House Judiciary chairman met with terrorist banker tied to GOP lobbyist Abramoff

Rep. James Sensenbrenner’s conflicts of interest prevent Bush impeachment inquiry after meeting in Dubai with al Qaeda financier who hired Greenberg Traurig lobbyist Jack Abramoff, and pledging to support spread of Islamic banking in U.S.

by Tom Flocco

Washington—April 26, 2006—TomFlocco.com—According to congressional finance records filed on May 12, 2005 for the year 2004, House Judiciary Committee Chairman F. James Sensenbrenner (R-5-WI) met with Al Shamal Islamic Bank founding member and shareholder Saleh Kamel whose bank was co-founded by terrorist leader Osama bin Laden who invested $50 million in the Khartoum, Sudan institution.

The fourteen-term Wisconsin Republican met with the court-alleged terrorist financier even though news reports and court testimony indicated that Al Shamal Bank was used to funnel terrorist money for the August 7, 1998 bombings of U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania and court records listed Kamel’s questionable ties in the 2002 “Golden Chain” of terrorism finance report presented in federal court by U.S. prosecutors.

According to sources familiar with several grand jury probes overseen by Special Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald, Sensenbrenner is currently under federal investigation regarding links to indicted Republican lobbyist and Bush “pioneer” fundraiser Jack Abramoff who was employed by Saleh Kamel to lobby U.S. legislators to expand the reach and money flow of Islamic banks within the United States banking system.

On April 4-9, 2004 Chairman Sensenbrenner accepted an all-expense paid trip to Bahrain and Dubai to speak at a conference organized by Saleh Kamel and funded by the Islamic Free Market Institute, the conflicts of which may explain why he is blocking an impeachment inquiry sought by 33 House members regarding illegal spying on the American people, misleading the U.S. into the Iraq War, immigration failures and evidence linking the government to the September 11 attacks among other issues.

As Judiciary committee chairman with jurisdiction over bills of impeachment, the Wisconsin Republican and heir to the Kimberly-Clark paper fortune has the power to authorize a committee vote for an inquiry into whether there is sufficient evidence to impeach President Bush, after which articles of impeachment could be voted upon and sent to the full House as members have signed on to Judiciary Committee Ranking Member John Conyers’ resolution to create a select committee for that purpose.

Despite Sensenbrenner’s interest in Islamic banking, it was his pre-indictment protection of Abramoff and ties to Kamel and Dubai—the recent subject of a public firestorm over the Bush administration’s attempt to sell control of U.S. ports to Dubai Ports World Corporation in the United Arab Emirates (UAE)—which is drawing the attention of prosecutors who are reportedly investigating 30-40 legislators, their wives and staffers regarding bribery and secret payoff trusts linked to Abramoff, according to U.S. intelligence sources.

Abramoff’s lists of fundraisers at Greenberg-Traurig law firm include 72 events for members of Congress between 1999 and 2003, with all but eight put on for Republicans—many in House leadership—some of which  were reportedly not filed and recorded as required by federal election laws which may have already drawn the attention of federal prosecutors.

Kamel, a Forbes list billionaire, is the Chairman of the General Council for Islamic Banks and Financial Institutions (GCIBFI) which hired Abramoff as a registered Greenberg-Traurig lobbyist for Kamel’s GCIBFI on March 12, 2002—six months after the September 11 attacks.

Chairman Sensenbrenner would have been aware of the above, yet deemed it beneficial to meet with a known terrorist banker in 2004 despite clear evidence, congressional testimony and court cases delineating Kamel’s multiple links—some provided earlier by one of the Chairman's own colleagues in GOP congressional leadership.

The Gulf Daily News reported that Sensenbrenner wanted to gain a better understanding of Islamic finance, the Hawalla system and controlling terrorist financing while promising to work so “American regulations would not unnecessarily hamper the growth of Islamic banking in the U.S.”

Senate Armed Services chairman links Saleh Kamel to financing terrorism

Two years prior to Sensenbrenner’s meeting with Kamel and coinciding with the alleged terrorist banker’s March hiring of Abramoff, Bosnian police searched the offices of Benevolence International Foundation in Sarajevo and found a computer file labeled “Tareekh Osama,” or “Osama History” containing scanned images of several documents, including one which listed Saleh Kamel as one of the top 20 Saudi financial sponsors which was delivered to the U.S. Embassy soon after the raids.

The list was presented by the U.S. government as Exhibit 5 in the Department of Justice “Government’s Evidentiary Proffer Supporting the Admissibility of Co-conspirator Statements” in the case, USA v. Arnaout on October 9, 2002 [02 CR 892], and federal officials said the document is “a list of people referred to within Al Qaida as the 'Golden Chain,' wealthy donors to Mujahideen efforts.”

Kamel reportedly hired Abramoff to represent the Islamic banking consortium to counter Treasury Department and FBI efforts to put an unwanted spotlight on global terrorist financing which came out of Saudi Arabia and other countries in the Gulf.

Sensenbrenner has not publicly testified regarding the link to Kamel who in turn has ties to Al Shamal Bank, Abramoff and Greenberg Traurig—and whether contributions from Kamel may have allegedly been laundered through Abramoff, evidence of which may still be available for subpoena by federal officials.

Greenberg—Traurig Law Firm and the Bush Administration

September 11 widow Ellen Mariani's step-daughter Lauren Peters, met with attorney Daniel Bakinowski in the Boston office of Greenberg Traurig--a Miami-based firm with several close links to both President George W. Bush and his brother, Florida Governor Jeb Bush. A few months later, attorneys from Massachusetts and New Hampshire helped Peters file a legal challenge to take control of the late Louis Neil Mariani's estate, resulting in Mariani’s inability to continue her pursuit of 9-11 government evidence.

Greenberg Traurig represented President Bush in the Bush-Gore 2000 Florida election vote recount and a Greenberg attorney personally represents Governor Jeb Bush. Greenberg Traurig hired the son of Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia on election day 2000--after which Justice Scalia cast one of the deciding votes which placed Bush in the presidency about seven weeks later; and the Miami-headquartered firm partially funded and sponsored a delegation to Israel of House-Senate Armed Services Committee members and government contractors who witnessed and were briefed on interrogation resistance procedures and torture techniques--according to an Army Major General.

Other relationships include Greenberg Traurig's legal representation of Bush 2000 in the Florida election recount, prominent administrative positions in the Massachusetts 9/11 Fund also involving Bush family banking house Brown Brothers Harriman, Greenberg's Alberto Jose Mora--appointed General Counsel of the Department of the Navy and its Office of Naval Intelligence just 90 days before the 9-11 attacks, and Greenberg's indicted Bush 2004 "pioneer" fundraiser and Washington lobbyist Jack Abramoff.

