TheWeekInCongress.com
Week Ending June 17, 2005
House Resolution 324 Resolution disapproving the manner in which Representative Sensenbrenner has responded to the minority party's request under rule XI of the House of Representatives for an additional day of oversight hearings on the reauthorization of the USA PATRIOT Act and the manner in which such hearing was conducted.
BRIEF
Recently the House Minority members asked for an additional hearing on the matter of renewing the PATRIOT ACT. The Chairman of the Judiciary Committee overseeing the hearing, Representative James Sensenbrenner (R-WI), convened the hearing within 48 hours.
Chairman Sensenbrenner abruptly adjourned the meeting before all witnesses could complete their testimony, took the gavel and left the room. Two Minority members, Jerrold Nadler (D-NY) and Sheila Jackson-Lee (D-TX) asked for a point of order but their request was ignored. Representative Nadler continued to talk. His micro-phone was shut off.
The Resolution holds that Chairman Sensenbrenner violated House rules by not allowing committee members to question witnesses for five minutes, refused several times to recognize committee members request to raise a point of order, and adjourned the meeting without requesting the consent of the committee members. The Resolution preamble also says that Chairman Sensenbrenner’s staff turned off the microphones while Representative Nadler was talking, order the court reporter to stop taking transcripts and eventually turned of transmission of the video of the event.
Such behavior should be condemned the Resolution holds and another meeting on the PATRIOT ACT should be scheduled.
Chairman Sensenbrenner after giving lengthy description indicating he has managed the Committee’s affair with great integrity and adherence to the law and with great patience with witnesses and Minority members whose comments and questions were outside the subject of the hearing acknowledged that he ignored requests from committee members and adjourned the meeting in a fashion that did not support comity: “As I concluded my remarks, at least two minority members who had been accorded their time to speak again sought recognition, and I adjourned the hearing in a manner inconsistent with the spirit of comity that has and should continue to inform committee deliberations. While I concede this point without qualifications, Members should also be aware that the practice of the Democratic chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary under whom I have served, as well as the practice of the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers), ranking member, during his chairmanship of the Committee on Government Operations, was to adjourn hearings without motion and without expressly seeking the unanimous consent of committee members,” Chairman Sensenbrenner said.
Chairman Sensenbrenner said the non-germane comments were evident despite his frequent admonitions to committee and witnesses to avoid non-germane comments. He gave as an example of a comment that he believed was 'outside the scope of the hearing' on several expiring provisions of the PATRIOT ACT a remark made by Judiciary Committee Minority Chairman Representative John Conyers (D-MI): “``For many of us, this process of hearings is not merely about the extension of the 16 expiring provisions of the PATRIOT Act. It is about the manner in which our government uses its legal authority to prosecute the war against terror both domestically and abroad. As we hear from our witnesses today, I think we will demonstrate that much of this authority has been abused.''
Sponsor: Jerrold Nadler (D-NY)
Vote: The House tabled (killed) the measure 222 to 191 (RC 273) (June 16, 2005)
Cost to the taxpayers: No discernible cost.
## All Rights Reserved. © 2005 TheWeekInCongress.com No reproduction or distribution without written permission from TheWeekInCongress.com.
MORE INFORMATION
REPRESENTATIVE NADLER’S COMMENTS
REPRSENTATIVE SENSENBRENNER’S COMMENTS
REPRESENTATIVE JACKSON-LEE’S COMMENTS
REPRESENTATIVE WASSERMAN-SCHULTZ’ COMMENTS
THE RESOLUTION
Whereas Representative Sensenbrenner willfully and intentionally violated the Rules of the House of Representatives by abusing and exceeding his powers as chairman;
Whereas subsequent to receiving a request for an additional day of hearings by members of the minority party pursuant to rule XI, Representative Sensenbrenner scheduled such hearing on less than 48 hours notice;
Whereas such hearing occurred on Representative Sensenbrenner's directive at 8:30 a.m., on Friday, June 10, 2005, a date when the House was not in session and votes were not scheduled;
Whereas Representative Sensenbrenner directed his staff to require that the witnesses' written testimony be made available on less than 18 hours notice;
Whereas, during the course of the hearing, Representative Sensenbrenner made several false and disparaging comments about members of the minority party in violation of rule XVII;
Whereas, Representative Sensenbrenner failed to allow members of the committee to question each witness for a period of 5 minutes in violation of rule XI;
Whereas Representative Sensenbrenner refused on numerous and repeated occasions throughout the hearing to recognize members of the minority party attempting to raise points of order;
Whereas when Representative Nadler and Representative Jackson-Lee sought recognition to raise a point of order, Representative Sensenbrenner refused to recognize Representative Nadler or Representative Jackson-Lee, and intentionally and wrongfully adjourned the committee without obtaining or seeking either unanimous consent or a vote of the committee members present in violation of rule XVI;
Whereas subsequent to Representative Sensenbrenner's improper adjournment of the hearing, his staff turned off the microphones and the electronic transmission of the proceedings and instructed the court reporter to stop taking transcription, even though the committee hearing had not been properly adjourned, and members of the minority party had invited witnesses to continue to speak; and
Whereas Representative Sensenbrenner willfully trampled the right of the minority to meaningfully hold an additional day of hearings in violation of the Rules of the House of Representatives, and brought discredit upon the House of Representatives: Now, therefore, be it
Resolved, That
(1) the House strongly condemns the manner in which Representative Sensenbrenner has responded to the minority party's request for an additional day of oversight hearings on the reauthorization of the USA PATRIOT Act, and the manner in which such hearing was conducted; and
(2) the House instructs Representative Sensenbrenner, in consultation with Representative CONYERS, to schedule a further day of hearings with witnesses requested by members of the minority party concerning the reauthorization of the USA PATRIOT Act.''
