Mr. Chairman, I’ve 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’m voting to support Mr. Holder, this nominee does have a few issues that give me some concern.
For example, I’m 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’m a strong supporter of the Second Amendment, so I’m concerned that Mr. Holder’s views may be too limited. I’m 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’m 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’m hopeful that Mr. Holder will meet that commitment.
The United States 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’ve 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’s 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’ll 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.