One of the lobbyists accompanying the Greenberg-funded congressional and defense contractor delegation to Israel included Jack London, chairman, president and CEO of CACI International Inc., an American defense contractor firm implicated by U.S. Major General Antonio M. Taguba in the torture of Iraqis at Abu Ghraib prison, according to a report leaked by Taguba. (Lebanon Daily Star, 5-11-2004)

The Greenberg firm was fined $77,000 in 1998 for soliciting an illegal foreign political donation from German citizen Thomas Kramer; and Greenberg partner Marvin Rosen--Democratic National Committee (DNC) finance chairman--supervised the activities of convicted fund-raiser and DNC vice-chairman of finance John Huang who had to return half of the more than $3 million raised by Huang in contributions from illegal foreign sources.

Kamel is also chairman of Dallah al Baraka Group (DBG) which is accused of financing al Qaeda and other extremist groups, particularly through Omar al Bayoumi who provided money to two of the alleged 9-11 “hijackers,” and who was an assistant to the Director of Finance for Dallah Avco, Kamel’s Dallah subsidiary.

Russian intelligence has reportedly charged that Dallah al Baraka Bank was used by a Saudi religious charity, Al-Haramain, to move funds to Islamic terrorists tied to al Qaeda in Chechnya.

Senator John Warner (R-VA) testified in a post 9-11 hearing that “Al Shamal Islamic Bank operations continue to finance and materially support international terrorism and that there are indications that Osama bin Laden remains the leading shareholder of that bank,” yet Chairman Sensenbrenner met with Kamel in 2004 even though his GOP colleague publicly linked Al Shamal bank to Kamel and bin Laden.

Ahmed al-Fadl, a finance manager for al Qaeda, testified at the 2001 U.S. embassy bombings trial that Al Shamal Islamic Bank was the only bank in which Osama bin Laden kept his funds, and that he paid all the members of his terrorist network through this account.

Al Shamal Bank General Manager Mohammad S. Mohammad acknowledged in a September, 2001 press release that Osama bin Laden had two accounts in the bank which were opened on March 30, 1992 for Construction and Development Ltd., a company the U.S. State Department says “works directly with Sudanese military officials to transport and provision terrorist training.” [U.S. District Court, Washington, DC, Jane Doe v. al Baraka Investment, Al Shamal Islamic Bank et. al., Section 44]

Al Shamal Islamic Bank has repeatedly been used to fund criminal and terrorist activities. A former bin Laden associate, Jamal Ahmed al-Fadl, testified during the U.S. trial on the 1998 embassy bombings in Africa, that Osama bin Laden and at least six al Qaeda operatives held bank accounts in Al Shamal Islamic Bank under their real names. [Jane Doe v. al Baraka Investment, Al Shamal Islamic Bank et. al., Section 46]

Sensenbrenner protecting Bush and Abramoff?

Sensenbrenner came under fire from his House Judiciary Committee ranking Democrat John Conyers (D-14-MI) in a letter to U.S. Inspector General Glenn A. Fine, available at Conyers’ website, a copy of which was also sent to the House Judiciary Chairman.

Sources with knowledge of the Abramoff case told TomFlocco.com that Sensenbrenner protected Abramoff and President Bush by failing to use his Judiciary committee power to investigate the firing and removal of former Acting United States Attorney for Guam and the Northern Mariana Islands, Frederick A. Black.

Black was aggressively supervising a grand jury probe into Abramoff’s criminal lobbying and bribery activities until President Bush abruptly demoted him on November 19, 2002, potentially leaving the President and Chairman Sensenbrenner open to future obstruction of justice charges for failing to call for or order an investigation of the GOP lobbyist’s money laundering and other criminal charges since the grand jury ceased its legal pursuit of Abramoff after Mr. Bush’s action at the time.

The United State Code under 18 U.S.C. 4 provides for prison sentences for “whoever, having knowledge of the actual commission of a felony cognizable by a U.S. court conceals and does not as soon as possible make known the same to some judge or other civil or military authority under the United States, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both.”

Acting U.S. Attorney Black’s replacement, Leonardo Rapadas, was confirmed in May, 2003 without any debate; and after taking office Rapadas recused himself from a public corruption case involving Guam Governor Carl Gutierrez even though the Bush Department of Justice (DoJ) and Sensenbrenner knew that a confidential memo to DoJ officials revealed that the new U.S. attorney was a cousin of one of the main targets in the Gutierrez case.

Sensenbrenner remained silent in his House Judiciary Committee oversight, effectively compounding the cover-up of Abramoff scandals linked to Bush and the GOP.

Impeachment conflicts and recusal while under investigation

Sensenbrenner’s conflicts of interest come into serious play because the Judiciary Committee can quickly employ a simple majority vote to initiate an impeachment inquiry into presidential treason, bribery or high crimes and misdemeanors, and then vote to certify articles of impeachment (bills of indictment) by another simple majority to be sent to the full House for majority approval to commence a Senate trial to convict and remove President Bush from office—again by a majority vote.

Only four of 23 Republican House Judiciary Committee members would have to cross over and join 17 Judiciary Democrats for a 21-19 margin out of 40 members to vote articles of impeachment out of committee onto the House floor to approve a Senate trial to remove Mr. Bush.

Absent public pressure, Sensenbrenner’s links to Kamel, an indicted Abramoff and nascent obstruction of justice charges could ultimately force the Wisconsin Republican to recuse himself from presiding over what could shortly become a public impeachment furor should Bush’s polling statistics continue to render his presidency inviable for governing as soldiers die in Iraq and illegal aliens rush to cross the border into the U.S. seeking amnesty via legislation sponsored by Senators John McCain and Ted Kennedy.

Tragically, Sensenbrenner’s strong public stance against illegal immigration and amnesty may have been used to garner popularity while obstructing justice and then blocking an impeachment inquiry linked to massive offshore money laundering involving Abramoff, Bush and Congress, some of which reportedly emanated out of Guam and the Northern Mariana Islands—with Bank Crozier in Grenada and its U.S. correspondent Riggs Bank in Washington also allegedly involved, among other financial entities.

Follow the money

Sensenbrenner’s reported $10 million personal fortune is also an issue since there is substantial evidence that his $6.3 million stock portfolio has increased as a result of his votes in Congress and in proportion to tens of thousands received in campaign contributions from companies wishing to purchase his political influence and vote—and in which he also owned stock.

For example, an online search indicated that the Economic Policy Institute’s bulletin, “The High Price of Free Trade,” revealed that between 1994 and 2002, Sensenbrenner’s state of Wisconsin lost 46,395 jobs as a result of his support for the NAFTA free trade agreement.

An examination of the Judiciary Chairman’s stock portfolio also reveals that Sensenbrenner has strong reason to vote in support of multi-national corporations and free trade since virtually all of his election campaign contributions to hold political power and the increase in his personal wealth is tied up in huge stock positions with defense contractors, insurance companies, investment houses, oil and energy firms, pharmaceutical manufacturers and the telecommunications and healthcare industries.

Eyebrows could also have been raised during his 28 years in office if voters in Sensenbrenner’s district had realized that he accepted thousands of dollars in contributions from companies in which he owned large blocks of stock when he was running for office unopposed—that is, with no challenger from another political party.