REPRESENTATIVE NADLER’S COMMENTS
Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, it is with regret that I must rise again to invoke the privileges of the House and to defend the rules and the spirit of simple courtesy and cooperation. I do not enjoy taking the time of this House away from our important business to do so; but recent events, the willful and repeated disregard for the rules of the House, the persistent abuse of power by the chairman of the Judiciary Committee, and the flagrant abuse of the rights of the minority make this resolution necessary.
As I said the last time I came to the floor for this purpose, it is my fervent hope that this will be the last time it will ever be necessary for me or any other Member to offer such a resolution or to rise on a question of personal privilege. We should be spending our time dealing with the problems and concerns of the American people; but when a chairman abuses his power to stifle debate, Members of this House, both Republicans and Democrats, have a duty to defend the honor of this institution and the integrity of its proceedings. So long as power is abused, rules are ignored and broken and the rights of Members who represent millions of Americans are violated, this House cannot do its job properly. The American people are cheated of their right to an honest, open, fair, and democratic debate on issues affecting the future of our Nation. That is why we are here again today.
These are the facts: the minority is entitled by the rules to a day of hearings. It is a right rarely exercised, but it guards against the majority abusing its power to exclude competing views. Call it the fair and balanced rule. It is not the chairman's right to determine whether we deserve, in quotes, a hearing. It is not the chairman's right to decide whether his prior hearings were sufficient. It is not the chairman's right to decide whether what we say or think is acceptable or relevant. And it is certainly never the chairman's right to violate the rules in order to interfere with our right to conduct the hearing guaranteed to us by the rules.
The chairman is entitled to his opinions. He is not entitled to break the rules, to abuse his power and to impose his will. The chairman as a general rule permits only one minority witness in each committee or subcommittee hearing of the Judiciary Committee. I know of no other committee with this sort of restrictive rule. No matter what the issue, no matter how complex, no matter how many perspectives there might be, the chairman does not allow more than one minority witness.
On that basis alone, we have every right to insist on a day of hearings every time, a day of minority hearings, but we do not. Of course, that is when he allows hearings at all. In this Congress alone, the chairman has decided that we do not need hearings on such important issues as amendments to the Constitution, alleged mistreatment of detainees, and a rewrite of our bankruptcy code. These are hardly isolated cases. Is that the way we are supposed to do our job? No need for a hearing, the chairman wants to do it, so let's just do it. We do not need a hearing to look at the facts.
Members under the rules have the right to question each witness for 5 minutes apiece. We checked with the Parliamentarian. That is 5 minutes for each member for each witness. Yet the chairman repeatedly refused to recognize members. He consistently and abusively cut off members and witnesses in mid-sentence. It is the chairman's custom, to which we have not objected, to be fairly strict and after the 5 minutes are over to say, finish your thought or make your answer brief. That is fine.
In this hearing, because it was a minority-called hearing, he consistently cut off members and witnesses in mid-sentence, and rather rudely. In one case, when a member of the majority accused a witness of endangering American lives, the chairman refused the witness the opportunity to respond. Of course, the chairman did not limit himself to 5 minutes. He recognized himself for an additional 5 minutes toward the end of the hearing in order to deride the witnesses and the minority members of the committee without allowing any response.
Every Member of this House, Mr. Speaker, serves on committees and every Member of this House knows that this kind of abusive behavior is virtually unheard of. Witnesses should be treated with respect. So should colleagues. I thought we all knew that. The chairman refused to recognize members who were seeking recognition. He refused to recognize members who were attempting to raise points of order. Unacceptable. A clear violation of the rules. A plain abuse of power.
The chairman simply ended the hearing unilaterally. While members were seeking recognition and attempting to raise points of order, he simply ignored
[Page: H4645] GPO's PDF
them and banged the gavel and got up from his seat. The rules require a motion to adjourn because hearings are not normally ended unilaterally by a chairman. We consulted with the House Parliamentarian who confirmed that an adjournment motion must be approved by the members of the committee unless there is unanimous consent. The fact that adjournment is not normally contested because it is not necessary because everybody agrees does not change the rules.
