  Later on, President Madison explained:

       The Constitution preserves the advantage of being armed, 
     which Americans possess over the people of almost every other 
     nation where the governments are afraid to trust the people 
     with arms.

  The right to bear arms should not be an issue in the United States. 
The Constitution is clear, and the Supreme Court has spoken. Our Second 
Amendment right ensures that our people have the ability to secure all 
of our rights and defend them, if necessary, from government 
suppression. It is this right that a government of the people, by the 
people, and for the people must never extinguish.
  I believe that Eric Holder, from everything I have read, is an 
intelligent, experienced, and thoughtful candidate to be the U.S. 
Attorney General. But after examination of Mr. Holder's public 
statements and positions on gun rights, I cannot in good conscience 
support his nomination for the office of Attorney General, and I, 
therefore, will vote no.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. The clerk 
will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I support the nominee. I have known him for 
a long time. We differ on many issues, but he is a qualified person, 
and he is a good man. He has the necessary professional qualifications 
to do this job. I personally believe we ought to support the President 
and his choice of Cabinet officials if there are no other disqualifying 
factors, such as ethics or criminal activity or something serious. I 
have a friendship with the nominee.
  In fulfilling my responsibility in the confirmation process, I try to 
apply the right standard to the whole record about a nominee. The right 
standard comes from the Constitution, which gives the appointment power 
to the President, not to the Senate.
  Elections have consequences, and Presidents must be given significant 
latitude when choosing members of their own Cabinet. Differences on 
issues or whether I would have nominated the individual are not alone 
enough to overcome that latitude. I have always argued for this 
standard no matter which party controlled either the Senate or the 
executive branch. The Senate checks the President's appointment power, 
but it may not highjack it.
  I realize that my friends on the other side of the aisle have at 
times applied a different standard, a much more partisan standard, when 
a Republican was in the White House. They got in the habit of putting 
partisan politics before the process principles the Constitution 
requires. I am not going to do that. I am going to apply the same 
standard to President Obama's nominees that I argued should have been 
applied to President Bush's nominees. In doing that, I believe the 
right standard must be applied to the whole record.
  The record includes the fact that Mr. Holder has been nominated three 
times before, by both Republican and Democratic Presidents, and he has 
been confirmed three times before, by both Republican and Democratic 
Senates. Those confirmations were by voice vote, by unanimous consent, 
and by a rollcall vote of 100 to 0. Not one member of this body voted 
against Mr. Holder as he was appointed to be a judge on District of 
Columbia Superior Court, U.S. Attorney for the District, and Deputy 
Attorney General.
  I think it also matters that the Judiciary Committee last week voted 
17 to 2 to approve Mr. Holder's current nomination.
  Another part of the record is the breadth of support Mr. Holder has 
received. This includes the entire law enforcement community. The cops 
on the beat and the chiefs of police, the troopers and the sheriffs, 
the district attorneys, the Federal prosecutors, and the State 
attorneys general, all of these and more support Mr. Holder. Advocates 
for crime victims also support Mr. Holder. These include my friend John 
Walsh, Mothers Against Drunk Driving, the National Center for Missing & 
Exploited Children, and the National Association for Victims of Crime. 
This really matters to me.
  These organizations examined Mr. Holder's qualifications, his record 
of public service, and concluded that he would make a good Attorney 
General. Does that mean we should, therefore, set aside our own review 
and automatically support him? Of course not, but it is part of the 
whole record and, I believe, an important part.
  I have served in this body and on the Judiciary Committee for more 
than 32 years and do not remember when the law enforcement and victims 
communities have been this united in support of an Attorney General 
nominee.
  And the record also includes support for Mr. Holder from many legal 
experts and past Justice Department officials with high standing in 
conservative and Republican circles.
  Former Solicitor General Ted Olson says that Mr. Holder will be a 
strong, courageous leader who is both a good manager and a good 
listener.
  Former Acting Attorney General Stuart Gerson and Former Deputy 
Attorney General George Terwilliger write that Mr. Holder is an 
extraordinary lawyer and an even better person.
  Former Deputy Attorney General Larry Thompson says that Mr. Holder 
will be principled, pragmatic, fair, and tough.