The Wisconsin Republican’s votes against the U.S. military are staggering in that he voted against a $213 million bill to fund veteran medical care (HR 2099—roll call 829), against a $250,000 life insurance policy for soldiers in combat (HR 4200—roll call 193), against a $1,500 bonus for troops serving in Iraq and Afghanistan (HR 3289—roll call 554), and against making the earned income tax credit permanent for troops (HR 785—roll call 469) even as his concentration of defense company stocks profited his portfolio immensely from the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

While federal prosecutors may have interest in Congressman Sensenbrenner’s relationship with an individual who financed world terrorism and then hired Jack Abramoff to help foster the spread of Islamic banking and finance in America despite ties to illegal political campaign bribery and money laundering, it is more likely that voters in his district could allegedly question whether he was meeting with Saleh Kamel for the purpose of laying the groundwork to assume Abramoff’s place as a lobbyist for Islamic banking in order to further enhance his stock portfolio and personal fortune after leaving office.

Mary Schneider [ www.MarySchneider.us ] contributed additional research for this report.

http://www.whorunsgov.com/Profiles/F._James_Sensenbrenner_Jr.

Credit: Chip Somodevilla/ Getty Images

  Table of Contents

1.                              1. Why He Matters

2.                              2. At a Glance

3.                              3. Path to Power

1.                                                      3.1. U.S. House

2.                                                      3.2. In Their Own Words

4.                              4. The Issues

1.                                                      4.1. The Environment

2.                                                      4.2. National Security and USA Patriot Act

3.                                                      4.3. Illegal Immigration

4.                                                      4.4. Censorship

5.                                                      4.5. Intellectual Property

5.                              5. The Network

6.                              6. Footnotes

7.                              7. Tags

8.                              8. Links

9.                              9. Key Associates

10.                          10. News

 F. James Sensenbrenner Jr. (R-Wis.)

Table of contents

1.                              1. Why He Matters

2.                              2. At a Glance

3.                              3. Path to Power

1.                                                      3.1. U.S. House

2.                                                      3.2. In Their Own Words

4.                              4. The Issues

1.                                                      4.1. The Environment

2.                                                      4.2. National Security and USA Patriot Act

3.                                                      4.3. Illegal Immigration

4.                                                      4.4. Censorship

5.                                                      4.5. Intellectual Property

5.                              5. The Network

Current Position: U.S. Representative(since 1979)

Why He Matters

The great-grandson of the founder of Kimberly-Clark, Sensenbrenner, Congress’ 25th richest member,Singer, Paul; Yachnin, Jennifer; and Hynes, Casey, “The 50 Richest Members Of Congress,” Roll Call, September 23, 2008.⁽¹⁾Singer, Paul; Yachnin, Jennifer; and Hynes, Casey, “The 50 Richest Members Of Congress,” Roll Call, September 23, 2008. has amassed a net worth of $11.6 million through strategy (every year, he enters the details of his investments — most of which are in oil — into the Congressional Record) and luck (he once won $250,000 from a lottery ticket he bought at a Washington, D.C., liquor store).DeLong, Katie, “Sensenbrenner Wins Lottery Again,” Associated Press, September 7, 2007.⁽²⁾DeLong, Katie, “Sensenbrenner Wins Lottery Again,” Associated Press, September 7, 2007. Strategy, however, has been central to the amassing of his political power. Sensenbrenner has endeared himself to House Republican leaders by frequently adopting a loud partisan voice, but underneath it lies a centrist voting record attractive to his constituents in Wisconsin’s 5th district.

Rated as the second-worst member of the House in 2006 by Rolling Stone (which called him, “the dictator”), Sensenbrenner is a frequent target of liberal ire for his habit of being at the center of partisan causes that Democrats despise most, beginning with his involvement in the 1998 impeachment of President Clinton.Dickinson, Tim, “The 10 Worst Congressmen,” Rolling Stone, October 17, 2006.⁽³⁾Dickinson, Tim, “The 10 Worst Congressmen,” Rolling Stone, October 17, 2006.

In 2009, Sensenbrenner is already staking out opposition to President Obama’s environmental efforts in regards to a cap-and-trade program to combat climate change. However, Sensenbrenner has not always toed the party line, and has voted in some unpredictable ways; for example, he opposed a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage.Ornstein, Norman, “Go-Slow Approach on Gay Amendment a Departure in House,” Roll Call, March 3, 2004.⁽⁴⁾Ornstein, Norman, “Go-Slow Approach on Gay Amendment a Departure in House,” Roll Call, March 3, 2004.

One of the most well-traveled congressmen and a fundraising force, Sensenbrenner is unlikely to face a serious challenger in his 2010 re-election campaign.

In August 2009, Sensenbrenner announced that he was diagnosed with prostate cancer. It was caught early, and he's not expected to step down.

At a Glance

Current Position: ranking Republican,House Select Committee for Energy Independence and Global Warming

Career History: Wisconsin State Senate, (1975-1979); Wisconsin State Assembly, (1968-1975); attorney, (1968-1969)

Birthday: June 14, 1943

Hometown: Menomonee Falls, Wis.

Alma Mater: Stanford University, University of Wisconsin

Spouse:Cheryl Warren Sensenbrenner

Religion: Episcopalian

Committees: Committee on the Judiciary (subcommittees on Courts and Competition Policy and Constitution, Civil Rights, and Civil Liberties); Committee on Science and Technology (subcommittee on Space and Aeronautics); House Select Committee for Energy Independence and Global Warming

DC Office:  2449 Rayburn House Office Building, 202-225-3190

District Office: Brookfield, 262-784-1111

Email 

Website 

Path to Power

Born in Chicago, Sensenbrenner enjoyed an early life of privilege in the Milwaukee suburb of Shorewood, Wis., attending exclusive private schools before enrolling in Stanford University. At Stanford, Sensenbrenner was a staff assistant to then-U.S. Rep. J. Arthur Younger (R-Calif.).

Graduating with a degree in political science, Sensenbrenner completed law school at the University of Wisconsin, and was elected to the Wisconsin State Assembly months after his graduation while working as an attorney. After seven years, he was elected to the Wisconsin State Senate in 1975, serving for four years.

U.S. House

In 1978, U.S. Rep. Bob Kasten (R-Wis.) ran for governor, and Sensenbrenner entered the race for his congressional seat, defeating Assemblywoman Susan Engeleiter in the Republican primary and coasting to victory in the general election. Twenty years into his Congressional career, Sensenbrenner gained national prominence in the 1998 impeachment of President Clinton, as a House manager in the Senate trial that acquitted Clinton.

Despite the frequent controversy, Sensenbrenner has been easily re-elected in 14 consecutive elections, the only notable opposition coming from University of Wisconsin professor Bryan Kennedy, who lost to Sensenbrenner for the second time in 2006 but gave him his smallest margin of victory, 62 percent to 36 percent.Horrigan, Marie, “Rare Bipartisan Tag Teams Takes On Wisconsin House Veteran,” Congressional Quarterly, July 24, 2007.⁽⁵⁾Horrigan, Marie, “Rare Bipartisan Tag Teams Takes On Wisconsin House Veteran,” Congressional Quarterly, July 24, 2007.

