{"database": "openregs", "table": "congressional_record", "rows": [["CREC-2008-12-11-pt1-PgS10913", "2008-12-11", 110, 2, null, null, "HOLDER NOMINATION HEARING SCHEDULE", "SENATE", "SENATE", "ALLOTHER", "S10913", "S10914", "[{\"name\": \"Chuck Grassley\", \"role\": \"speaking\"}, {\"name\": \"Harry Reid\", \"role\": \"speaking\"}]", null, "154 Cong. Rec. S10913", "Congressional Record, Volume 154 Issue 186 (Thursday, December 11, 2008)\n\n[Congressional Record Volume 154, Number 186 (Thursday, December 11, 2008)]\n[Senate]\n[Pages S10913-S10914]\nFrom the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]\n\n                   HOLDER NOMINATION HEARING SCHEDULE\n\n  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I would like to discuss Eric Holder's\nnomination to be the U.S. Attorney General. While Mr. Holder appears to\nhave the appropriate credentials and work experience, it is important\nthat the Judiciary Committee be able to fully and carefully vet the\ncandidate for this important position because this is the Nation's top\nlaw enforcement officer.\n  I was surprised to hear that the chairman of the Judiciary Committee\nnoticed Mr. Holder's confirmation hearing for January 8, 2009. Mr.\nHolder was only formally announced as the prospective Attorney General\nnominee on December 1 of this year. I understand the Judiciary\nCommittee has a large number of boxes of archived documents relating to\nhis employment at the Justice Department, and those materials need to\nbe reviewed. We have not even gotten Mr. Holder's questionnaire,\nnomination materials, or FBI background investigation yet. Judiciary\nCommittee members just sent a letter to the Justice Department and the\nClinton Library requesting documents relating to issues that Mr. Holder\nwas involved in during his tenure in the Clinton Justice Department.\nOnce we get these materials and once these documents come to us, it\nwill take some time for committee members to review them.\n  While it is not unprecedented for the Judiciary Committee to hold a\nhearing prior to the inauguration of a President, such as the one held\nfor former Attorney General John Ashcroft, there are significant\ndifferences. First, the Ashcroft nomination hearing was held from\nJanuary 16 to January 19, 2001, obviously giving committee members more\nbreathing room to review his record. Moreover, Attorney General\nAshcroft was a well-known quantity to us because he served as our\ncolleague in the U.S. Senate and he was a prominent member of the\nJudiciary Committee. Of course, this was all prior to his nomination\nfor Attorney General. Even then, my colleagues on the other side of the\naisle insisted on 2 days of testimony from the nominee and 2 days of\ntestimony from 23 other outside witnesses, for a total of 4 days of\nhearings.\n\n  The bottom line is that the proposed January 8 hearing timetable\ndoesn't give members a full and fair chance to consider Mr. Holder's\nbackground as thoroughly as we should. We must have time to\ncomprehensively examine all of Mr. Holder's information, materials, and\ndocuments, most of which we haven't even received yet. There is no need\nto jump the gun and undermine our oversight responsibilities.\n  This is all the more important because Mr. Holder is not a nominee\nfree and clear of issues. The fact is Mr. Holder played a very key role\nin some very controversial matters, and since his nomination, a number\nof newspapers, including the New York Times, the Washington Post, and\nthe Wall Street Journal, have all published articles reminding the\npublic of those controversies and raising serious questions about Mr.\nHolder's role in them. These issues need to be fully considered by\nmembers of the Judiciary Committee and eventually by the full Senate.\n  For example, red flags about Mr. Holder's judgment and independence\ninclude his role in securing pardons or clemency for an unrepentant\nbillionaire fugitive tax cheat such as Marc Rich or terrorists such as\nmembers of the FALN and Weather Underground. A lot of people--including\nthis Senator--have found these facts to be troubling. As I previously\nmentioned, a number of editorials have been written asking questions\nabout how those facts impact Mr. Holder's ability to serve as U.S.\nAttorney General. I expect to question Mr. Holder at his confirmation\nhearing about these and other controversial matters he has been\ninvolved with.