Skip to content

An important aspect of Wisconsin’s history and culture centers on its bars, restaurants, and breweries. These are places where Wisconsinites of all kinds can put aside their differences and come together over a great schnitzel, a strong Old Fashioned and festive live music.

But over the past several years, I’ve heard from many local business owners in my district that they’ve had to decrease their use of live music as a result of a complicated and convoluted music licensing process. This problem certainly isn’t localized to Wisconsin. It’s happening throughout the entire country, and it’s up to Congress to take the necessary steps to fix it.

The problem, simply stated, is that when a venue wants to play music, they turn to the performing rights organizations that offer blanket licenses covering millions of songs within their respective catalogs. However, this process is inefficient, confusing and costly to bar and restaurant owners. Without a clear database of options and licensing requirements, business owners are often left to guess what licenses they need and what products they’re actually purchasing. This confusion is not only frustrating, but opens up unsuspecting business owners to copyright infringement lawsuits, despite the fact they were trying to follow the letter of the law.

I have heard numerous times about the ways in which PROs like the American Society of Composers, Authors and Publishers and Broadcast Music Inc. have used their power over information and near duopoly control of music — together they control almost 90 percent of all music — to harass business owners. As a result, many venues are choosing to stop playing music or booking live performances. When venues stop playing music, it not only impacts the atmosphere at bars and restaurants, but it also affects the entire music ecosystem. This loss means less revenue is generated for songwriters and that there are fewer opportunities for artists to perform and discover new audiences.

One simple solution to help alleviate the problem is to house all music copyright ownership and licensing information in one database. Such a database doesn’t currently exist. PROs claim that their proprietary databases are available for small-business owners to access, but these databases are not interoperable or comprehensive. In fact, each PRO explicitly states that their database can’t be relied on to make licensing decisions.

In response to this problem, I’ve introduced the Transparency in Music Licensing and Ownership Act, which would establish a comprehensive and actionable database that would be maintained by the U.S. Copyright Office. Ever since the issue was first brought to my attention in the 1990s, I’ve been actively involved in enacting meaningful reforms in the music licensing space. Over the years, it has become clear to me that a public database is necessary to offer all stakeholders a real-time and fully searchable record of music ownership and licensing information that they can rely on.

My colleagues in the House Judiciary Committee and I have spent several years examining the Copyright Act and its need for reform. After more than 20 hearings and an extensive open comment period, there is overwhelming support to modernize our copyright laws and make them easier to follow. This includes the adoption of new user-friendly technologies and instituting procedures to ensure transparency in music licensing.

Business owners make hundreds of decisions daily — each one made in order to achieve the best results for their bottom lines. Without a clear and actionable music licensing database, they are left without a choice when it comes to which licenses are best for their needs. It doesn’t need to be this way.

The Transparency in Music Licensing Ownership Act is a commonsense solution to a growing problem that impacts the lives and businesses of Americans nationwide. It is a positive step forward in helping our country’s business owners make the best possible decisions while ensuring that copyright owners are fairly compensated for their work.

In Wisconsin, and throughout the country, music is essential for bringing people together. Making it easier to share and enjoy music is good for our businesses, our communities, and our well-being. I hope my colleagues will join me in support for this legislation.

You can view this piece online here.

WASHINGTON, D.C. – Today, Congressman Jim Sensenbrenner introduced the Transparency in Music Licensing Ownership Act, which would establish an information database for musical works and sound recordings.

Across the country, businesses and establishments play or perform music for the enjoyment of their patrons, but the process of ensuring they are legally able to do so, as well as those who hold the license to the music or recordings being played are fairly compensated, is convoluted and difficult. Because of this onerous process, business owners often struggle to obtain the correct licensing, leaving them vulnerable to lawsuits, as well as increased licensing fees.  

To address this problem, the House Judiciary Committee has spent several years examining the Copyright Act and its need for reform. After more than 20 hearings and an extensive open comment period, there is overwhelming support to modernize our copyright laws and make them easier to follow. This includes the adoption of new user-friendly technologies and instituting procedures to ensure transparency in music licensing.

The Transparency in Music Licensing Ownership Act is a step forward in simplifying the process and helping business owners to identify copyright holders in one easy location to ensure they comply with licensing and payment requirements.

Congressman Sensenbrenner: “When it comes to rules and regulations, simpler is always better. Streamlining the music licensing process into one, easily accessible database is a straightforward way to help our nation’s business owners while ensuring copyright owners are fairly compensated for their work.”