After the chairman unilaterally adjourned the hearing, while members were seeking recognition, while he refused to recognize those members seeking to raise points of order, the committee staff, either on the chairman's instructions or acting on their own accord, switched off members' microphones while we were attempting to speak, instructed the stenographer to stop recording the hearing and turned off the electronic transmission of the hearing. Again, the hearing was still proceeding because it had not been legally adjourned because there had been no vote and no unanimous consent. Thanks to C-SPAN, the rest of the hearing was recorded and broadcast so the chairman was unable to censor the minority and hide our thoughts from the American people, although he tried.
Can any Member recall a time when a member's microphone was turned off while he or she was speaking in a committee meeting? Mr. Speaker, it is fair to ask, why should a member of the majority or the public care about adherence to the rules in these respects or about the rights of the minority? The answer is simple. Every Member represents more than half a million American citizens. Every one of those Americans is entitled to a voice in our government. No one should ever be allowed to abuse the power of his office to silence opposing views or to disenfranchise millions of Americans from having their views represented simply because they chose representatives of the minority party.
The greatness of our Nation is our freedom to stand up for what we believe and to have everyone's voice heard in the halls of government. The arrogance of power, the abuse of power, the silencing of minority voices, is a direct threat not only to our rules but to our democracy and to our freedom. The rules of this House exist to protect our democracy. Every Member of this House, regardless of party, must stand up for this institution, for its rules, and for the democracy it represents.
That is why I urge the adoption of this resolution and why I hope such a resolution will never again be necessary in this House.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
REPRESENTATIVE SENSENBRENNER’S COMMENTS
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I strongly oppose this resolution because it does not state what the facts are relative to the Judiciary Committee's consideration of the PATRIOT Act. I rise today to respond to false, misleading, and malicious allegations that have been made by Members of this House and reported in the media concerning the conduct of the Judiciary Committee's June 10 hearing on the reauthorization of the USA PATRIOT Act and my consideration of the PATRIOT Act as chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary.
Since becoming chairman of this committee in January 2001, I have consistently demonstrated a commitment to fair and equitable consideration of issues before the committee. Perhaps no other issue better demonstrates this commitment than the committee's response to the tragic events of September 11, 2001. Shortly following the attacks, I called a committee hearing to draft antiterrorism legislation at which the Attorney General and other top officials of the Justice Department testified. At that meeting, I pledged to work with the minority to draft bipartisan legislation to help detect, deter, and defeat terrorist threats to our Nation's security.
Since that time, the record clearly demonstrates that I have kept my word by conducting bipartisan and evenhanded consideration of this critical issue.
In October of 2001, the committee unanimously approved the PATRIOT Act by a vote of 36-0. I was enormously proud of this vote because it proved that a committee comprising sharply diverging viewpoints could speak in a clear and united voice on an issue of overwhelming importance to the security, safety, and liberty of all Americans. When drafting this legislation, I also insisted that provisions expanding the scope of Federal authority be subject to congressional reauthorization. I included sunsets in these provisions because I strongly believe that Congress must play an active and continuing role in ensuring that the PATRIOT Act protects the safety and security of all Americans while preserving the freedom and liberty that distinguish us as Americans.
To ensure that the PATRIOT Act is being implemented in a manner that reflects the priorities of Congress, on multiple occasions Ranking Member Conyers and I have sent detailed, extensive, and bipartisan inquiries to the Department of Justice concerning the implementation of the legislation.
When the Justice Department did not fully respond to one set of detailed inquiries, I forcefully asserted the committee's prerogatives by raising the possibility of a committee subpoena to obtain the requested information.
The committee has conducted several hearings on matters related to the PATRIOT Act, at which senior administration officials have testified. At my request committee members have also received briefings on the implementation of the PATRIOT Act from senior law enforcement officials.
On March 28 of this year, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers), ranking member, and I jointly announced a series of hearings on the reauthorization of the PATRIOT Act. We made this announcement in the same spirit of bipartisanship that has typified the committee's consideration of this issue since the committee's first hearing on this subject following September 11. While the primary focus of this series of hearings has been to examine provisions in the PATRIOT Act that are set to expire at the end of this year, the scope of these hearings has been broadened to include provisions of the PATRIOT Act that will not sunset, and issues that are only tangentially related to PATRIOT Act have also received formal committee consideration at the request of the minority.
The record clearly proves that I have worked in a bipartisan manner to ensure that the committee has received testimony from an array of knowledgeable witnesses of diverging viewpoints, and that members had the opportunity to address questions to each of them. And at this time I include in the RECORD a listing of the oversight activities and a chronology of the hearing record that has been held since April before the Committee on the Judiciary and its subcommittees.
OVERSIGHT: House Judiciary Committee Oversight of the USA PATRIOT Act
OVERSIGHT THROUGH LETTERS TO THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
House Judiciary Committee sent the Attorney General, John Ashcroft, a letter on June 13, 2002, with 50 detailed questions on the implementation of the USA PATRIOT Act. The questions were a result of extensive consultation between the majority and minority Committee counsel. Assistant Attorney General, Daniel Bryant, responded to Chairman Sensenbrenner and Ranking Member Mr. Conyers on July 26, 2002, providing lengthy responses to 28 out of the 50 questions submitted. On August 26, 2002, Mr. Bryant sent the responses to the remaining questions, after sending responses to six of the questions to the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence. Then, on September 20, 2002, Mr. Bryant sent the minority additional information regarding the Department of Justice's responses to these questions.
