[Congressional Record Volume 151, Number 80 (Thursday, June 16, 2005)]
[House]
[Pages H4644-H4650]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
PRIVILEGES OF THE HOUSE--INTEGRITY OF PROCEEDINGS OF THE HOUSE
Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I offer a privileged resolution (H. Res.
324) as to a question of the privileges of the House and ask for its
immediate consideration.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will report the resolution.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:
H. Res. 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.
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.''
{time} 2100
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Thornberry). The resolution presents a
question of the privileges of the House.
Under the previous order of the House, the gentleman from New York
(Mr. Nadler) and the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner) each
will control 15 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New York (Mr. Nadler).
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]]
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.
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.
{time} 2115
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]]
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
[[Page H4647]]
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]]
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.
Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from
Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).
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} 2130
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.
Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from
Florida (Ms. Wasserman Schultz).
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
[[Page H4649]]
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.
Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Michigan (Mr. Conyers), the distinguished ranking minority member of
the Committee on the Judiciary.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time.
Mr. Speaker, this is an embarrassing circumstance that we again find
ourselves in. There are reasons that have required that the gentleman
from New York, regretfully, bring this privileged resolution to the
floor. There is little question that the demeanor of the chairman, the
gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner), was very, very unusual
for the meeting that was held, which he was required to hold.
Now, do not take my word for it. I want you to go look at the
evidence. It was all taped. I was stunned by my friend's continued
hostility, not just toward the members of the Democratic side, but the
witnesses themselves. I have never, ever experienced a witness being
stopped dead in mid-sentence. It was highly inappropriate. The meeting
was ended incorrectly. You cannot walk out of a meeting. You cannot say
``The meeting is adjourned,'' slam the gavel down and walk out.
I have worked in the Committee on the Judiciary. I came to this
committee and all my career has been spent there. I worked under
Emanuel Celler, Jack Brooks and Peter Rodino. I had wonderful times
with the chairman that preceded the gentleman from Wisconsin (Chairman
Sensenbrenner), the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde).
What I want Members to do, and I plead with them, is to support the
gentleman from New York's privileged resolution, and allow the
gentleman from Wisconsin (Chairman Sensenbrenner) and me to continue
meetings trying to get this committee back on track and make it whole
again. Join us in that request. Please.
Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Thornberry). The gentleman from New York
has 2 minutes remaining.
Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, we are not here discussing the substance or
the merits of the PATRIOT Act or the manner in which it was adopted 4
years ago or the sufficiency of the oversight of the PATRIOT Act by the
Committee on the Judiciary. We will have plenty of time to discuss that
on the floor in coming weeks. We are discussing the abuse of power and
flouting of the rules by the chairman of the committee at the minority
hearing on June 10.
What the chairman said today did not contest or dispute a single
point or a single allegation or assertion in the resolution. He did not
deny that he rigidly cut off witnesses, every witness, in mid-sentence,
a practice unheard of normally in the Committee on the Judiciary.
He did not deny that he made several false and disparaging comments
about members of the minority in violation of the rules.
He did not deny that he refused on numerous occasions throughout the
hearing to recognize members of the minority party attempting to raise
points of order.
He did not deny that he violated the rules by adjourning unilaterally
and peremptorily the committee hearing while members were seeking
recognition and seeking points of order.
He did not deny that his staff cut off our microphones and even the
lights when we were attempting to continue the hearing that he had
illegally attempted to cut off.
He says that I said that he chaired the hearing with an attitude of
total hostility. Watch the C-SPAN tape, not the tape on the committee
website, the entire tape on the C-SPAN website. You will see the
accuracy of what I said.
This was unforgivable, it was undemocratic, it was tyrannical. It was
demeaning to the House and it should not occur again. Regardless of how
he normally chairs hearings, regardless of whatever may happen about
the PATRIOT Act in the future, this was an exercise in tyrannical
disregard of the rights of the members of the minority and the millions
of Americans we represent.
It is intolerable, it is abusive, and, therefore, this resolution
should be passed and it should not happen again.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. All time for debate has expired.
Motion to Table Offered by Mr. DeLay
Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Speaker, I move to table the resolution.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion to table
offered by the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay).
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Recorded Vote
Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 222,
noes 191, not voting 20, as follows:
[Roll No. 273]
AYES--222
Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
Bachus
Baker
Barrett (SC)
Bartlett (MD)
Barton (TX)
Bass
Beauprez
Biggert
Bilirakis
Bishop (UT)
Blackburn
Blunt
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonilla
Bonner
Boozman
Boustany
Bradley (NH)
Brady (TX)
Brown (SC)
Brown-Waite, Ginny
Burgess
Burton (IN)
Buyer
Calvert
Camp
Cannon
Cantor
Capito
Carter
Castle
Chabot
Chocola
Coble
Cole (OK)
Conaway
Crenshaw
Cubin
Culberson
Cunningham
Davis (KY)
Davis, Jo Ann
Deal (GA)
DeLay
Dent
Diaz-Balart, L.
