To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 306 2nd Avenue in Brockway, Montana, as the "Paul Kasten Post Office Building".

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.

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

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. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Wasserman Schultz).

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. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.

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.

Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

I strongly oppose this resolution because it does not state what the facts are relative to the Judiciary Committee's consideration of the PATRIOT Act. I rise today to respond to false, misleading, and malicious allegations that have been made by Members of this House and reported in the media concerning the conduct of the Judiciary Committee's June 10 hearing on the reauthorization of the USA PATRIOT Act and my consideration of the PATRIOT Act as chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary.

Since becoming chairman of this committee in January 2001, I have consistently demonstrated a commitment to fair and equitable consideration of issues before the committee. Perhaps no other issue better demonstrates this commitment than the committee's response to the tragic events of September 11, 2001. Shortly following the attacks, I called a committee hearing to draft antiterrorism legislation at which the Attorney General and other top officials of the Justice Department testified. At that meeting, I pledged to work with the minority to draft bipartisan legislation to help detect, deter, and defeat terrorist threats to our Nation's security.

Since that time, the record clearly demonstrates that I have kept my word by conducting bipartisan and evenhanded consideration of this critical issue.

In October of 2001, the committee unanimously approved the PATRIOT Act by a vote of 36-0. I was enormously proud of this vote because it proved that a committee comprising sharply diverging viewpoints could speak in a clear and united voice on an issue of overwhelming importance to the security, safety, and liberty of all Americans. When drafting this legislation, I also insisted that provisions expanding the scope of Federal authority be subject to congressional reauthorization. I included sunsets in these provisions because I strongly believe that Congress must play an active and continuing role in ensuring that the PATRIOT Act protects the safety and security of all Americans while preserving the freedom and liberty that distinguish us as Americans.

To ensure that the PATRIOT Act is being implemented in a manner that reflects the priorities of Congress, on multiple occasions Ranking Member Conyers and I have sent detailed, extensive, and bipartisan inquiries to the Department of Justice concerning the implementation of the legislation.

When the Justice Department did not fully respond to one set of detailed inquiries, I forcefully asserted the committee's prerogatives by raising the possibility of a committee subpoena to obtain the requested information.

The committee has conducted several hearings on matters related to the PATRIOT Act, at which senior administration officials have testified. At my request committee members have also received briefings on the implementation of the PATRIOT Act from senior law enforcement officials.

On March 28 of this year, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers), ranking member, and I jointly announced a series of hearings on the reauthorization of the PATRIOT Act. We made this announcement in the same spirit of bipartisanship that has typified the committee's consideration of this issue since the committee's first hearing on this subject following September 11. While the primary focus of this series of hearings has been to examine provisions in the PATRIOT Act that are set to expire at the end of this year, the scope of these hearings has been broadened to include provisions of the PATRIOT Act that will not sunset, and issues that are only tangentially related to PATRIOT Act have also received formal committee consideration at the request of the minority.

The record clearly proves that I have worked in a bipartisan manner to ensure that the committee has received testimony from an array of knowledgeable witnesses of diverging viewpoints, and that members had the opportunity to address questions to each of them. And at this time I include in the Record a listing of the oversight activities and a chronology of the hearing record that has been held since April before the Committee on the Judiciary and its subcommittees.

OVERSIGHT: House Judiciary Committee Oversight of the USA PATRIOT Act

oversight through letters to the department of justice

House Judiciary Committee sent the Attorney General, John

Ashcroft, a letter on June 13, 2002, with 50 detailed

questions on the implementation of the USA PATRIOT Act. The

questions were a result of extensive consultation between the

majority and minority Committee counsel. Assistant Attorney

General, Daniel Bryant, responded to Chairman Sensenbrenner

and Ranking Member Mr. Conyers on July 26, 2002, providing

lengthy responses to 28 out of the 50 questions submitted. On

August 26, 2002, Mr. Bryant sent the responses to the

remaining questions, after sending responses to six of the

questions to the House Permanent Select Committee on

Intelligence. Then, on September 20, 2002, Mr. Bryant sent

the minority additional information regarding the Department

of Justice's responses to these questions.

On April 11, 2003, Chairman Sensenbrenner and Ranking

Member Mr. Conyers sent a second letter to the Department of

Justice with additional questions regarding the use of pre-

existing authorities and the new authorities conferred by the

USA PATRIOT Act. Once again, the questions were the product

of bipartisan coordination by Committee counsel. Acting

Assistant Attorney General, Jamie E. Brown, responded with a

May 13, 2003 letter that answered the questions she deemed

relevant to the Department of Justice and forwarded the

remaining questions to the appropriate officials at the

Department of Homeland Security on June 13, 2003, the

Assistant Secretary for Legislative Affairs at the Department

of Homeland Security, Pamela J. Turner, sent responses to the

forwarded questions.

On November 20, 2003, Chairman Sensenbrenner and

Congressman Hostettler, Chairman of the Subcommittee on

Immigration,

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

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.