On April 11, 2003, Chairman Sensenbrenner and Ranking Member Mr. CONYERS sent a second letter to the Department of Justice with additional questions regarding the use of pre-existing authorities and the new authorities conferred by the USA PATRIOT Act. Once again, the questions were the product of bipartisan coordination by Committee counsel. Acting Assistant Attorney General, Jamie E. Brown, responded with a May 13, 2003 letter that answered the questions she deemed relevant to the Department of Justice and forwarded the remaining questions to the appropriate officials at the Department of Homeland Security on June 13, 2003, the Assistant Secretary for Legislative Affairs at the Department of Homeland Security, Pamela J. Turner, sent responses to the forwarded questions.
On November 20, 2003, Chairman Sensenbrenner and Congressman Hostettler, Chairman of the Subcommittee on Immigration,
[Page: H4646] GPO's PDF
Border Security, and Claims, sent a letter to the Comptroller General of the Government Accountability Office (GAO) requesting a GAO study of the implementation of the USA PATRIOT Act anti-money laundering provisions. This report was released on June 6, 2005.
OVERSIGHT THROUGH HEARINGS
On May 20, 2003, the Committee's Subcommittee on the Constitution held an oversight hearing entitled, ``Anti-Terrorism Investigations and the Fourth Amendment After September 11th: Where and When Can Government Go to Prevent Terrorist Attacks.'' On June 5, 2003, the Attorney General testified before the full Committee on the Judiciary at an oversight hearing on the United States Department of Justice. Both the hearing on May 20 and the hearing on June 5 discussed oversight aspects of the USA PATRIOT Act.
OVRSIGHT THROUGH BRIEFINGS
The Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland Security of this Committee requested that officials from the Department of Justice appear and answer questions regarding the implementation of the USA PATRIOT Act. In response to our request, the Department of Justice gave two separate briefings to Members, counsel, and staff:
During the briefing held on August 7, 2003, Department officials covered the long-standing authority for law enforcement to conduct delayed searches and collect business records, as well as the effect of the USA PATRIOT Act on those authorities.
During the second briefing, held on February 3, 2004, the Department of Justice discussed its views of S. 1709, the ``Security and Freedom Ensured (SAFE) Act of 2003'' and H.R. 3352, the House companion bill, as both bills proposed changes to the USA PATRIOT Act.
The Department of Justice has also provided three classified briefings on the use of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) under the USA PATRIOT Act for Members of the Judiciary Committee:
On June 10, 2003, October 29, 2003, and June 7, 2005 the Justice Department provided these briefings.
The Department also provided a law enforcement sensitive briefing on FISA to the House Judiciary Committee Members and staff on March 22, 2005.
HEARING CHRONOLOGY: House Judiciary Committee Consideration of the USA PATRIOT ACT
FULL COMMITTEE CONSIDERATION
June 10, 2005: Oversight Hearing on the Reauthorization of the USA PATRIOT Act: Carlina Tapia-Ruano, First Vice-President of the American Immigration Lawyers Association (Minority witness); Dr. James J. Zogby, President of the Arab American Institute (Minority witness); Deborah Pearlstein, Director of Human Rights First (Minority witness); and Chip Pitts, Chair of the Board of Amnesty International USA; Minority Members Present: Conyers, Jackson-Lee, Nadler, Scott, Van Hollen, Wasserman Shultz, Watt.
June 8, 2005: Oversight Hearing on the Reauthorization of the USA PATRIOT Act: Deputy Attorney General James B. Comey; Minority Members Present: Berman, Conyers, Delahunt, Lofgren, Nadler, Scott, Wasserman, Shultz, Waters.
April 6, 2005: Oversight Hearing on the Department of Justice, The Use of the Law Enforcement Authorities Granted under the USA PATRIOT Act: Attorney General Alberto Gonzales; Minority Members Present: Berman, Conyers, Delahunt, Jackson-Lee, Lofgren, Nadler, Schiff, Scott, Van Hollen, Watt, Weiner.
SUBCOMMITTEE CONSIDERATION
May 26, 2005: Oversight Hearing on Material Witness Provisions of the Criminal Code and the Implementation of the USA PATRIOT Act: Section 505 that Addresses National Security Letters and Section 804 that Addresses Jurisdiction over Crimes Committed at U.S. Facilities Abroad: Chuck Rosenberg, Chief of Staff to the Deputy Attorney General of the Department of Justice (Majority witness); Matthew Berry, Counselor to the Assistant Attorney General of the Department of Justice (Majority witness); Gregory Nojeim, Acting Director of the Washington Legislative Office of the American Civil Liberties Union (Minority witness); and Shayana Kadidal, Staff Attorney, Center for Constitutional Rights (Minority witness); Minority Members Present: Conyers, Delahunt, Nadler, Scott, Waters.
