Holder Nomination Hearing Schedule

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I would like to discuss Eric Holder's nomination to be the U.S. Attorney General. While Mr. Holder appears to have the appropriate credentials and work experience, it is important that the Judiciary Committee be able to fully and carefully vet the candidate for this important position because this is the Nation's top law enforcement officer.

I was surprised to hear that the chairman of the Judiciary Committee noticed Mr. Holder's confirmation hearing for January 8, 2009. Mr. Holder was only formally announced as the prospective Attorney General nominee on December 1 of this year. I understand the Judiciary Committee has a large number of boxes of archived documents relating to his employment at the Justice Department, and those materials need to be reviewed. We have not even gotten Mr. Holder's questionnaire, nomination materials, or FBI background investigation yet. Judiciary Committee members just sent a letter to the Justice Department and the Clinton Library requesting documents relating to issues that Mr. Holder was involved in during his tenure in the Clinton Justice Department. Once we get these materials and once these documents come to us, it will take some time for committee members to review them.

While it is not unprecedented for the Judiciary Committee to hold a hearing prior to the inauguration of a President, such as the one held for former Attorney General John Ashcroft, there are significant differences. First, the Ashcroft nomination hearing was held from January 16 to January 19, 2001, obviously giving committee members more breathing room to review his record. Moreover, Attorney General Ashcroft was a well-known quantity to us because he served as our colleague in the U.S. Senate and he was a prominent member of the Judiciary Committee.

Of course, this was all prior to his nomination for Attorney General. Even then, my colleagues on the other side of the aisle insisted on 2 days of testimony from the nominee and 2 days of testimony from 23 other outside witnesses, for a total of 4 days of hearings.

The bottom line is that the proposed January 8 hearing timetable doesn't give members a full and fair chance to consider Mr. Holder's background as thoroughly as we should. We must have time to comprehensively examine all of Mr. Holder's information, materials, and documents, most of which we haven't even received yet. There is no need to jump the gun and undermine our oversight responsibilities.

This is all the more important because Mr. Holder is not a nominee free and clear of issues. The fact is Mr. Holder played a very key role in some very controversial matters, and since his nomination, a number of newspapers, including the New York Times, the Washington Post, and the Wall Street Journal, have all published articles reminding the public of those controversies and raising serious questions about Mr. Holder's role in them. These issues need to be fully considered by members of the Judiciary Committee and eventually by the full Senate.

For example, red flags about Mr. Holder's judgment and independence include his role in securing pardons or clemency for an unrepentant billionaire fugitive tax cheat such as Marc Rich or terrorists such as members of the FALN and Weather Underground. A lot of people--including this Senator--have found these facts to be troubling. As I previously mentioned, a number of editorials have been written asking questions about how those facts impact Mr. Holder's ability to serve as U.S. Attorney General. I expect to question Mr. Holder at his confirmation hearing about these and other controversial matters he has been involved with.

In addition, Mr. Holder has been in private practice since he left the Clinton Justice Department over 8 years ago. It is important that we know what Mr. Holder has been doing in those 8 years, which cases he has been involved with, and who his clients are, what speeches he has made, and so forth. For example, public reports have emerged that in 2004, the Governor of Illinois hired or sought to hire Mr. Holder. We certainly need time to learn what that is all about. Mr. Holder has not provided the committee with all of this information yet. Again, it is not unreasonable for members of the Judiciary Committee to want to receive all of these materials and have ample opportunity to study them before holding the nomination hearings. As such, I, then--this Senator, then--is in support of Senator Specter's request that Chairman Leahy move the hearing to a later date in January so committee members can do their duty and review Mr. Holder's nomination in a responsible manner.

I yield the floor.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source