http://press.arrivenet.com/pol/article.php/654963.htmlWASHINGTON, June 16 /U.S. Newswire/ -- House Judiciary Committee Chairman F. James Sensenbrenner, Jr. (R-Wis.) delivered the following remarks on the House floor regarding a question of personal privilege (Part 2 of 2):
My repeated admonishments and reminders 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 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 the reauthorization of the PATRIOT Act. I recognized all four witnesses, as well as each majority and minority Member present at the hearing for five minutes. The record clearly shows that I evinced no favoritism in providing time to either witnesses or Members.
the conclusion of the hearing, when each witness and Member had been provided equal time to raise questions, and 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 qualification, Members should also be aware that the practice of Democratic Chairmen of the Judiciary Committee, as well as the practice of Ranking Member Conyers 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 characterized by several Members of this body. In a press release dated June 10, 2005, Minority Leader Pelosi stated:
"Chairman Sensenbrenner proved again today that he is afraid of ideas, and 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, Minority Whip Hoyer stated that the Committee's June 10, 2005 hearing represented a "quintessential example of shutting up, shutting down opposition, dissenting views, democracy." This grossly unfair and distorted depiction of my conduct demands correction. I am not afraid of diverse ideas - I welcome them. I have never attempted to stifle democracy - and never will.
The 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, the newest Member of the Judiciary Committee, issued a press release asserting that I had acted in an "illegal" manner under a headline 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 could be described as "illegal," and as Chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary, I take particular umbrage with 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." In addition, 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 concluded only when each Member had been provided an equal opportunity to speak.
Following this hearing, I met with Ranking Member Conyers 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 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 issues 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 straw men 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 of Congress with wide bipartisan majorities, it has been transformed by some into a political weapon of choice to allege a broad range of violations having nothing to do with the legislation. These efforts coarsen public debate and undermine the responsible, substantive examination that must inform congressional 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 have elected us to represent them, expect and deserve no less.
I yield back.
http://www.usnewswire.com/