May 10, 2005: Oversight Hearing on the Prohibition of Material Support to Terrorists and Foreign Terrorist Organizations and on the DOJ Inspector General's report on Civil Liberty Violations under the USA PATRIOT Act: Honorable Glenn Fine, Inspector General of the Department of Justice (Majority witness); Honorable Gregory G. Katsas, Deputy Assistant Attorney General, Civil Division of the Department of Justice (Majority witness); Barry Sabin, Chief of the Counterterrorism Section of the Criminal Division of the Department of Justice (Majority witness); and Ahilan Arulanantham, Staff Attorney for the American Civil Liberties Union of Southern California (Minority witness); Minority Members Present: Delahunt, Scott, Waters.
May 5, 2005: Oversight Hearing on section 212 of the USA PATRIOT Act that Allows Emergency Disclosure of Electronic Communications to Protect Life and Limb: Honorable William Moschella, Assistant Attorney General, Office of Legislative Affairs, U.S. Department of Justice (Majority witness); Willie Hulon, Assistant Director of the Counterterrorism Division, Federal Bureau of Investigation (Majority witness); Professor Orrin Kerr, Professor of Law at the George Washington University Law School (Majority witness); and James X. Dempsey, Executive Director of the Center for Democracy and Technology Minority witness); Minority Members Present: Conyers, Delahunt, Jackson-Lee, Scott.
May 3, 2005: Oversight Hearing on Sections 201, 202, 213, and 223 of the USA PATRIOT Act and Their Effect on Law Enforcement Surveillance: Honorable Michael J. Sullivan, US. Attorney for the District of Massachusetts (Majority witness); Chuck Rosenberg, Chief of Staff to the Deputy Attorney General (Majority witness); Heather Mac Donald, John M. Olin fellow at the Manhattan Institute (Majority witness); and the Honorable Bob Barr, former Representative of Georgia's Seventh District (Minority witness); Minority Members Present: Delahunt, Scott.
April 28, 2005: Oversight Hearing--Section 218 of the USA PATRIOT Act--If it Expires will the ``Wall'' Return?: Honorable Patrick Fitzgerald, U.S. Attorney for the Northern District of Illinois (Majority witness); David Kris, former Associate Deputy Attorney General for the Department of Justice (Majority witness); Kate Martin, Director of the Center for National Security Studies (Minority witness); and Peter Swire, Professor of Law at Ohio State University (Minority witness); Minority Members Present: Jackson-Lee, Scott.
April 28, 2005: Oversight Hearing--Have sections 206 and 215 improved FISA Investigation: Honorable Kenneth L. Wainstein, U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia Majority witness); James Baker, Office for Intelligence Policy and Review (Majority witness); Robert Khuzami, former Assistant United States Attorney in the United States Attorney's Office for the Southern District of New York (Majority witness); and Greg Nojeim, the Associate Director and Chief Legislative Counsel of the American Civil Liberties Union's Washington National Office (Minority witness); Minority Members Present: Conyers, Delahunt, Jackson-Lee, Scott, Waters.
April 26, 2005: Oversight Hearing--Have sections 204, 207, 214 and 225 of the USA PATRIOT Act, and Sections 6001 and 6002 of the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004, improved FISA Investigations?: Honorable Mary Beth Buchanan, United States Attorney for the Western District of Pennsylvania (Majority witness); James Baker, Office for Intelligence Policy and Review, U.S. Department of Justice (Majority witness); and Suzanne Spaulding, Managing Director, the Harbour Group, LLC (Minority witness); Minority Members Present: Conyers, Delahunt, Scott.
April 21, 2005: Oversight Hearing on Crime, Terrorism, and the Age of Technology--Section 209: Seizure of Voice-Mail Messages Pursuant to Warrants; Section 217: Interception of Computer Trespasser Communications; and Section 220: Nationwide Service of Search Warrants for Electronic Evidence: Laura Parsky, Deputy Assistant Attorney General of the Criminal Division, U.S. Department of Justice (Majority witness); Steven M. Martinez, Deputy Assistant Director of the Cyber Division, Federal Bureau of Investigation (Majority witness); James X. Dempsey, Executive Director of the Center for Democracy and Technology (Majority witness as a favor to Minority); and Peter Swire, Professor of Law, Mortiz College of Law, the Ohio State University (Minority witness); Minority Members Present: Delahunt, Jackson-Lee, Scott, Waters.
April 19, 2005: Oversight Hearing on Sections 203(b) and (d) of the USA PATRIOT Act and their Effect on Information Sharing: Barry Sabin, Chief of the Counterterrorism Section of the Criminal Division of the Department of Justice (Majority witness); Maureen Baginski, Executive Assistant Director of FBI Intelligence (Majority witness); Congressman Michael McCaul (Majority witness); and Timothy Edgar, the National Security Policy Counsel for American Civil Liberties Union (Minority witness); Minority Members Present: Delahunt, Scott, Waters.