\n\n[[Page S10914]]\n\n  In addition, Mr. Holder has been in private practice since he left\nthe Clinton Justice Department over 8 years ago. It is important that\nwe know what Mr. Holder has been doing in those 8 years, which cases he\nhas been involved with, and who his clients are, what speeches he has\nmade, and so forth. For example, public reports have emerged that in\n2004, the Governor of Illinois hired or sought to hire Mr. Holder. We\ncertainly need time to learn what that is all about. Mr. Holder has not\nprovided the committee with all of this information yet. Again, it is\nnot unreasonable for members of the Judiciary Committee to want to\nreceive all of these materials and have ample opportunity to study them\nbefore holding the nomination hearings. As such, I, then--this Senator,\nthen--is in support of Senator Specter's request that Chairman Leahy\nmove the hearing to a later date in January so committee members can do\ntheir duty and review Mr. Holder's nomination in a responsible manner.\n  I yield the floor.\n  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader is recognized.\n  Mr. REID. Mr. President, we have been working, as I think the country\nknows and the Senate knows, for the last many weeks trying to come up\nwith some way to resolve the issue of dealing with Detroit and the\nautomobile manufacturers. We thought we were at a place today where we\nwould have a series of votes and we were almost there when another\nSenator submitted another idea. As a result of that, there are good-\nfaith negotiations going on as we speak. The last I heard is that they\nwould have something completed by 5:30. I kind of smile when I say\nthat, because considering the years I have spent here in the Senate,\nsometimes I don't know if they are referring to ``5:30'' meaning 10\nminutes from now or 12 hours and 10 minutes from now, but they said\n5:30. If they are able to work that out, then the bill will\noverwhelmingly pass the Senate. I have told the House and the House\nwill have to do whatever they do with that. But right now, that is not\ndone.\n  As I indicated, they said they thought a half hour or so ago it would\nbe done by 5:30. I hope that is the case. I know it is late. I know\npeople want more definite definitions of when this is all going to\nhappen, but that isn't the way the Senate works, as much as we would\nall like it to be. So if everyone will be patient, there is still a\npossibility--and even maybe a probability--that sometime this evening\nwe would be able to vote.\n  Now, Senator McConnell and I don't know at this stage what we will be\nvoting on. If the negotiations which are going forward now bear fruit,\nthen that will be the issue that I think would pass with a significant\nmargin here in the Senate. There may be some other Senators who want to\noffer alternatives. I think there may be some suggestions for that to\ntake place. At this stage, I think it is pretty clear that there is no\nneed to vote on the House measure, because it is pretty clear there\naren't enough votes to pass that, but those decisions we will make\nshortly. I think what we are going to be voting on is a series of\ncompeting alternatives. There is not going to be an opportunity to\noffer a lot of individual rifleshot amendments to these different\nproposals, but I know that a number of Senators have one proposal. We\nhave the one we talked about we will probably vote on today, and then\nwe have the bipartisan issue that is being worked on right now. If we\nare fortunate, maybe we could wind up having three votes or maybe only\ntwo votes. But, anyway, we are doing our best to resolve this issue.\n  There is no need to talk about all of the Senators involved. We will\ndo that if we can work something out and they will get all the\naccolades they need. We have had a lot of cooperation today. That\ndoesn't mean we are going to be able to work something out, because\nthis is a very important issue. But right now, I think we are a lot\nfurther down the road than I thought we would be. I was trying to\nthink: Down the road distance, so it should be ``farther'' down the\nroad. But, anyway, I wish to alert everyone they should be patient\ntonight. We hope to have some votes before the night is out.\n  If everything falls apart, then we will be left with having a cloture\nvote on the Democratic version. Regardless of whether we work something\nout, that would be tomorrow morning, as early as we want to come in,\nbut hopefully, that is not the resolution of this because that may not\nbe the best way to solve the problem of Detroit.\n\n                          ____________________"]], "columns": ["granule_id", "date", "congress", "session", "volume", "issue", "title", "chamber", "granule_class", "sub_granule_class", "page_start", "page_end", "speakers", "bills", "citation", "full_text"], "primary_keys": ["granule_id"], "primary_key_values": ["CREC-2008-12-11-pt1-PgS10913"], "units": {}, "query_ms": 0.37756096571683884, "source": "Federal Register API & Regulations.gov API", "source_url": "https://www.federalregister.gov/developers/api/v1", "license": "Public Domain (U.S. Government data)", "license_url": "https://www.regulations.gov/faq"}