A new series from eAdvocate. What do you think?
Recently the US House, Judiciary Committee, held a hearing with respect to the Adam Walsh Act: See “The Reauthorization of the Adam Walsh Act”
The hearing was chaired by Rep. Sensenbrenner, and I think everyone noticed that Rep Sensenbrenner cut Panel members off when they presented their personal opening remarks; Sensenbrenner saying "Your time is up" and claiming a 5-minute time limit.
To me it was very important to hear what Panel Members had to say, and cutting them off claiming a 5-minute time limit bothered me. So I looked up the House rules to see what they had to say. Here it is:
Calling and questioning of witnessesNowhere in the House Rules is there any other 5-minute rule, except this rule on "Questioning Witnesses" and Panel Members OPENING STATEMENTS is not questioning witnesses.
(j)(1) Whenever a hearing is conducted by a committee on a measure or matter, the minority members of the committee shall be entitled, upon request to the chair by a majority of them before the completion of the hearing, to call witnesses selected by the minority to testify with respect to that measure or matter during at least one day of hearing thereon.
(2)(A) Subject to subdivisions (B) and (C), each committee shall apply the five-minute rule during the questioning of witnesses in a hearing until such time as each member of the committee who so desires has had an opportunity to question each witness.
(B) A committee may adopt a rule or motion permitting a specified number of its members to question a witness for longer than five minutes. The time for extended questioning of a witness under this subdivision shall be equal for the majority party and the minority party and may not exceed one hour in the aggregate.
(C) A committee may adopt a rule or motion permitting committee staff for its majority and minority party members to question a witness for equal specified periods. The time for extended questioning of a witness under this subdivision shall be equal for the majority party and the minority party and may not exceed one hour in the aggregate.
Folks may remember that, it was Rep. Sensenbrenner who got the Adam Walsh Act pushed through Congress using or misusing "Suspension of the Rules" which IS NOT supposed to be used except for noncontroversial topics, certainly sex offenders nationally WAS and STILL IS a very controversial topic, else why is Rep Sensenbrenner trying to AGAIN push the Adam Walsh Act.
While it is clear Rep. Sensenbrenner is a master at the Rules, here I feel he incorrectly applied the rule which stopped Panel Members from introducing very valuable input, especially that which Rep. Bobby Scott had to say.
Is it time for folks to start addressing issues like this with DC Representatives and Senators?
I think so!
For now have a great day and a better tomorrow.
eAdvocate
Hearing procedures
(k)(1) The chair at a hearing shall announce in an opening statement the subject of the hearing.
(2) A copy of the committee rules and of this clause shall be made available to each witness on request.
(3) Witnesses at hearings may be accompanied by their own counsel for the purpose of advising them concerning their constitutional rights.
(4) The chair may punish breaches of order and decorum, and of professional ethics on the part of counsel, by censure and exclusion from the hearings; and the committee may cite the offender to the House for contempt.
(5) Whenever it is asserted by a member of the committee that the evidence or testimony at a hearing may tend to defame, degrade, or incriminate any person, or it is asserted by a witness that the evidence or testimony that the witness would give at a hearing may tend to defame, degrade, or incriminate the witness---
(A) notwithstanding paragraph (g)(2), such testimony or evidence shall be presented in executive session if, in the presence of the number of members required under the rules of the committee for the purpose of taking testimony, the committee determines by vote of a majority of those present that such evidence or testimony may tend to defame, degrade, or incriminate any person; and
(B) the committee shall proceed to receive such testimony in open session only if the committee, a majority being present, determines that such evidence or testimony will not tend to defame, degrade, or incriminate any person.
In either case the committee shall afford such person an opportunity voluntarily to appear as a witness, and receive and dispose of requests from such person to subpoena additional witnesses.
(6) Except as provided in subparagraph (5), the chair shall receive and the committee shall dispose of requests to subpoena additional witnesses.
(7) Evidence or testimony taken in executive session, and proceedings conducted in executive session, may be released or used in public sessions only when authorized by the committee, a majority being present.
(8) In the discretion of the committee, witnesses may submit brief and pertinent sworn statements in writing for inclusion in the record. The committee is the sole judge of the pertinence of testimony and evidence adduced at its hearing.
(9) A witness may obtain a transcript copy of the testimony of such witness given at a public session or, if given at an executive session, when authorized by the committee.
They set the rules and then they don't follow their own rules. This kind of activity is running rampant in America. Especially in the courts. This is why in prison they say that there is no justice in America because it's "just us". This is a sign that the time is rapidly approaching as Thomas Jefferson said,to water the tree of liberty with the blood of tyrants and patriots.
ReplyDelete