Mr. Speaker, by scheduling 12 hearings on the reauthorization of the PATRIOT Act during this Congress, in addition to the bipartisan record established in previous Congresses, I have proven my commitment to conducting rigorous and comprehensive oversight of the implementation of the PATRIOT Act. Since commencing this latest series of hearings in April, two top officials at the Justice Department, Attorney General Gonzales and his Deputy James Comey, have testified before the committee on separate occasions. In each of the nine additional recent hearings held on the subject, the minority was allowed to designate at least one and sometimes two of the customary four witnesses at committee hearings, thus providing a consistent platform for additional and often dissenting views.
The record clearly demonstrates that this committee has engaged in a thorough, comprehensive, and bipartisan review of the PATRIOT Act since its passage. Assertions to the contrary are not only unfounded, they are plainly false, misleading, and malicious.
On June 8, 2005, the committee held a hearing on the ``Reauthorization of the
PATRIOT Act,'' at which Deputy Attorney General Comey testified. At the commencement of this hearing and without previous notice or consultation, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers), ranking member, and other minority members of the committee requested additional witnesses to testify before the committee on the ``Reauthorization of USA PATRIOT Act'' pursuant to House Rules.
House Rule XI(2)(j)(1) states: ``Whenever a hearing is conducted by a committee on a measure or matter, the minority members of the committee shall be entitled, upon request to the chairman by a majority of them before the completion of the hearing, to call witnesses selected by the minority to testify with respect to that measure or matter during at least 1 day of hearing thereon.'' I complied with that request and set the additional hearing on June 10.
At the outset of this hearing, I reminded members and witnesses of the permissible scope of the hearing requested by the minority under House Rule XI by stating: ``It is the Chair's intention to limit the scope of the hearing to the topic that was chosen by the Democratic minority that called this hearing and chose the witnesses, which is the reauthorization of the PATRIOT Act. Members and witnesses are advised that questions and testimony not falling within the subject matter of the hearing chosen by the Democrats will not be included in the hearing record pursuant to House Rule XI.'' After reviewing the testimony of the witnesses, I again expressed my concern stating that, ``I am disturbed that some of the testimony that has been presented in written form by the witnesses today are far outside the scope of the hearing, which the Democratic minority called and which they set in their letter.''
Notwithstanding repeated reminders and admonitions concerning the permissible scope of the hearing under House Rules, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers), ranking member, and members of the minority invited witnesses to provide testimony and make statements clearly outside of the scope of the reauthorization of the PATRIOT Act.
For example, in his opening remarks, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers) stated: ``For many of us, this process of hearings is not merely about the extension of the 16 expiring provisions of the PATRIOT Act. It is about the manner in which our government uses its legal authority to prosecute the war against terror both domestically and abroad. As we hear from our witnesses today, I think we will demonstrate that much of this authority has been abused.''
My repeated reminders and admonitions about House Rules concerning the permissible scope of the hearing were ignored by witnesses and members of the committee.
In the face of this refusal by the witnesses and members to appropriately conform their testimony to the subject matter of the hearing requested by the minority, I exercised great patience in permitting witnesses and members to weigh in on issues totally unrelated to that subject. I recognized all four witnesses as well as each majority and minority member present at the hearing for 5 minutes. The record clearly shows that I evinced no favoritism in providing time either to witnesses or members.
At the conclusion of the hearing, when each witness and member had been provided equal time to raise questions, and the witnesses asked and received permission to submit their complete testimony into the hearing record, I expressed my great disappointment that opponents of the PATRIOT Act have used it as a vehicle to assert broad, sweeping, and sometimes wildly unsubstantiated allegations concerning matters totally unrelated to the legislation.
As I concluded my remarks, at least two minority members who had been accorded their time to speak again sought recognition, and I adjourned the hearing in a manner inconsistent with the spirit of comity that has and should continue to inform committee deliberations. While I concede this point without qualifications, Members should also be aware that the practice of the Democratic chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary under whom I have served, as well as the practice of the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers), ranking member, during his chairmanship of the Committee on Government Operations, was to adjourn hearings without motion and without expressly seeking the unanimous consent of committee members.
Since this hearing I have been unfairly criticized by several Members of this body. In a press release dated June 10, the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi), minority leader, said, ``Chairman Sensenbrenner proved again today that he is afraid of ideas, that Republicans will stop at nothing to silence Democrats and the voice of the minority, to deny millions of Americans a voice in Congress. Republicans are unwilling and unable to compete in the marketplace of ideas; so they have chosen to arbitrarily and capriciously abuse their power simply because they can.''
In a similar statement, the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer), minority whip, stated that the committee's June 10 hearing represented a ``quintessential example of shutting up, shutting down opposition, dissenting views, and democracy.''
Both these statements are a grossly unfair and distorted depiction of my conduct and demand correction. I am not afraid of diverse ideas. I welcome that, and the chronology of the hearing record shows that. I have never attempted to stifle democracy, and I never will.
This committee's bipartisan consideration of the PATRIOT Act under my leadership underscores the malice that motivates these accusations. There is a difference between spirited debate and partisan vitriol that transgresses the bounds of decency and maligns the integrity of a Member of this House.