Married to the daughter of a U.S. District Court judge, Sensenbrenner is now a member of the Judiciary Committee, as well as the House Science Committee. He is also currently the ranking Republican on the House Select Committee for Energy Independence and Global Warming.

The Issues

As former chairman of the powerful House Judiciary Committee, Sensenbrenner has been outspoken on almost every hot-button conservative topic during the past decade, including support for military efforts, lowering taxes, balanced budgets and a constitutional amendment to ban flag-burning. But he’s also joined Democrats in attacking China for human-rights abuses, even while the Republican Party supported easing relations to increase trade.Soraghan, Mike, “Pelosi Presses China on Human Rights, North Korea,” The Hill, May 27, 2009.⁽⁶⁾Soraghan, Mike, “Pelosi Presses China on Human Rights, North Korea,” The Hill, May 27, 2009.

Sensenbrenner has also been a strong proponent of ethics reform regardless of how his own party will be affected, and can buck measures largely popular in both parties; for example, after the Michael Vick dogfighting scandal, he blocked House debate on the Animal Fighting Prohibition bill that had passed in the Senate and had 324 House co-sponsors, saying he believed the issue should be dealt with by states and was inappropriate for federal regulation.Pacelle, Wayne, “Sensenbrenner held up legislation on tougher penalties for animal fighting,” The Sheboygan (Wis.) Press, August 19, 2007.⁽⁷⁾Pacelle, Wayne, “Sensenbrenner held up legislation on tougher penalties for animal fighting,” The Sheboygan (Wis.) Press, August 19, 2007.

He’s also taken strong stances on matters that pertain to his committees: Once the chairman of the Science Committee, he’s supported efforts to build a space station and increased manned space flight; once the chairman of the Judiciary Committee, he’s been a proponent of limiting class-action suits in tort law and damages for medical malpractice.“GOP focuses on Medical Malpractice Caps,” Fox News, September 3, 2003.⁽⁸⁾“GOP focuses on Medical Malpractice Caps,” Fox News, September 3, 2003.

In 2005, Sensenbrenner was attacked by Democrats for his role in the Terry Schiavo right-to-die case, in which he joined with Schiavo’s family in attempting to persuade a federal court to secure home care for the woman, who was in a persistent vegetative state. He was later the chief sponsor of a bill to force federal-court review of the lower court’s decision to remove her feeding tube.

The Environment

The ranking Republican on the House Select Committee for Energy Independence and Global Warming, Sensenbrenner seems more concerned with energy and less concerned with global warming. He has continually sparred with the Environmental Protection Agency about the studies and statistics the department has produced supporting greenhouse-gas regulation, especially in regards to President Obama’s cap-and-trade proposals.Angle, Jim, “Republicans Criticize Cost of Cap-and-Trade Emissions Plan,” Fox News, April 2, 2009.⁽⁹⁾Angle, Jim, “Republicans Criticize Cost of Cap-and-Trade Emissions Plan,” Fox News, April 2, 2009. He has also argued that the EPA should spend more time and effort researching the costs associated with such regulation.

Similarly, Sensenbrenner is opposed to cap-and-trade plans, calling them a “regressive, hidden tax” that will hurt businesses too severely. He has called any greenhouse-gas regulation that increases costs for American businesses a “unilateral disarmament in manufacturing,” because those businesses will presumably relocate to countries that do not have environmental standards.Tucker, Jeff, “Burton, Pence lead fight over cap and trade,” The Shelbyville (Ind.) News, May 22, 2009.⁽¹⁰⁾Tucker, Jeff, “Burton, Pence lead fight over cap and trade,” The Shelbyville (Ind.) News, May 22, 2009. At the very least, Sensenbrenner argues, greenhouse-gas regulation is not worth any potential raise in energy rates.

National Security and USA Patriot Act

Sensenbrenner is a strong supporter of the Iraq war and military strategies surrounding it, having quashed Democratic attempts in 2003 to hold meetings on the “Downing Street Memo,” a report by British intelligence on how President George W. Bush attempted to manipulate evidence in support of invasion.

He has been particularly acerbic in response to Democratic criticism of the war efforts and former intelligence-gathering techniques. Following 9/11, Sensenbrenner was the driving House force behind the passage of the USA Patriot Act, which he introduced to empower the federal government’s surveillance abilities. However, the Wisconsin Republican also pushed for inclusion of a 2005 sunset provision in the legislation because of concerns of possible infringements on civil liberties.

Despite continuing Democratic objections, the GOP-led Congress reauthorized and expanded the Patriot Act in March 2006, making some of  its provisions permanent.”Patriot Act’s fate remains uncertain,” CNN, December 15, 2005.⁽¹¹⁾”Patriot Act’s fate remains uncertain,” CNN, December 15, 2005.

Sensenbrenner actively opposed many of the recommendations put forth in 2004 by the 9/11 Commission, including the creation of a Director of National Intelligence.Shenon, Philip, “House Approves Broad Overhaul of Intelligence,” The New York Times, December 8, 2004.⁽¹²⁾Shenon, Philip, “House Approves Broad Overhaul of Intelligence,” The New York Times, December 8, 2004.

Not long after the Patriot Act’s renewal, revelations came to light about the federal government’s warrantless wiretapping program. Sensenbrenner publicly clashed with Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, accusing him of “stonewalling” by not discussing how the program was authorized.“Bush Refuses Apology for Surveillance Program,” Associated Press, April 6, 2006.⁽¹³⁾“Bush Refuses Apology for Surveillance Program,” Associated Press, April 6, 2006.

Also in 2005, Sensenbrenner authored the Real ID Act, which required additional scrutiny of citizenship to obtain a driver’s license and directed the federal government to create a federal database of all state-issued identification."The Real ID Act Raises Privacy Issues,” NPR’s Morning Edition, May 6, 2005.⁽¹⁴⁾"The Real ID Act Raises Privacy Issues,” NPR’s Morning Edition, May 6, 2005. The measure was passed in both the House and Senate as a provision in a spending bill.

Sensenbrenner is a staunch defender of the Guantanamo Bay prison, and fought against its closure. As chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, he refused to hold hearings on abuse of Iraqi detainees.Milbank, Dana, “FBI Raid Hits a Constitutional Nerve,” The Washington Post, May 31, 2006.⁽¹⁵⁾Milbank, Dana, “FBI Raid Hits a Constitutional Nerve,” The Washington Post, May 31, 2006.In 2009, he viciously attacked suggestions that President Obama seek prosecution of former Bush officials who approved harsh interrogation methods  in intelligence-gathering.

Illegal Immigration

Sensenbrenner has sponsored legislation to apply criminal penalties to aiding and abetting illegal immigration.

His Real ID Act, which became law in 2005, prohibited drivers’ licenses for illegal immigrants or use of Mexican identification cards in the U.S., tightened standards for granting asylum to immigrants, and overrode state laws or regulations that blocked the construction of barriers along the border.16 ”Real ID Revolt,” The Wall Street Journal, May 8, 2007.⁽¹⁶⁾”Real ID Revolt,” The Wall Street Journal, May 8, 2007. In 2006, conservative magazine Human Events named him “Man of the Year” for his policies against illegal immigration.Taibbi, Matt, “The Worst Congress Ever,” Rolling Stone, October 17, 2006.⁽¹⁷⁾Taibbi, Matt, “The Worst Congress Ever,” Rolling Stone, October 17, 2006.