Some of the key provisions of the Transparency in Music Licensing Ownership Act include:

  • Require the Register of Copyrights to establish and maintain a current informational database of musical works and sound recordings while granting the Register authority to hire employees and contractors, promulgate regulations, and spend appropriated funds necessary and appropriate to carry out these functions
  • Ensure that the database is made publicly accessible by the Copyright Office, in its entirety and  without charge, and in a format that reflects current technological practices, and that is updated on a real-time basis
  • Limit the remedies available to a copyright owner or authorized party to bring an infringement action for violation of the exclusive right to perform publicly, reproduce or distribute a musical work or sound recording if that owner/ authorized party has failed to provide or maintain the minimum information required in the database

WASHINGTON, D.C. – Today, Congressman Jim Sensenbrenner introduced the Emergency Nursing Supply Relief Act, which would increase the number of temporary work visas – up to 8,000 – available for foreign-trained nurses.

Demand for nurses in America is at an all-time high and despite being one of the fastest growing occupations in the United States, nursing shortages are occurring throughout the country. This deficit poses an alarming threat to our health care system and its ability to provide world-class care for our nation’s patients. 

According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, 1.2 million vacancies will emerge for registered nurses between 2014 and 2022. By 2025, the shortfall is expected to be more than twice as large as any nurse shortage experienced since the introduction of Medicare and Medicaid in the mid-1960s.

In response to this, Congressman Sensenbrenner has introduced the Emergency Nursing Supply Relief Act. Over the past several years, caps on available work visas have reduced the number of immigrant nurses in the United States. This legislation would increase current visa caps in order to fill open nursing positions and provide immediate relief for hospitals facing shortages.

Congressman Sensenbrenner: “Supplying our health care providers with the nurses they need is imperative for public health, both in the short and long term. During a tumultuous time in health care, nurses provide the constant support and quality care that our nation’s patients need. In order to ensure hospitals can continue to keep us and our families safe and healthy, we need to be willing to provide them with the necessary tools.”

By: Jon Schuppe of NBC News

Should the government be able to seize people's property in the name of crime fighting, even without evidence to prove someone has broken the law?

A growing number of politicians and policy makers across the political spectrum say that's an abuse of Americans' civil rights.

But the nation's top law enforcement officer disagrees, putting him at odds with an effort — led by conservative members of his own party — to curb the practice.

This week, Attorney General Jeff Sessions plans to release a directive ordering an expansion of the federal government's use of civil asset forfeiture. He also said he'd undo an Obama administration order that prohibited local authorities from using the federal system to sidestep restrictive state laws.

Sessions has linked unfettered forfeitures with a broader crackdown on drug trafficking, citing an uptick in violence and deadly overdoses as justification. But critics say that approach, including orders to seek longer prison sentences, recalls the early years of the war on drugs, when the government embraced zero-tolerance policies that helped reduce crime but also drove dramatic increases in prison populations ?— with little impact on drug use.

A March report by the Justice Department's Office of Inspector General pointed out that from 2007 to 2016, the Drug Enforcement Administration obtained forfeitures for $3.2 billion in cash seizures without charging the people they took it from.

"When seizure and administrative forfeitures do not ultimately advance an investigation or prosecution, law enforcement creates the appearance, and risks the reality, that it is more interested in seizing and forfeiting cash than advancing an investigation or prosecution," the report said.

Speaking to a gathering of local prosecutors in Minneapolis on Monday, Sessions scoffed at the backlash against his proposed crackdown, saying the government needed to release police and prosecutors from onerous policies.

"With care ? we gotta be careful ? and professionalism, we plan to develop policies to increase forfeitures," Sessions told members of the National District Attorneys Association. "No criminal should be allowed to keep the proceeds of their illegal activity."

The prosecutors applauded. But the move is expected to meet stiff opposition from a bipartisan coalition of lawmakers.

That includes some of the most conservative members of Congress.

"This is a step in the wrong direction and I urge the Department of Justice to reconsider," Rep. Jim Sensenbrenner of Wisconsin, said in a statement.

He added: "Expanding forfeiture without increasing protections is, in my view, unconstitutional and wrong."

Sensenbrenner is the sponsor of a House bill that would make it easier for innocent victims of asset forfeiture to get their property returned. A related bill, called the FAIR Act, would make similar changes, and would also funnel the proceeds into a fund controlled by Congress. Sessions, an Alabama Republican and former federal prosecutor, opposed such reforms when he was a member of the Senate.

Sen. Mike Lee of Utah, a sponsor of the FAIR Act, said in a statement that he had "serious constitutional concerns" about civil asset forfeiture, and said the Justice Department "has an obligation to consider due process constraints in crafting its civil asset forfeiture policies."

Jason Snead, a policy analyst at the conservative Heritage Foundation, said Sessions' move was not surprising given his past opposition to reform and his strong identification with law enforcement, which is basically the only bloc that supports greater use of civil asset forfeiture.