Following the hearing, the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Wasserman Schultz), who is the newest member of the committee, issued a press release stating that I had acted in an illegal manner under headlines stating: ``Democracy Thwarted at Judiciary Committee Hearing on the PATRIOT Act.'' In the course of this hearing, I did nothing that remotely resembles conduct that can be described as illegal. And as chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary, I take particular umbrage at this mischaracterization.
The gentleman from New York (Mr. Nadler) has also contended that I chaired the hearing in a manner that was ``with an attitude of total hostility.'' Based on these remarks, it has been inaccurately reported that I ``abruptly pulled the plug ..... when a hearing on the PATRIOT Act turned to prisoners and anti-immigration militia on the Mexican border.'' These statements are clearly false. I permitted each witness an opportunity to complete his or her oral remarks, and the hearing was only concluded after 2 hours' duration only when each member had been provided an equal opportunity to speak.
Following the hearing, I have met with the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers), ranking member, to discuss ways in which the committee could respond to concerns expressed by some members of the minority, and we reached a resolution that might have averted this impasse. However, some in the minority have preferred a political issue to a workable solution. I trust that by fully and fairly examining the record of the June 10 hearing, as well as my demonstrated longstanding record of bipartisan consideration of matters relating to the PATRIOT Act and other matters before the committee, Members of this House and the public at large will reject the false, malevolent, and derogatory allegations leveled against me by certain minority Members of this body.
Mr. Speaker, the American people expect and deserve Members of Congress to approach terrorism prevention in a thoughtful, factual, and responsible manner. All too often opponents of the PATRIOT Act have constructed unfounded and totally unrelated conspiracy theories, erected strawmen that bear no relation to reality, engaged in irresponsible and totally unfounded hyperbole, or unjustly impugned the law enforcement officials entrusted with protecting the security of America's citizens. While the PATRIOT Act was drafted and passed by both Houses with wide bipartisan majorities, it has been transformed by some into a political weapon of choice to allege a broad range of violations which have nothing to do with that
[Page: H4648] GPO's PDF
legislation. These efforts coarsen public debate and undermine the responsible, substantive examination that must inform congressional and public consideration of this critical issue.
I will not be deterred by malicious attacks or minority obstructionism. In the coming months I will continue to energetically discharge my responsibilities as chairman to ensure thorough, bipartisan, and thoughtful consideration of issues relating to the PATRIOT Act and other legislation before the committee. This House and the American people who elect us to represent them expect and deserve no less.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
REPRESENTATIVE JACKSON-LEE’S COMMENTS
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I believe all of my colleagues would accept the premise that justice is not outside of the jurisdiction of the Committee on the Judiciary, nor is the concept of justice outside of the concept of this august body.
Judge Learned Hand is cited to have stated that the spirit of liberty is a spirit which is not too sure that it is right. So sometimes, Mr. Speaker, it is appropriate that those of us who believe in liberty should step back for a moment and question whether everything that we have done or everything that we think is right.
I think it is well to remind my colleagues that our Founding Fathers, those who came freely to this Nation, fled because they fled from persecution. And they fled to have the opportunity and the right to speak. We have always abhorred the tyranny of the majority. So it is important that those of us who stand today welcome, welcome, the offer being made by the previous speaker that we can sit down and resolve these questions and these disputes.
But there is no doubt that the resolution offered by the gentleman from New York (Mr. Nadler) has not been refuted. Violation of Rule XVII did occur. A motion did not occur to adjourn, and it is the rule that we have accepted. The violation of Rule XVII did occur, and as much as we did have a hearing, there were witnesses who were not able to respond to accusations or allegations being made by Members of Congress.
[Time: 21:30]
I think that we as Members recognize that we represent the American people, and whether or not witnesses come and take an oath and offer to this Congress words that you agree or disagree with, courtesies should be given to them so that their voice might be heard.
The previous speaker is right. We worked in a bipartisan way on the PATRIOT Act. We did it within a 6 week period. But ultimately another bill went to the floor of the House. It behooves us now to insist on behalf of the American people a complete overview and oversight of the PATRIOT Act.
So I simply say to my colleagues, justice should not be fleeting, and we should abide by justice, all of us, and we should vote for the Nadler resolution.
Mr. Speaker, Judge Learned Hand is cited to have stated that ``The spirit of liberty is the spirit which is not too sure that it is right. . . .''I would like to associate myself with the resolution filed by the Gentleman from New York and I join him in expressing displeasure and outrage at the disrespectful conduct of the Republican majority at the Committee hearing that was held on Friday, June 10, 2005. The Hearing was requested by the distinguished Ranking Member Mr. CONYERS, for the purpose of hearing important testimony relating to questions of civil rights and civil liberties, immigration policy, and human rights resulting from the provisions to be reauthorized in the USA PATRIOT Act.
What happened on June 10 was not only an attempt to silence Democratic Members of Judiciary, it was to silence Democracy in America. In my 11 years on the Committee on the Judiciary, I have never witnessed such treatment and disrespect as we saw by the Committee Leadership, who in addition to walking out of the hearing, also unilaterally decided to shut off the microphones for both Members and witnesses.
