The Patriot Act & Civil Liberties Hearing

"Are we afraid of learning about misconduct?" - Jerrold Nadler, D-New York After a rowdy hearing where Chairman Sensenbrenner was obviously aggravated by Democrats wanting to ask questions about our civil liberties. To his credit, the meeting may have been often off-topic and did run for almost two hours. Whether he was stopping these hearings because of regulatory reasons or political ones, the most in-depth discussion that has been had on the subject was stopped illegally by the Republican s in the Judiciary Committee. From the office of Congresswoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz:

(1)Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz, in her new role as a member of the Judiciary Committee, today witnessed first hand the disrespectful conduct of the Republican majority at a Committee hearing today, requested by the Democratic minority, to hear testimony on civil rights and civil liberties abuses resulting from the USA Patriot Act. “What happened today was not only an attempt to silence Democratic Members of Judiciary, it was a silencing of Democracy in America,” said Rep. Wasserman Schultz. “As a new member of the Judiciary Committee, I was appalled by the treatment we received today and the disrespect that Minority Chairman Conyers was shown. Minority Chairman Conyers has dedicated over forty years of his life to this country as a member of the House of Representatives --he and the Americans who are deeply concerned about the Patriot Act deserve better.”

Luckily, it looks like the Democrats are fighting back.

(2) House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) said this afternoon that she wanted an apology from Sensenbrenner. "I will ask Speaker Hastert to order Mr. Sensenbrenner to apologize for his behavior to the witnesses at the hearing today, and to promise that this will never again happen," she said in a statement.

This should be on the front page of every newspaper and news show and maybe even every talk show. It's not. That's wrong. This is almost as bad as when the they struck from the official record a Democrat asking for international observers in our elections. Also not front page news at the time. This one party dominance in he House is - although not illegally - close to the way the House was expected to operate by the men who wrote our Constitution. The Senate is different. It is more balanced, more restricted. For those of you keeping up with these things, that is why keeping the filibuster important important.

(1)Particularly shameful acts of the majority Republicans during this morning's Judiciary Committee Hearing: 1. The most egregious abuse was that the Chairman clearly violated the Rules of the House by adjourning the hearing based solely on his own authority. In order to end a hearing, the Chair must make a Unanimous Consent request or a motion to adjourn. Mr. Sensenbrenner did neither. Additionally, he adjourned the hearing based solely on his own authority while Mr. Nadler was attempting to raise a point of order (arguably to highlight this fact), which constitutes a clear abuse of House Rules. Subject to our discretion, this could constitute a privilege to be raised on the House floor. It can also be argued that this violation was particularly egregious given that this was the Minority’s day of hearings. (begins at 1:51:00 on video) 2. After the Chairman illegally adjourned the hearing, the Majority then attempted to cut the microphone of Mr. Nadler who was attempting to raise a point of order about the adjournment. (begins at 1:52:25 on video) 3. The Chairman refused on numerous occasions to recognize Members attempting to raise Points of Order or Points of Personal Privilege. For example, he refused to recognize both Ms. Jackson Lee Ms. Wasserman Schultz at the beginning of the hearing. (begins at 17:45 on video or 19:15) 4. During the hearing, the Chairman clearly referred to comments that had just been made by Ms. Jackson Lee, calling them “irresponsible.” (begins at 1:49:57 on video) 5. The Chair gave one of the witnesses an order for information he wanted submitted to the Committee and gave a deadline of one week even though other witnesses in previous hearings have not been given such deadlines. (begins at 1:50:45 on video) 6. The Chairman at the beginning of the hearing read a list of Members – calling them by name – who signed the letter requesting an additional day of hearings but were not present at that moment at the hearing (the Rules of the House clearly state that Members cannot be disparaged on the record by name). Additionally, a number of the Members so disparaged were present at that moment and some had been present from before the hearing even began. (begins 5:30 on video) 7. The Chairman instituted a policy of cutting off witnesses responding to questions by Members in mid-sentence. Additionally, he would not let witnesses answer questions that were posed to them by Members before the Member’s five minutes ended (begins at 1:32:30 on video). While not a violation of the Rules, these actions clearly violated the Traditions and Practices of the House Judiciary Committee. Chairman Sensenbrenner usually allows witnesses to finish their sentences – and usually their broader point – before moving to the next Member. In addition, the usual practice is to allow witnesses to briefly respond to questions posed to them, even if the five minutes of the Member expired before they began to answer (begins at 1:47:00 on video). 8. The Chairman also suggested that he might strike from the record any testimony that was not directly related to the 16 expiring provisions of the PATRIOT Act. (begins at 10:50 on video) At no time has it ever been suggested or threatened that a witness’s testimony (or a Member’s statements) would be stricken from the record. Additionally, in previous hearings, the Majority’s witnesses, as well the Majority Members have made statements that were technically outside the bounds of the hearing topic.

Sources: (1)Democracy thwarted at Judiciary Committee Hearing on the Patriot Act Office of Debbie Wasserman Schultz - June 10 (Link to movie from press release) (2)Tempers Flare in Judiciary Committee Dust-up The Hill - June 10