Censorship

Sensenbrenner has often criticized what he sees as a lack of values in American entertainment, and has advocated limiting the standards of suitability for public broadcast. He has also pushed for criminal prosecution of broadcasters who violate Federal Communications Commission decency standards.”Broadcasters to Discuss Indecency Issues,” Associated Press, April 18, 2005.⁽¹⁸⁾”Broadcasters to Discuss Indecency Issues,” Associated Press, April 18, 2005.

Intellectual Property

Sensenbrenner has been a champion on behalf of large copyright holders, leading the 2006 effort to pass the Intellectual Property Protection Act and supporting recent measures to restrict the distribution of new energy technologies to underdeveloped countries.Sensebrenner, F. James, “A demand for freebies,” The Washington Times, May 26, 2009.⁽¹⁹⁾Sensebrenner, F. James, “A demand for freebies,” The Washington Times, May 26, 2009.

The Network

Sensenbrenner’s willingness to stand at the forefront of controversial issues has made him very popular in the GOP.

Sensenbrenner and former Attorney General Alberto Gonzalez were virtual partners in the passage of the USA Patriot Act and other efforts to increase federal authority in surveillance and intelligence gathering. Sensenbrenner has also worked with former House Rules Committee Chairman David Dreier (R-Calif.) in steering legislation he supports through Congress and also halting progress on efforts — from either party — that he does not.Mann, Thomas, and Ornstein, Norman, “The broken branch,” Oxford University Press, 2006.
 ⁽²⁰⁾Mann, Thomas, and Ornstein, Norman, “The broken branch,” Oxford University Press, 2006.
 

But Sensenbrenner has also allied himself with some unlikely bedfellows, including Rep. Mel Watt (D-N.C.) in 2006 to get the Voting Rights Act renewed. In 2009, Sensenbrenner also participated in a rare bipartisan foreign-policy effort, as part of a Democratic delegation to China in which he smoothed over his previous disagreements with House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) and worked closely with Reps. Edward Markey (D-Mass.), Earl Blumenauer (D-Ore.), Jay Inslee (D-Wash.) and Jackie Speier (D-Calif.).

SideBar

SideBar

Footnotes

1.

Singer, Paul; Yachnin, Jennifer; and Hynes, Casey, “The 50 Richest Members Of Congress,” Roll Call, September 23, 2008.

2.

DeLong, Katie, “Sensenbrenner Wins Lottery Again,” Associated Press, September 7, 2007.

3.

Dickinson, Tim, “The 10 Worst Congressmen,” Rolling Stone, October 17, 2006.

4.

Ornstein, Norman, “Go-Slow Approach on Gay Amendment a Departure in House,” Roll Call, March 3, 2004.

5.

Horrigan, Marie, “Rare Bipartisan Tag Teams Takes On Wisconsin House Veteran,” Congressional Quarterly, July 24, 2007.

6.

Soraghan, Mike, “Pelosi Presses China on Human Rights, North Korea,” The Hill, May 27, 2009.

7.

Pacelle, Wayne, “Sensenbrenner held up legislation on tougher penalties for animal fighting,” The Sheboygan (Wis.) Press, August 19, 2007.

8.

“GOP focuses on Medical Malpractice Caps,” Fox News, September 3, 2003.

9.

Angle, Jim, “Republicans Criticize Cost of Cap-and-Trade Emissions Plan,” Fox News, April 2, 2009.

10.

Tucker, Jeff, “Burton, Pence lead fight over cap and trade,” The Shelbyville (Ind.) News, May 22, 2009.

11.

”Patriot Act’s fate remains uncertain,” CNN, December 15, 2005.

12.

Shenon, Philip, “House Approves Broad Overhaul of Intelligence,” The New York Times, December 8, 2004.

13.

“Bush Refuses Apology for Surveillance Program,” Associated Press, April 6, 2006.

14.

"The Real ID Act Raises Privacy Issues,” NPR’s Morning Edition, May 6, 2005.

15.

Milbank, Dana, “FBI Raid Hits a Constitutional Nerve,” The Washington Post, May 31, 2006.

16.

”Real ID Revolt,” The Wall Street Journal, May 8, 2007.

17.

Taibbi, Matt, “The Worst Congress Ever,” Rolling Stone, October 17, 2006.

18.

”Broadcasters to Discuss Indecency Issues,” Associated Press, April 18, 2005.

19.

Sensebrenner, F. James, “A demand for freebies,” The Washington Times, May 26, 2009.

20.

Mann, Thomas, and Ornstein, Norman, “The broken branch,” Oxford University Press, 2006.

http://rawstory.com/exclusives/byrne/gop_rewrites_dem_amendments_427.htm

This letter was sent to Rep. Sensenbrenner from the Economic Policy Institute blasting him and the Republican Majority Congress for his/their irresponsible behavior on the House Judiciary Committee and in supporting legislation which damages our Nation's economy.

Letter to Representative F. James Sensenbrenner, Jr. on balanced budget - EPI Viewpoints

Max B. Sawicky
September 22, 2004

Opinion pieces and speeches by EPI staff and associates.

[ THIS LETTER WAS POSTED TO VIEWPOINTS ON SEPTEMBER 22, 2004 ]

Letter to Representative F. James Sensenbrenner, Jr. on balanced budget

September 21, 2004

Rep. F. James Sensenbrenner, Jr.
Chairman, Committee on the Judiciary
House of Representatives

108th Congress

Dear Mr. Chairman,

As it completes work on a budget that could be in deficit to the tune of $300 billion, your committee and the U.S. House of Representatives will consider a joint resolution in support of a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution of the United States.  The proposed text of the amendment invites a multitude of questions as to implementation and enforcement, and the timing of the proposal’s reincarnation evokes wonder.  But the crux of the matter is whether a routinely balanced budget makes good economic sense.  It does not, either from the standpoint of long-term fiscal discipline or short-run anti-recession policy.

Over the past three years, the U.S. Congress has repeatedly made decisions that worsen the long term budget outlook.  The proposed amendment seeks to require a balanced budget, beginning in Fiscal Year 2010.  In January 2001, the Congressional Budget Office projected a budget baseline for FY 2010 that boasted a $796 billion surplus.  Several weeks ago, the Congressional Budget Office issued a new baseline for FY2010 that is $298 billion in deficit. 

If the tax cuts are extended through 2010, including a low-cost reduction in the Alternative Minimum Tax, CBO estimates an addition to the deficit of $193 billion, for a total of $491 billion, or more than three percent of GDP.  Voting now for some future Congress to somehow balance the budget is an unseemly distraction from current tax legislation that would make such a task inordinately difficult, as well as damage the nation’s economy.

In January of 1997, more than a thousand economists – including 11 Nobel Prize winners – signed a statement condemning a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution.  The rationale in their statement – appended below – remains valid today.  Two central economic arguments against an amendment pertain to long- and short-run policy, respectively.

