[Congressional Record Volume 155, Number 20 (Monday, February 2, 2009)]
[Senate]
[Pages S1265-S1266]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
Stimulus Package
Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, later this evening, we are going to be
moving ahead to discuss the stimulus package, and I want to use a few
moments now to express my views on the subject. There is no doubt about
the need for stimulating the U.S. economy. January figures show 7.2
percent unemployed, 2.8 million jobs lost last year, more layoffs all
the time, and more foreclosures. It is my hope that there will be a
very strong stimulus package which is directed at putting people to
work.
The proposals which have come from the House bill are laudable and in
many respects are measures which I have long supported. But on
analysis, it seems to me they belong more directly in a budget program
where we have targets for spending--discretionary spending--making an
evaluation of priorities and moving in that direction. But when the
American people are being asked to support a stimulus program of more
than $800 billion, which is deficit financing, the programs ought to be
directed at job opportunities.
Mr. President, I ask my distinguished colleague, the chairman, if
nobody wants his time, if I might use 5 minutes of it.
Mr. LEAHY. I intend to use the rest of my time. If you want another
minute or two, I will give you two minutes of my time, but then I
intend to use the rest of it.
Mr. SPECTER. I yield the floor.
Mr. LEAHY. How much time remains, Mr. President?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Eight minutes.
Mr. LEAHY. How much time remains for the Republicans?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. That time has expired.
Mr. LEAHY. Would the Senator like 2 minutes of my remaining time?
Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, 2 minutes won't do me any good. The
chairman wants his time; he has it.
Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I have a feeling we are all going to be
spending hours talking about the stimulus package. Right now, I am more
concerned to talk about the Holder nomination.
I have heard a great deal about the second amendment. I couldn't help
but think during the hearing, when he was asked about the second
amendment and how he would support the rights of those who are gun
owners, and I looked down at some of those asking from the different
States. I looked at the States that are represented on the Senate
Judiciary Committee--Wisconsin, California, New York, Illinois,
Maryland, Rhode Island, Oregon, Minnesota, Delaware, Pennsylvania,
Utah, Iowa, Arizona, Alabama, South Carolina, Texas, and Oklahoma, as
well as the State of Vermont. There is only one of those States that
does not have restrictive gun laws--the State of Vermont. We do not
have any gun laws in effect, except during hunting season. We limit the
number of rounds you might have in your semiautomatic during deer
season. It is supposed to give the deer a chance. Anyone who wanted to
carry a loaded concealed weapon without a permit in the State of
Vermont, the distinguished Senator from Virginia or anyone else, could.
I mention that only because several of the Senators who have come
from States with very restrictive gun laws went after Eric Holder on
gun laws. So I asked him: ``Would you, as Attorney General, support
legislation that would require Vermont to change its gun laws?'' And
thus make Vermont as restrictive as these Senators who were giving him
grief on his support of the second amendment. He said: Absolutely not.
I asked him if there was any question whether he would steadfastly
protect the second amendment rights of law-abiding Americans to
purchase, transport, and use guns. He said he would. I asked if he
would follow the law, including the Supreme Court decision in the
recent case in the District of Columbia versus Heller. He said, of
course he would follow the law.
[[Page S1266]]
I mention that because I put into the Record already 130 or more
organizations. Every single law enforcement organization of any
significance in this country is supporting Eric Holder. Civil rights
groups are supporting Eric Holder. Past prosecutors, including those of
the Bush and Reagan administrations, have supported Eric Holder.
Current prosecutors, the members of the immediate past President,
President Bush's administration, have endorsed him.
I say this because I think we are seeing straw men put up here--straw
men who are saying they do not want Eric Holder as Attorney General;
yet these same people voted unanimously for Alberto Gonzalez, an
Attorney General who left in disgrace.
This man restores the lustre of the Department of Justice. This man
will be as independent as the Attorney General I talked with in his
office when I was a young law student and we were talking about what it
would be like to come to the Department of Justice. I asked that
Attorney General if he would allow anybody in the White House, up to
and including the President, to interfere with any criminal prosecution
or civil rights prosecution. He said absolutely not, and I have told
the President that. That Attorney General I was talking with was Robert
F. Kennedy. He was talking about his brother John F. Kennedy. And when
it came time to prosecute a man who had been critical to his brother's
election as President of the United States, Robert Kennedy prosecuted
him.
I left as a young law student, tempted to stay in Washington, but my
wife Marcelle and I went back to Vermont, where we were both born and
where we wanted to be. But I have never forgotten that discussion with
Attorney General Kennedy. That has been the touchstone for me. I don't
want another Attorney General who sits in the room while others in our
government approve secretly wiretapping Americans in violation of our
law, or engaging in torture. I want an attorney who stands up for the
rule of law and our long cherished American values.
That is the kind of Attorney General Eric Holder would be. Come on
the right side of history. Come on the right side of history. Reject
what we saw in the past. Vote for Eric Holder.
Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There appears to be a sufficient second.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is, Will the Senate advise and
consent to the nomination of Eric H. Holder, Jr., of the District of
Columbia, to be Attorney General? On this question, the yeas and nays
have been ordered. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk called the roll.
Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Alaska (Mr. Begich) and
the Senator from Massachusetts (Mr. Kennedy) are necessarily absent.
I further announce that, if present and voting, the Senator from
Alaska (Mr. Begich) would vote ``yea.''
Mr. KYL. The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator
from Florida (Mr. Martinez).
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber
desiring to vote?
The result was announced--yeas 75, nays 21, as follows:
[Rollcall Vote No. 32 Ex.]
YEAS--75
Akaka
Alexander
Baucus
Bayh
Bennet
Bennett
Bingaman
Bond
Boxer
Brown
Burris
Byrd
Cantwell
Cardin
Carper
Casey
Chambliss
Collins
Conrad
Corker
Dodd
Dorgan
Durbin
Feingold
Feinstein
Gillibrand
Graham
Grassley
Gregg
Hagan
Harkin
Hatch
Inouye
Isakson
Johnson
Kaufman
Kerry
Klobuchar
Kohl
Kyl
Landrieu
Lautenberg
Leahy
Levin
Lieberman
Lincoln
Lugar
McCain
McCaskill
Menendez
Merkley
Mikulski
Murkowski
Murray
Nelson (NE)
Nelson (FL)
Pryor
Reed
Reid
Rockefeller
Sanders
Schumer
Sessions
Shaheen
Snowe
Specter
Stabenow
Tester
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Voinovich
Warner
Webb
Whitehouse
Wyden
NAYS--21
Barrasso
Brownback
Bunning
Burr
Coburn
Cochran
Cornyn
Crapo
DeMint
Ensign
Enzi
Hutchison
Inhofe
Johanns
McConnell
Risch
Roberts
Shelby
Thune
Vitter
Wicker
NOT VOTING--3
Begich
Kennedy
Martinez
The nomination was confirmed.
Mr. LEAHY. I thank all my colleagues who took part in this debate
over the past several weeks. It is a historic nomination. And of the
last four--I have to check back--the last four attorneys general, Eric
Holder had the largest ``aye'' vote of any of them.
I think it is a good sign for the country. It is a good sign for the
Department of Justice. And this former prosecutor is very happy.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the motion to
reconsider is considered made and tabled. The President shall be
notified of the Senate's action and the Senate will return to
legislative session.
____________________