[[Page S1264]]

  Former Congressman and Federal prosecutor Asa Hatchinson writes that 
Mr. Holder will be the kind of Attorney General who puts the law first 
and political considerations second.
  And recent Assistant Attorney General Kenneth Wainstein, who headed 
the Justice Department's National Security Division, says that Mr. 
Holder is a man of integrity, a strong proponent of law and order, and 
more concerned with justice than with politics.
  That is high praise from very good company.
  This does not mean that I have no concerns about Mr. Holder or do not 
intend to be vigilant about what the Justice Department will be doing 
in the months and years ahead. I hope, for example, that Mr. Holder 
will continue some critical initiatives begun in the last several 
years, such as the protection of religious liberty and the prosecution 
of human trafficking. These initiatives were part of the work of the 
Civil Rights Division, which was led at the end of the Bush 
administration by Grace Chung Becker, who earlier served on my 
Judiciary Committee staff.
  Religious liberty is the first freedom protected by the first 
amendment. Human trafficking is, to put it bluntly, modern-day slavery. 
Upholding human dignity and freedom requires both protecting the one 
and prosecuting the other.
  I also am concerned that enforcement of Federal laws regarding child 
pornography and adult obscenity will suffer and the exploitation and 
corrosion that this material causes for individuals, families, and 
communities will worsen. This is a completely nonpartisan issue for me. 
I was no fan of the Bush administration's enforcement of the obscenity 
laws and said so in both confirmation and oversight hearings.
  The record of the Clinton administration, in which Mr. Holder served, 
was even worse. On November 4, 1993, this body voted 100 to 0 to 
condemn the Justice Department's attempt to adopt a novel, weak 
interpretation of the Federal child pornography statute. The Justice 
Department had used this distortion of the law to ask the U.S. Court of 
Appeals to overturn a child pornographer's conviction. This body rarely 
votes 100 to 0 on anything, but we voted to condemn the Justice 
Department's action.
  I know that was in the first Clinton term, and Mr. Holder did not 
serve as Deputy Attorney General until the second term. But that is the 
record of the Justice Department in which he previously served, and I 
hope that the record of the Justice Department he will now lead will be 
much different.
  Another significant issue which I raised at Hr. Holder's confirmation 
hearing is the right to keep and bear arms, guaranteed by the second 
amendment to the Constitution. It continues to baffle me how people can 
claim to see unwritten rights in our written Constitution but refuse to 
fully acknowledge those that are right there in plain sight. Mr. Holder 
has argued that the second amendment protects only a collective right 
related to service in an organized militia rather than an individual 
right of citizens. He took this position as Deputy Attorney General 
during the Clinton administration and since then as a private citizen, 
most recently before the Supreme Court in the case titled District of 
Columbia v. Heller.
  I believe Mr. Holder is wrong and the Supreme Court rejected Mr. 
Holder's position in Heller, ruling definitively that the second 
amendment protects an individual right.
  Mr. Holder has also in the past advocated some restrictive gun 
control proposals that I oppose and which I believe would likely be 
unconstitutional under Heller.
  I asked Mr. Holder about the second amendment and gun control during 
his hearing and in follow-up written questions. He acknowledged his 
duty to enforce the Constitution as interpreted in Heller. He said he 
would respect the right to keep and bear arms as articulated by the 
Supreme Court in Heller, that is, as an individual constitutional 
right.
  I note that the Senate voted 100 to 0 in July 1997 to allow Mr. 
Holder to serve as deputy to an Attorney General who was no friend of 
the second amendment. That was before the Supreme Court ruled that the 
right to keep and bear arms is an individual right, a ruling Mr. Holder 
has a duty to follow.
  If confirmed, Mr. Holder will take an oath before God to support and 
defend the Constitution. So while I disagree with his past positions on 
the second amendment and gun control, I believe and expect that he will 
take his duty and his oath seriously.
  I am also troubled by Mr. Holder's role, while he served as Deputy 
Attorney General, in the process resulting in President Clinton's 
clemency for Puerto Rican terrorists and his pardon for international 
fugitive Marc Rich. In 1999, I joined 94 other Senators in voting to 
deplore the clemency for the FALN terrorists. Needless to say, I 
disagree with Mr. Holder's statement at his hearing that he still 
believes his support of that clemency was reasonable.
  I agree with former FBI Director Louis Freeh who said at Mr. Holder's 
confirmation hearing on January 16 that the pardon of Marc Rich, which 
happened after avoiding the Justice Department's evaluation process 
altogether, was a corrupt act. Mr. Holder, however, made neither of 
those decisions. President Clinton did.
  Mr. Holder has acknowledged mistakes and said he has learned from 
them.
  I believe that his actions and decisions in the process leading to 
those decisions reflect bad judgment but not corrupt character. This 
confirmation process has certainly focused even more attention on those 
past mistakes and, I hope, will make Mr. Holder even more diligent in 
his duties ahead.
  I know Eric Holder. My own experience and knowledge of his record and 
the testimony of so many others whose judgment I respect confirms that 
he is a man of ability, experience, and integrity.
  The issues and concerns I have raised, while not enough to overcome 
the deference the Constitution requires, do identify areas for work in 
the future and I hope, when confirmed, Mr. Holder will work with both 
Republicans and Democrats on these important issues.
  Applying the right standard to the whole record leads me to support 
Eric Holder to become the next Attorney General of the United States.
  I reserve the remainder of our time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Warner). Who yields time? If no side 
yields time, the time will be charged equally to both sides.
  The Senator from Vermont is recognized.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I was withholding saying anything because I 
thought there were other Republicans coming to speak. I see none.
  During the three different times I have been chairman of the Senate 
Judiciary Committee, I have presided over the confirmations of three 
Attorneys General. In my 35 years in the Senate, I have voted on many 
more. No nomination for Attorney General has filled me with greater 
pride than this one, and it is time for the Senate to complete its 
consideration of President Obama's historic nomination of Eric Holder 
to be Attorney General of the United States.
  In an article I co-authored with the Judiciary Committee ranking 
member, Senator Specter, before last November's election, we wrote--and 
we were writing to whomever would be President:

       The Attorney General's duty is to uphold the Constitution 
     and the rule of law, not to circumvent them.