Long-term fiscal discipline

In popular debate, the alternative to budget balance is often depicted as wretched excess – undisciplined borrowing, leading to out-of-control tax cuts and spending increasing, compounded by spiraling interest costs.

But such persistent exponents of fiscal discipline as the Congressional Budget Office and the Government Accountability Office have asserted that moderate deficits can be sustained indefinitely:

“Other approaches could also create sustainable budgetary conditions. For instance, a budget that was permanently balanced would freeze the level of federal debt. Thus, as the economy grew, debt would gradually fall as a share of GDP. However, sustainable policies do not require balanced budgets. As long as deficits do not grow relative to the economy, the government could in principle keep the budget in deficit forever. Under the assumptions of CBO's long-term simulations, if the government stabilized the NIPA deficit at its current share of GDP (about 1.7 percent), the debt would remain close to its current share of GDP indefinitely.”   (Congressional Budget Office, March 1997)

“Q. What are the key issues in evaluating the overall level of debt for the future?

A. In assessing debt levels, it is important to focus on the right indicator of the burden of the debt. As we have noted earlier, comparing the debt to GDP provides a better indicator of the debt burden than the debt’s nominal dollar value, because it captures the capacity of the economy to sustain the debt.”

(U.S. General Accounting Office, November 1996)

Moderate deficit levels are tolerable for an indefinite period of time.  The Federal government’s solvency is at risk when deficits are so large that debt persistently rises more rapidly than GDP.  Unfortunately, that is the current outlook for the Federal budget if the tax cuts of the past three years are made permanent.  Adherence to PAYGO rules that have been ignored in the past three budgets would have blocked tax cuts with such deleterious long-run implications.

Another concern gathering some force is that the retirement of the Baby Boom will put unprecedented strain on the budget, due to automatic increases in entitlement spending.  A recent report from the Congressional Budget Office (2003) makes clear that the overwhelming bulk of the anticipated problem in this vein is due to health care spending in Medicare and Medicaid.

It is naïve to think that “we can’t afford” health care spending under Medicaid and Medicare, but we can afford it if program benefits are cut and privatized in some fashioned.  A recent report from the Kaiser Family Foundation (2004) reports that health insurance premiums in the private sector are rising at double-digit annual rates.  In light of the fact that median family incomes since 1970 grew at roughly five percent a year (and less in more recent years), private sector health insurance is no more sustainable in the long run.  Benefits no longer financed by Medicare or Medicaid would be financed by out-of-pocket spending or private sector health insurance premiums.  Alternatively, people would “pay” by foregoing medical care.  There is a heavy burden of health care policy reform that a balanced budget amendment cannot solve and could make more difficult.

If deficits are tolerable, would we still profit from eliminating them altogether?  The principal argument made by some economists is that Federal borrowing precludes private sector investment and reduces economic growth.  The explanation is that when the Federal government increases its demand for credit, the market rates of interest increase, making business borrowing more expensive.

In and of itself the argument makes sense, but it opens to question the magnitude of the impact on investment, the net effect on the performance of the U.S. economy.  Business investment is not motivated solely by the cost of borrowing.  It also depends on expected sales.  Even though the recession officially ended in 2001 and was followed by persistently low interest rates, private investment did not recover until the third quarter of 2003.

The Federal deficit outlook has undergone a stark turnaround since January of 2001, when ten-year budget surpluses totaling $5.6 trillion were projected.  One might have expected a violent rise in interest rates as a result, since projections are now for trillions in deficits.  Thus far, interest rates have remained low.
 
What might limit the impact of deficits on interest rates?  Because capital markets have become increasingly global, the pool of potential lenders to the U.S. Government and private citizens has grown.  A significant portion of the budget deficit is financed by foreign lenders.

Empirical research on the deficit-interest rate link is mixed.  Two leading proponents of the link, Bill Gale and Peter Orszag (2004), caution that an effect of current deficits on observed interest rates is unlikely.  Their concern centers on expected future deficits.  A question is the extent to which current business decisions are affected by changes in long-term deficit trends.  It is certain that explosive growth in debt would be a concern.  If the growth in debt were sustainable, however, the import of smaller changes is a different matter.

What is not in question is that deficit reduction implies some sacrifice in public benefits and services, including public investment, itself an essential component of economic growth.  As noted above, under current trends and with extension of the tax cuts, the deficit in 2010 would be $491 billion.  2010 is when budget balance is required under the proposed amendment.  The Congressional Budget Office (2004) projects baseline non-defense discretionary spending in 2010 at $497 billion (after excluding outlays for homeland security).  So if the politically daunting baseline levels of entitlement spending, defense, and homeland security are held harmless, balancing the budget in 2010 implies the elimination of nearly all non-defense discretionary spending.  From this standpoint, a balanced budget requirement implies a completely dysfunctional, not to say whimsical budget policy.  Surely the costs of achieving a balanced budget in 2010 would exceed the benefits of such a policy.
 
Short-Run Anti-Recession Fiscal Policy

It is generally accepted that deficits are tolerable in times of recession and sluggish recoveries.  There is a strong consensus among economists that efforts by President Herbert Hoover to balance the budget from 1929 to 1932 contributed to the depth of the Great Depression.  Even though the recent recession of 2001 was relatively mild, the recovery has been weak.  Employment continued to fall until August of 2003.  Balanced budgets in 2002 or 2003 could have choked the turnaround in the economy, such as it was.  Even now, an unemployment rate that has risen by 1-1/2 points in four years masks a significant loss of job opportunities for millions of uncounted workers who have left the labor force. 

In the latter half of the 1990s, unemployment fell to much lower levels than presently – under four percent, the Federal government retired $559 billion in debt, and spending grew more slowly than it has since 2000.  Well-designed budget rules and responsible legislation, not a balanced budget amendment, made that result possible.

What has changed since 2000, as far as economic policy-making is concerned?  Only the leadership of the Executive branch of government and the irresponsible choices of the Congressional majority.  Evidently, the authors of the balanced budget amendment are the villains in their own tale.

Sincerely yours,

Max B. Sawicky, Ph.D.
Economic Policy Institute

References

Congressional Budget Office, Long Budgetary Pressures and Policy Options, March 1997.

Congressional Budget Office, The Long-Term Budget Outlook, December 2003.

Congressional Budget Office, The Budget and Economic Outlook: An Update, September 2004.

Kaiser Family Foundation and Health Research and Educational Trust, Employer Health Benefits:  2004 Annual Survey.

Gale, William G. and Peter R. Orszag, “The Economic Effects of Long-Term Fiscal Discipline,” The Brookings Institution, 2002.

U.S. General Accounting Office, Federal Debt:  Answers to Frequently Asked Questions, November 1996.

Max Sawicky is a senior economist at the Economic Policy Institute in Washington, D.C.

[ POSTED TO VIEWPOINTS ON SEPTEMBER 22, 2004 ]

By Brad Friedman on 6/10/2005 11:19AM  

SENSENBRENNER MELTDOWN! UNILATERALLY GAVELS PATRIOT ACT HEARINGS TO A CLOSE! [UPDATED MANY TIMES!]