Diaz-Balart, M.
Doolittle
Drake
Dreier
Duncan
Ehlers
Emerson
English (PA)
Everett
Feeney
Ferguson
Fitzpatrick (PA)
Flake
Foley
Forbes
Fortenberry
Fossella
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Garrett (NJ)
Gerlach
Gibbons
Gilchrest
Gingrey
Gohmert
Goode
Goodlatte
Granger
Graves
Green (WI)
Gutknecht
Hall
Harris
Hart
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Hayworth
Hefley
Hensarling
Herger
Hobson
Hoekstra
Hostettler
Hulshof
Hunter
Hyde
Inglis (SC)
Issa
Istook
Jenkins
Jindal
Johnson (CT)
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, Sam
Jones (NC)
Keller
Kelly
Kennedy (MN)
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kirk
Kline
Knollenberg
Kolbe
Kuhl (NY)
LaHood
Latham
Leach
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
LoBiondo
Lucas
Lungren, Daniel E.
Mack
Manzullo
Marchant
McCaul (TX)
McCotter
McCrery
McHenry
McHugh
McKeon
McMorris
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller, Gary
Moran (KS)
Murphy
Musgrave
Myrick
Neugebauer
Ney
Northup
Norwood
Nunes
Nussle
Osborne
Otter
Paul
Pearce
Pence
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Pickering
Pitts
Platts
Poe
Pombo
Porter
Price (GA)
Pryce (OH)
Putnam
Radanovich
Ramstad
Regula
Rehberg
Reichert
Renzi
Reynolds
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Royce
Ryan (WI)
Ryun (KS)
Saxton
Schwarz (MI)
Sensenbrenner
Shadegg
Shaw
Shays
Sherwood
Shimkus
Shuster
Simmons
Simpson
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Sodrel
Souder
Stearns
Sullivan
Sweeney
Tancredo
Taylor (NC)
Terry
Thomas
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Tiberi
Turner
Upton
Walden (OR)
Walsh
Wamp
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
Westmoreland
[[Page H4650]]
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson (NM)
Wilson (SC)
Wolf
Young (FL)
NOES--191
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Allen
Andrews
Baca
Baird
Baldwin
Barrow
Bean
Becerra
Berkley
Berry
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Boren
Boswell
Boyd
Brady (PA)
Brown (OH)
Brown, Corrine
Butterfield
Capps
Capuano
Cardin
Cardoza
Carnahan
Carson
Case
Chandler
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Conyers
Cooper
Costa
Costello
Cramer
Crowley
Cummings
Davis (AL)
Davis (CA)
Davis (FL)
Davis (IL)
Davis (TN)
DeFazio
DeGette
DeLauro
Dingell
Doggett
Doyle
Edwards
Emanuel
Engel
Eshoo
Etheridge
Evans
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Ford
Frank (MA)
Gonzalez
Gordon
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Harman
Hastings (FL)
Herseth
Higgins
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Holden
Holt
Honda
Hoyer
Inslee
Israel
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
Johnson, E. B.
Jones (OH)
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kennedy (RI)
Kildee
Kilpatrick (MI)
Kind
Kucinich
Langevin
Lantos
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lee
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
Lofgren, Zoe
Lowey
Lynch
Maloney
Markey
Marshall
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy
McCollum (MN)
McDermott
McGovern
McIntyre
McKinney
McNulty
Meehan
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Melancon
Menendez
Michaud
Miller (NC)
Mollohan
Moore (KS)
Moore (WI)
Moran (VA)
Murtha
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal (MA)
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Owens
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Payne
Peterson (MN)
Pomeroy
Price (NC)
Rahall
Rangel
Ross
Rothman
Roybal-Allard
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Sabo
Salazar
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sanders
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schwartz (PA)
Scott (GA)
Scott (VA)
Serrano
Sherman
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Solis
Spratt
Stark
Strickland
Stupak
Tanner
Tauscher
Taylor (MS)
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Towns
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watson
Watt
Waxman
Weiner
Wexler
Woolsey
Wu
Wynn
NOT VOTING--20
Berman
Blumenauer
Bono
Boucher
Cox
Cuellar
Davis, Tom
Delahunt
Dicks
Gillmor
Hooley
LaTourette
Millender-McDonald
Miller, George
Oberstar
Oxley
Pelosi
Reyes
Sessions
Young (AK)
{time} 2208
So the motion to table was agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
A motion to reconsider was laid upon the table.
____________________