[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 155 (2009), Part 2]
[Senate]
[Pages 2106-2107]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                           HOLDER NOMINATION

  Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I believe I am speaking on behalf of 
Americans who value their second amendment personal right to own their 
own firearms. I also believe I am speaking on behalf of Americans who 
favor justice over political patronage. Finally, I believe I am 
speaking on behalf of Americans who realize we are in a war on terror 
and want to continue the strong efforts to bring terrorists to justice. 
I am opposed to the appointment of Eric Holder to be the next Attorney 
General of the United States.
  I take particular interest in this nomination because I, as well as 
the voters of the State of Oklahoma, feel strongly that the rights 
conferred upon us by the second amendment of the Constitution guarantee 
an individual freedom that no government regulation can take away. Eric 
Holder's record and his true beliefs about the second amendment are 
clear. In a brief filed in the Heller case, Holder joined other past 
Department of Justice officials by saying: ``[t]he Second Amendment 
Does Not Protect Firearms Possession or Use That Is Unrelated To 
Participation In a Well-Regulated Militia.'' The brief also stated that 
the ``recognition of an expansive individual right to keep and bear 
arms for private purposes will make it more difficult for the 
government to defend present and future firearms laws.'' During his 
confirmation hearing, Eric Holder noted the importance of the Heller 
decision and recognized it as precedent. But I certainly do not believe 
that the decision in Heller has changed the underlying beliefs held by 
Eric Holder, and his leadership as the chief lawyer of the United 
States will be a detriment to the gun ownership rights of American 
citizens.
  I am also very uncomfortable with Mr. Holder's judgment and record on 
pardons and clemency during the Clinton administration. He apparently 
chose to circumvent the standard process by which all pardons are 
considered and granted, and clouded this process with the appearance of 
impropriety. If the pardon of Mark Rich was not impropriety, and I 
believe it was, then it was at the very least extreme negligence, and 
such negligence has no place in any level of government. Mark Rich, 
whom many label a tax evader, is in fact even more than that. Rich was 
indicted in 1983 on 65 counts of not only tax evasion, but also fraud, 
racketeering, and trading with the enemy. Rich fled to Switzerland 
before he could stand trial, which is perhaps the most egregious 
element of this case--

[[Page 2107]]

he was a fugitive and a regular fixture on the FBI's Ten Most Wanted 
List. How can one justify recommending a pardon, bypass the Department 
of Justice and the hundreds of individuals who worked to bring Mark 
Rich to justice, when the man who is being pardoned is not even willing 
to face the same justice system to which every other American must 
answer? In fact, Holder admitted during his confirmation hearing that 
he did not adequately acquaint himself with the facts of the case. The 
United States Senate should not allow such injustice to go unanswered.
  Equally egregious, Holder was Deputy Attorney General in an 
administration which granted clemency to 16 members of the Armed Forces 
of National Liberation, or FALN. This is a group which not only carried 
out violent protests, FALN set off bombs several times in New York City 
and Chicago and were convicted for conspiracies to commit robbery, 
bomb-making, and sedition. The Clinton administration granted clemency 
despite opposition from the U.S. Attorney's Office, FBI, and most 
importantly, the victims of FALN terrorist activities.
  Finally, we continue to be in a war on terror, however, Holder is an 
individual who is opposed to the military commissions which have tried 
terrorists and is opposed to the Guantanamo Bay detention facility for 
detaining terrorists. This Senate and the American people should know 
that since October 2001, the U.S. has detained almost 800 al-Qaida and 
Taliban combatants at GTMO. Currently, 60 more are ready for transfer 
or release to another country, 70 have either been tried or in process, 
and 130 are a high threat to the U.S. Since 2002, more than 525 
detainees have departed GTMO for other countries. Today, there are 
approximately 240 detainees at GTMO. If GTMO is no longer a prison, 
some U.S. domestic or overseas prison will have to house these men 
while they await a habeas hearing and trial. All the while, the 
military detention facilities at GTMO meet the highest international 
standards. The Pentagon spends $2.5 million each year on Korans, prayer 
rugs, and special meals for prisoners. There are on average two lawyers 
for every detainee at GTMO. He believes our military commissions 
currently in place would have to be substantially revamped and even 
holds the position that U.S. interrogation techniques should be 
published for the world to see.
  For at least these reasons, I cannot vote to support the nomination 
of an individual who holds opinions on a wide range of issues which I 
find so objectionable and objectionable to my constituents. I will be 
voting a definitive no on the Holder nomination.

                          ____________________