Republican Chairman Stuns Room by Shutting Down Hearings!

Turns Off Hearing Room Microphones in Middle of Testimony! FURTHER UPDATES...PELOSI DEMANDS APOLOGY!

As originally reported here yesterday, Democrats on the U.S. House Judiciary Committee invoked a rarely used rule to extend Committee hearings on the renewal of the Patriot Act.

Apparently, they inappropriately called witnesses to testify today from whom the Republicans did not wish to hear. And thus, in what can only be seen as an unprecedented tyrannical abuse of Majority power in the U.S. House of Representatives, Chairman James Sensenbrenner (R-WI), suddenly and without warning, gavelled the hearings to a close! Unilaterally, without debate, and in the middle of ongoing testimony!

The extraordinary video clip of Sensenbrenner's appalling display, was captured by C-SPAN. Take a look at the meltdown...

BuzzFlash describes the remarkable incident in some detail as follows...

GOP House Judiciary Chair Uses Pinochet Tactics to Abruptly and Unilaterally Shut Down Hearing Into Abuses of the (Un)Patriot Act, Because He Was Afraid the Truth Would Come Out. America: "IT" is Happening Here. Democracy is Being Dismantled by GOP Thugs.

A BUZZFLASH EDITORIAL
June 10, 2005
BuzzFlash News Analysis

This morning, House Judiciary Chairman James Sensenbrenner, Jr. (R-WI) unilaterally and arbitrarily shut down committee hearings on the reauthorization of the Patriot Act without comment or issuing a statement. Sensenbrenner gaveled the committee hearings in the middle of witnesses testifying about human and civil rights abuses at Guantanamo Bay, racial profiling of individuals of Middle Eastern descent, prolonged detentions of Americans after September 11th and other abuses.

The suppression of free speech and testimony in the congressional committee in charge of protecting our civil liberties shows the Republican's power grab has no limits and no decency. The irony was not lost on anyone.

UPDATE: We must go on the air on Tony Trupiano's show in a just a few minutes, so this must be quick for now. (Link to that interview, with a lot more information on my conversation with a Democratic staffer who was in the room, is now below.)

To clarify some confusion on this matter, what had been referred to as "Democratic Hearings" today in some places, actually were not Democratic-only hearings (unlike the hearings that took place in January on Ohio Election Irregularities, and the recent Media Bias forum held by Conyers and other Dems).

Today's hearings were called under the archane provision of House Rule 11, which, we are told, allows the Minority to call for an additional day of hearings and to choose their own witnesses if they are unsatisfied with the hearings as held by the Majority.

The U.S. House Judiciary Democrats have been unable to do that previously on issues like Election 2004 and Media Bias because the Majority hadn't called a hearing at all on those matters, and thus, they were forced to call their own hearings.

We are told by a Democratic Staffer who The BRAD BLOG has just spoken to, and who was present at today's debacle, that the Majority has been quite disturbed by those previous hearings for some time, and, in fact, during the airing of Conyers' Media Bias forum (it ran as taped on C-SPAN at 8:30pm ET a few Saturdays ago), an email was sent to a Judiciary Committee staffer which said, in effect, "I'm watching your forum right now, hope you enjoyed it, it will be your last."

We'll have more detail after we're off the air, but the staffer just explained to us that the Minority was displeased with the witnesses called previously in the Commission hearings on renewal of the Patriot Act, and attempted to work with the Majority to call additional witnesses.

According to the staffer, they were told, "'You're gonna get your hearing, but it's gonna be 8:30am on Friday morning'...Never in the history of the Judiciary Committee have we been able to find a time when a hearing has been scheduled like that. The Congress was not in session today. We've never been able to find an instance when a hearing was called when Congress wasn't in session."

"The irony, when we're debating the Patriot Act," we were told, "of cutting off the debate and acting so anti-democratic when that's going on, is unbelievable!

"In the committee with sole jurisdiction over civil rights and civil liberties, for the chairman to say, I don't want to hear about guys who are getting their testicles shocked, it's breathtaking arrogance, it's testimony to abuse of power and how this place is now run. They've become everything they said they deplored when they took over the house in 1994."

Conversations with the House Democratic leadership on currently ongoing. The BRAD BLOG has learned that they are "very very concerned" about this matter, and that "the issue will be elevated."

"Ms. Pelosi is very concerned about this," said the staffer.

UPDATE: Pelosi has just issued a statement, Jesse at Stakeholder has it. Here's a few grafs:

"Chairman Sensenbrenner proved again today that he is afraid of ideas, and that Republicans will stop at nothing to silence Democrats. It is quite ironic that at a hearing on the impact of the Patriot Act on civil liberties, the Republicans attempted to suppress free speech.

"This is part of Republican abuses of power: to silence Democrats and the voice of the minority, to deny millions of Americans a voice in Congress. Republican leaders dictate the party line and ram bills through committees, and permit few if any amendments on the floor. 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.
...
I commend Judiciary Committee Democrats for continuing to question witnesses after the Republicans' shameful behavior, and for standing up for the institution of the House.
...
"As House Democratic Leader, I expect all Members to be treated by the majority with dignity and respect. I will ask Speaker Hastert to order Mr. Sensenbrenner to apologize for his behavior to the witnesses at the hearing today, and to promise that this will never again happen."

FURTHER UPDATE: After the microphones were turned off by a Republican staffer (but still captured on the C-SPAN video), one of the witnesses whose testimony was abrubtly ended, was James Zogby of the Arab American Institute. Here's what he said:

"I just saw something...totally inappropriate. No mic on and no record being kept. But I think as we are lecturing foreign governments about the conduct of their behavior with regard to opposition --- when I see the behavior I saw here today as an American --- I'm really troubled about what kind of lesson this is going to teach to other countries in the world about how they ought to conduct an open society that allows for an opposition with rights. I'm sorry, I'm very offended." [applause in the room]

Consider it now on the record now, Mr. Zogby. Thank you for speaking up.

FURTHER FURTHER UPDATE: My interview on the TONY TRUPIANO SHOW wherein I was able to give more details from my interview with the Democratic Staffer just before going on air is now online here [MP3].

LATE AFTERNOON UPDATE: AP covers Sensenbrenner's hissy in a not bad article. A couple of new points added:

The Republican chairman walked off with the gavel, leaving Democrats shouting into turned-off microphones at a raucous hearing Friday on the Patriot Act.
...
Tempers flared when Rep. Mike Pence, R-Ind., accused Amnesty International of endangering the lives of Americans in uniform by referring to the prison at Guantanamo Bay as a "gulag." Sensenbrenner didn't allow the Amnesty representative, Chip Pitts, to respond until Nadler raised a "point of decency."

EARLY EVENING UPDATE: The BRAD BLOG has now been able to identify the previously unidentified staffer who hit the "kill switch" on the microphones while Rep. Jerrold Nadler was speaking (see photo above). That thoughtful gentleman and statesman was Majority Counsel for the U.S. House Judiciary Committee, Robert Tracci. He's seen at right receiving an award from the American National Standards Institute, though no doubt today was his proudest moment.

