[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 151 (2005), Part 9]
[House]
[Pages 12994-13000]
[From the U.S. 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.

[[Page 12995]]

  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 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

[[Page 12996]]

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, 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,

[[Page 12997]]

     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

[[Page 12998]]

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 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

[[Page 12999]]

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 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

[[Page 13000]]

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
     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.

                          ____________________