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. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, June 14, 2006, at 10 a.m., to mark up S. 418 ``Military Personnel Financial Services Protection Act,'' as amended by the committee print; S. 811 ``Abraham Lincoln Commemorative Coin Act,'' and to vote on the nominations of Ms. Sheila C. Bair, of Kansas, to be a member and chairperson of the Board of Directors of the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation; Ms. Kathleen L. Casey, of Virginia, to be a member of the Securities and Exchange Commission; Mr. Robert M. Couch, of Alabama, to be President of the Government National Mortgage Association; Mr. Donald L. Kohn, of Virginia, to be vice chairman of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System; and Mr. James B. Lockhart III, of Connecticut, to be the Director of the Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight. Immediately following the mark up, the committee will meet in open session to conduct a hearing on ``FASB's Proposed Standard on `Employers' Accounting for Defined Benefit Pension and Other Postretirement Plans.' ''

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on June 14, 2006, at 2:30 p.m., to conduct a hearing on ``Extension of HUD's Mark-to-Market Program.''

Mr. President, I would like to ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Environment and Public Works be authorized to hold an oversight hearing on Wednesday, June 14, 2006, at 9:30 a.m. to consider whether potential liability deters abandoned hard rock mine clean up.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs be authorized to meet on Wednesday, June 14, 2006, at 10 a.m. for a business meeting to consider pending committee business.

Agenda

Legislation

1. S. 2145, Chemical Facility Anti-Terrorism Act of 2005;

2. S. 1554, a bill to establish an intergovernmental grant program to identify and develop homeland security information, equipment, capabilities, technologies, and services to further the homeland security of the United States and to address the homeland security needs of Federal, State, and local governments;

3. S. 1741, Disaster Area Health and Environmental Monitoring Act;

4. S. 1838, Federal and District of Columbia Real Property Act of 2005;

5. S. 2068, a bill to preserve existing judgeships on the Superior Court of the District of Columbia;

6. S. 2146, a bill to extend relocation expenses test programs for Federal employees;

7. S. 2296, Commission on Wartime Relocation and Internment of Latin Americans of Japanese Descent Act;

8. H.R. 3508, 2005 District of Columbia Omnibus Authorization Act.

Post Office Naming Bills

1. S. 2228/H.R. 4456, a bill to designate the facility of the U.S. Postal Service located at 2404 Race Street in Jonesboro, Arkansas, as the ``Hattie W. Caraway Station;''

2. S. 2376/H.R. 3934, a bill to designate the facility of the U.S. Postal Service located at 80 Killian Road in Massapequa, New York, as the ``Gerard A. Fiorenza Post Office Building;''

3. S. 2722, a bill to designate the facility of the U.S. Postal Service located at 170 East Main Street in Patchogue, New York, as the ``Lieutenant Michael P. Murphy Post Office Building;

4. H.R. 4108, a bill to designate the facility of the U.S. Postal Service located at 3000 Homewood Avenue in Baltimore, Maryland, as the ``State Senator Verda Welcome and Dr. Henry Welcome Post Office Building;''

5. H.R. 3440, a bill to designate the facility of the U.S. Postal Service located at 100 Avenida RL Rodriguez in Bayamon, Puerto Rico, as the ``Dr. Jose Celso Barbosa Post Office Building;''

6. H.R. 4786, a bill to designate the facility of the U.S. Postal Service located at 535 Wood Street in Bethlehem, Pennsylvania, as the ``H. Gordon Payrow Post Office Building;''

7. H.R. 4561, a bill to designate the facility of the U.S. Postal Service located at 8624 Ferguson Road in Dallas, Texas, as the ``Franciso `Pancho' Medrano Post Office Building;''

8. H.R. 4688, a bill to designate the facility of the U.S. Postal Service located at 1 Boyden Street in Badin, North Carolina, as the ``Mayor John Thompson `Tom' Garrison Memorial Post Office;''

9. H.R. 4995, a bill to designate the facility of the U.S. Postal Service located at 7 Columbus Avenue in Tuckahoe, New York, as the ``Ronald Bucca Post Office;''

10. H.R. 3549, a bill to designate the facility of the U.S. Postal Service located at 210 West 3rd Avenue in Warren, Pennsylvania, as the ``William F. Clinger Jr. Post Office Building;''

11. H.R. 2977, a bill to designate the facility of the U.S. Postal Service located at 306 2nd Avenue in Brockway, Montana, as the ``Paul Kasten Post Office Building;''

12. S. 2690, a bill to designate the facility of the U.S. Postal Service located at 8801 Sudley Road in Manassas, Virginia, as the ``Harry J. Parrish Post Office;''

13. S. 3187, a bill to designate the Post Office located at 5755 Post Road, East Greenwich, Rhode Island, as the ``Richard L. Cevoli Post Office;''

14. H.R. 5245, a bill to designate the facility of the U.S. Postal Service located at 1 Marble Street in Fair Haven, Vermont, as the ``Matthew Lyon Post Office Building.''

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Indian Affairs be authorized to meet on Wednesday, June 14, 2006, at 9:30 a.m. in Room 485 of the Russell Senate Office Building to conduct a hearing on S. 374, the Tribal Parity Act and S. 1535, the Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe Equitable Compensation Amendments Act of 2005.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate Committee on the Judiciary be authorized to meet to conduct a hearing on ``Judicial Nominations'' on Wednesday, June 14, 2006, at 9:30 a.m. in Dirksen Senate Office Building Room 226.

Witness list:

Panel I: The Honorable F. James Sensenbrenner, Jr. and The Honorable William Kovacic, Commissioner, Federal Trade Commission, Washington,

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Select Committee on Intelligence be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on June 14, 2006, at 2:30 p.m. to hold a closed business meeting.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation Subcommittee on Technology, Innovation, and Competitiveness be authorized to meet on Wednesday, June 14, 2006, at 10 a.m. on Alternative Energy Technologies.

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.