Furthermore, to do so in the context of analysis of very substantive legislation such as PATRIOT Act Reauthorization, something that greatly concerns all Americans, only exacerbated the repugnancy with which the very legislation itself was passed.
Throughout that hearing, which was called at the least convenient time of 8:30 a.m. on a Friday when Congress was not in session, witnesses and Members were cut-off in mid-sentence, and the Chairman refused to yield to points of order or points of personal privilege called for by the Committee Democrats. The hearing was abruptly adjourned by the Chairman, in violation of the Rules of the House while microphones of Democratic members were shut off while they attempted to speak.
Sixteen provisions of the USA PATRIOT Act automatically sunset at the end of the year unless reauthorized by Congress. As such, the Judiciary Committee held hearings on the reauthorization of the USA PATRIOT Act that absolutely required bipartisan cooperation. Legislation that touches upon fundamental civil rights and civil liberties should not be commingled with petty games, personal gripes, or hostile acts steeped in partisan politics. It is my hope that the Republicans will issue an apology and begin taking strides to form a bridge across the aisle that has been widened by ugly partisan divide.
Sixteen (16) provisions that are due to sunset at the end of 2005 are set for reauthorization. These provisions include Section 213 that allows delayed notification search warrants, Section 209's emergency disclosure of e-mails without a court order, and the provision that allows access to business records.
I commend the Chairman for his disposition to hold the 10 oversight hearings that have been held on these controversial provisions. However, if my colleagues on this side of the hearing room were to file an action based on the common law principle of forum non conveniens, we would likely be justified based on the fact that this hearing has been called for 8:30 a.m. on the day following the end of votes for the week! Nevertheless, we applaud this de minimis effort to appeal to the requests for hearings that have been made by the distinguished Ranking Member of this body.
By way of background, I remind this body that the PATRIOT Act was passed into law a mere six weeks following the terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001. The process of drafting this bill until its signing into law by President Bush took only four days from October 23 to October 26, 2001. The final measure, H.R. 3162, incorporated provisions of H.R. 2977, which the House passed on October 12, 2001, and S. 1510, which the other body passed on October 11, 2001. While Congress grappled with the need to act expeditiously to fight terrorism, I still marvel that a bill more than three hundred pages long moved from introduction to enactment at such a daunting speed. The process of reauthorization seems to resemble this path.
Mr. Speaker, while the Committee on the Judiciary has exercised oversight on the provisions that are up for reauthorization, I feel that, given their continued and increasing contentiousness, we must further analyze the possibly negative impact that they will have on our civil rights, civil liberties, and other guarantees under the U.S. Constitution. Conduct that disrespects Members who wish to conduct substantive debate as representatives of the House of Representatives.
REPRESENTATIVE WASSERMAN-SCHULTZ’ COMMENTS
Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from New York for yielding me time.
Mr. Speaker, last week it was an honor to begin my new assignment as a member of the Committee on the Judiciary. This Nation was founded on the principles of ensuring that the rights of the minority are protected from the tyranny of the majority. The display that I witnessed and experienced at our committee hearing last Friday was, honestly, the most egregious abuse of power witnessed in my 13 years of combined public service in three legislative bodies.
This is a political institution, with individuals who feel passionately about their views, and this is an institution that runs on power. But my hope is that even when we disagree, we will treat each other with respect and dignity. Respect and dignity were nowhere to be found at that hearing last Friday, and it was a shame.
I was particularly surprised and disappointed by the disposition demonstrated by the chairman during the hearing, and found it ironic that the Committee on the Judiciary, whose responsibilities include reviewing, safeguarding and upholding our Constitution, thought nothing of trampling the rights the minority's witnesses by severely limiting their opportunities to be heard.
After 9/11, the vast majority of Americans were and remain willing today to give up some of our freedoms and civil liberties in order to keep us safe. When the USA PATRIOT Act was adopted by Congress, there were 16 provisions that
were troubling enough to most Members that they were required to be reviewed by Congress before they could remain in law past this year.
I think I share the views of many when I say that I may ultimately support all 16 provisions remaining in law. However, it did not seem too much to ask to thoroughly review those provisions, and not just hear a drastically lopsided set of witnesses called by the majority party.
If we are going to restrict civil liberties in the name of national and homeland security, it is more important than ever to shine the light on these provisions and make sure they can withstand a rigorous test.
Forfeiting civil liberties is not merely an inconvenience for our citizens. It must be a conscious decision, made with full disclosure and review and for good reason. If this forfeiture cannot withstand a review where proponents and opponents have their concerns aired, then our citizens cannot be expected to give up rights they were born with and for which our forefathers and foremothers so desperately fought.
It is my hope that, like the other committee on which I serve, the Committee on Financial Services, which operates in an spirit of bipartisanship even on the most contentious of issues, that we can withstand the test, and this should be done without the abuse of power and trampling of democracy that we experienced last week.
## All Rights Reserved. © 2005 TheWeekInCongress.com.
No reproduction or distribution without written permission from TheWeekInCongress.com.