PLUS...HUGE IRONY ALERT!...Liz from the Rapid Response Network was kind enough to send us a link to a press release by Chairman Sensenbrenner publicizing a letter which he sent just this past Wednesday(!) to Howard Dean. It includes this all too ironic passage:

These attacks are contrary to the passionate - but respectful - political debate the public deserves.

And so it goes...

UPDATE 6:26pm PT: The Hill covers the dust-up...

A House Judiciary Committee hearing on the renewal of the Patriot Act turned ugly this morning after Chairman James Sensenbrenner (R-Wis.) gaveled the proceedings to a close over the objections of Democrats.

Democrats continued to make statements and witnesses continued to offer testimony even after Sensenbrenner had left the room. C-SPAN cameras were still rolling as the committee's majority staff rushed to turn off microphones and lights on the Democrats, prompting the television crews to break out boom mikes.
...
Jeff Lungren, a spokesman for Sensenbrenner defended the chairman's actions..."We have a number of members on our committee for whom 5 minutes is never enough. Five hours is closer. You're trying to be respectful of everyone's time and [Sensenbrenner] was very, very generous�Democrats wanted to turn a thoughtful review of the Patriot Act into open mic night at the Improv," he said.

Rep. Jerry Nadler (D-N.Y.), one of the Democrats who kept the hearing going after Sensenbrenner left, said, "At the end, I wanted to make a statement. I sought recognition, but the chairman declared the hearing adjourned. I said, 'point of order,' and he just got up and walked out." Proper parliamentary practice in the House generally requires that committee chairman adjourn on motion or without objection, neither of which was the case this morning. "Despite the fact that [Sensenbrenner had left], I went ahead and made the statement, at which point, someone turned off my mike and I had to comment loudly," he said.

That someone, as identified by BRAD BLOG previously, was Majority Judiciary Counsel and Proud American, Robert Tracci.

UPDATE 10:43pm PT: Washington Post covers the meltdown. And on page A04 no less!

http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/12/14/patriot.act/index.html

Patriot Act's fate remains uncertain

Despite strong House support, opposition brewing in Senate

Thursday, December 15, 2005; Posted: 12:48 p.m. EST (17:48 GMT)

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Roving wiretaps and the ability to peek into private medical records are among the provisions of the Patriot Act that will remain intact if the Senate follows the House lead on the bill.

By a 251-174 vote Wednesday, the U.S. House of Representatives agreed to renew 16 of the act's provisions that were set to expire at year's end. The bill now heads back to the Senate, where a fiercer battle is expected.

The Senate has scheduled a vote for Friday to end its debate on the reauthorization of the act.

"What I'm urging my colleagues to do is come to the floor today to debate," Sen. Arlen Specter, chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, said Thursday. "I'll be on the floor. Let us take up their concerns one by one. And I ask my colleagues who are not decided yet, who do not know all of the intricacies, to listen."

President Bush praised the actions of the House.

"The Patriot Act is essential to fighting the war on terror and preventing our enemies from striking America again," Bush said in a statement. "In the war on terror, we cannot afford to be without this law for a single moment."

Among the provisions the House proposes to extend is one allowing the FBI, with a court order, to place wiretaps on every phone a suspect uses -- a procedure called a roving wiretap -- and another permitting the agency to obtain personal records, including medical documents and library activity.

With Senate approval, these investigative tools would be available to the FBI for another four years. The majority of the act, however, has no expiration date.

Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff said if Congress fails to renew the Patriot Act before it adjourns for the holidays, it will "cripple" law enforcement in the battle against terrorists.

"This thing has been looked at upside down, sideways for a long period of time," Chertoff said. "I don't think there's much more to be studied. Some corrections have been made to address concerns raised by some critics. The fundamental tools are sound.

"The case against the Patriot Act has never been made. The case for the Patriot Act has been made in a number of instances where we've disrupted or prevented terrorist attacks."

Civil liberty advocates have inspired changes to some of the act's provisions that they consider troubling, namely one that allows authorities to obtain warrants and search suspects' homes without telling them, if it would jeopardize an ongoing investigation. (Watch some provisions that worry privacy advocates -- 2:03)

Under the bill passed Wednesday, subjects of search warrants would have to be notified within 30 days, but authorities are allowed to ask for extensions.

The bill also changes the rules surrounding National Security Letters, which the FBI increasingly has used in the past few years to request a variety of personal information, including financial, phone and Internet records.

The letters have been criticized because of the secrecy surrounding them, but if the bill's changes become law, the U.S. Justice Department will have to divulge how often they are used and perform audits of their use.

Attorney General Alberto Gonzales and Chertoff are among those lobbying Congress to pass the reauthorization bill, saying it is essential to fighting terrorism.

In an opinion piece Wednesday in The Washington Post, Gonzales emphasized the need for urgency in passing the bill "before the men and women in law enforcement lose the tools they need to keep us safe."

Chertoff told CNN that information sharing permitted since the September 11 attacks helps law enforcement "to connect the dots and break up terrorist cells before they have a chance to carry out their plans."

He cited as an example the arrest and successful prosecution of six men from Lackawanna, New York, who went to an al Qaeda camp in Afghanistan.

A bipartisan group of nine senators is rejecting the call to pass the bill swiftly and wants to garner support for a three-month extension to allow negotiators to craft a new bill.

"It is not too late to remedy the problems with the conference report," states a letter from the senators urging their colleagues to vote against halting debate when the bill reaches the floor.

Gonzales this week joined Rep. James Sensenbrenner, R-Wisconsin, chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, in rejecting the idea of reopening negotiations or temporarily extending the bill.

Sensenbrenner said the present proposal should be ratified or the expiring provisions and changes to the bill will die.

Another proponent of the bill, Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, R-Tennessee, said that he was opposed to a short-term extension.

GOP consensus is not a given though, as four Republican senators, including Sen. John Sununu of New Hampshire, already have indicated their opposition to the bill, and Sununu said the foursome has secured "a bit more support."

Also looking for support is Sen. Russ Feingold, D-Wisconsin, who was the only senator to vote against the original Patriot Act in 2001. He has called the House bill "a major disappointment" and vowed to do everything he can, including filibuster, to stop the bill's passage.

Feingold made his comments after Specter, R-Pennsylvania, announced last week that House and Senate negotiators had agreed on a version of the Patriot Act that Specter said found a balance between national security and civil liberties.

Under the compromise, three controversial elements of the act -- including the roving wiretaps and access to personal records -- would be renewed for four years, instead of the House-proposed 10, a deal Specter said wasn't perfect, but better than maintaining the present Patriot Act or having no Patriot Act at all. The bill, including those provisions, is what the House voted on Wednesday.

"Merely sunsetting bad law is not adequate," Feingold said. "We need to make substantive changes to the law, and without those changes I am confident there will be strong, bipartisan opposition here in the Senate."

Frist said he would not support extending the Patriot Act, unrevised, simply to avoid a filibuster fight.