  We wrote further:

       The President and the American people are best served by an 
     Attorney General who gives sound advice and takes responsible 
     action, rather than one who develops legalistic loopholes to 
     serve the partisan ends of a particular administration.

  We could not have made that job description better for anyone than 
Eric Holder. That is what kind of an Attorney General he will be.
  It was seven score and four years ago that this Nation answered the 
fundamental question President Lincoln posed in his Gettysburg Address, 
and the world learned that liberty, equality, and democracy could serve 
as the foundation for this great and united Nation.
  The American people have had cause and occasion to reflect during the 
past several weeks about our great country. The inauguration of our new 
President was two weeks ago tomorrow, and two

[[Page S1265]]

weeks ago today was the holiday our country has set aside to celebrate 
and rededicate ourselves to the cause of freedom and equality.
  Three and a half weeks ago, the day of Mr. Holder's hearing, was the 
80th anniversary of the birthday of the extraordinary man for whom that 
holiday is named. With this confirmation, we take another step up the 
path toward the time Dr. King foresaw when people are judged by the 
content of their character. Eric Holder has the character to serve as 
the Attorney General of the United States. He passes any fair 
confirmation standard.

  America's diversity when drawn together is the source of our Nation's 
strength and resilience. Americans have to be able to trust their 
Justice Department. That trust must not be squandered or taken for 
granted. We need leaders who are prepared to take up the laboring oars 
of a Justice Department whose dedicated law enforcement professionals 
have been misused and even demoralized. Eric Holder is such a leader.
  With this confirmation, we mark the distance from when an Attorney 
General of the United States did not believe that the Constitution of 
the United States allowed an African American to be considered a 
citizen of the United States to an Attorney General who knows that the 
Constitution is our country's great charter of freedom and equality for 
all people.
  It was former Attorney General, Roger Taney, who wrote the Supreme 
Court's Dred Scott decision denying the humanity of slaves, former 
slaves, and free people. It is perhaps the worst legal opinion ever 
rendered in this country. That is not what the Constitution said, and 
it is not the promise of America.
  Today, each one of us, acting pursuant to our constitutional 
responsibilities as U.S. Senators, can, by our votes and by the 
overwhelming endorsement of this institution for this nomination, 
demonstrate how far we have come as a nation.
  The election of Barack Obama and Joe Biden and the President's 
nomination of Eric Holder to be Attorney General of the United States 
provide an historic opportunity for the country to move beyond the 
partisanship of the past decades. We can make a real difference if we 
come together to solve the Nation's problems, protect against serious 
threats, and meet the challenge of our time.
  Let us honor the wishes of the American people who in November broke 
through debilitating divisions to join together in record numbers. Let 
us acknowledge that our inspirational new President has moved forward 
promptly to assemble an extraordinarily well-qualified and diverse 
group of Cabinet officers and advisers. And let us move away from petty 
partisanship in order to serve the greater good.
  Of course, any Senator is free to oppose a nomination and vote 
against confirmation. In this instance, I think they will be on the 
wrong side of history. I believe that when we take a step back and look 
at the big picture and the best interests of the country, Eric Holder 
is someone who deserves our support and merits our votes. In order to 
serve effectively as Attorney General he will also need our help. The 
challenges are too great not to join together to confirm Mr. Holder and 
proceed promptly to consider the entire Justice Department leadership 
team that President Obama has selected.
  I urge all Senators to join together to do what is right and approve 
this extraordinary public servant to the critical post for which 
President Obama has nominated him. Go on the right side of history and 
vote for Eric H. Holder, Jr. to be the 82nd Attorney General of the 
United States.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor, and I reserve the remainder of my 
time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Pennsylvania.
  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, we are due to vote at 6:15. I believe 
everybody has spoken for Mr. Holder who chooses, so I ask unanimous 
consent to be permitted to use the remaining time to talk about the 
stimulus package.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, the Senator 
wants to use the rest of the Republican time; is that what you meant?
  Mr. SPECTER. Well, unless--
  Mr. LEAHY. How much time remains on both sides, Mr. President?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The minority has 1 minute 45 seconds; the 
majority has 8 minutes 25 seconds.
  Mr. LEAHY. I reserve the remainder of my time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Pennsylvania is recognized.