"That is absolutely not what we have come to expect as Americans of the criminal justice system," Snead said.

Sessions’ predecessor, Loretta Lynch, also a former federal prosecutor, supported civil asset forfeiture.

Civil forfeiture laws, rooted in American maritime law and expanded during the drug scares of the mid-1980s, were designed to eviscerate large drug trafficking operations by allowing authorities to take ill-gotten cash, cars, homes and other properties.

Those seizures have since become a booming government enterprise, used in busts small and large, and resulting in billions in forfeited assets.

With the expansion of forfeitures came allegations that police and federal agents are driven more by profit than by crime fighting. Many suspects have lost property without being charged with a crime, and many innocent people have found it nearly impossible to get their property back.

Sometimes, critics say, police doing roadside searches simply take cash in exchange for not locking someone up.

"The fact they're seizing property and not connecting it to a crime down the road shows how ineffective it is," said Kanya Bennett, legislative counsel for the American Civil Liberties Union.

Several such cases were collected in a 2015 report by the Institute for Justice, a Virginia non-profit that fights to limit government power. Among the most egregious took place in Tenaha, Texas, where a lawsuit exposed a local law enforcement program in which officers targeted out-of-state drivers, searched their cars on flimsy evidence, seized cash and threatened the subjects with bogus charges if they refused to waive their rights to the property.

The report also documented cases in which innocent people lost their cars because relatives or loved ones had used them in alleged crimes.

As stories of abuses mounted, many states moved to restrict the use of civil asset forfeiture. But authorities in some of those states found a way around it: by asking the federal government to step in, take the bounty and share it with them.

In 2015, then-Attorney General Eric Holder prohibited the federal government from entering such arrangements, known as "adopted" forfeitures.

The number of seizures dropped significantly after that order. Seizures by the DEA, which performs the vast majority of federal seizures, decreased from $8.6 billion in 2014 to $6.1 billion the following year, and to $4.6 billion in 2016, according to the March inspector general's report.

The report sharply criticized the federal government's use of civil asset forfeitures, saying it didn't keep good enough records to determine if seizures actually helped criminal investigations or whether they violated people's civil liberties.

Sessions seems undeterred.

He indicated Monday that he'd eliminate Holder's 2015 mandate.

"Adopted forfeitures are appropriate," Sessions said. "Sharing of assets with our state and local law enforcement colleagues is appropriate. We want forfeitures to increase, the sharing to increase."

Sessions' coming directive will put more pressure on Congress, and state lawmakers, to push for reforms, advocates said.

Darpana Sheth, a senior attorney at the Institute for Justice, called Sessions' announcement "a disheartening setback in the fight to protect Americans’ private property rights."

Nearly half the states have taken some steps to roll back civil forfeiture laws, Sheth said in a statement. "The Attorney General’s plan to increase forfeitures is jarringly out of step with those positive developments." 

View this piece online here.

I vividly remember a road trip I took as a young man with my father to the Deep South. When we stopped at gas stations, I watched out the window of our vehicle as black attendants pumped gas while white station owners collected the money. I saw first-hand the separation of water fountains and restroom facilities and wondered how communities could allow this practice to continue.

Later, as a representative in the Wisconsin Legislature, I again saw racial injustice up close. While attending events and spending time in parts of Milwaukee’s majority black neighborhoods, I listened to constituents as they described unnecessary obstructions that prohibited them from voting. Their personal stories were the inspiration behind my work to reauthorize the Voting Rights Act.

Ensuring that every eligible American voter has the ability to cast his or her ballot without intimidation, preclusion and prejudice is a constitutional right. Since my earliest days in Congress, I have fought to protect it.

In 1982, I supported the reauthorization of the Voting Rights Act. As chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, I played an instrumental role in the Act’s 2006 reauthorization. However, it was the 2006 reauthorization that was put before the United States Supreme Court for consideration and ultimately struck down.

The court declared that voter discrimination was no longer a problem, and removed language designed to stop discrimination before it mars an election but let stand provisions that allow lawsuits after a discriminatory law takes effect. Unfortunately, there is no way to remedy injustice at the polls after an election, leaving disenfranchised voters with few options.

One of the law’s core protections is its pre-clearance system. Before the enactment of the Voting Rights Act, discrimination at the polls and the federal government’s response was similar to that of a leaking boat. Local and state governments would discriminate against minority voters. Congress would then ban the discriminatory practices, only to have states find and implement new ways to discriminate. Rather than frantically trying to repair individual holes in the process, the Voting Rights Act acted as a lacquer that protected the entire process and secured it from further damage.

Pre-clearance forced states with a documented history of discrimination to allow the federal government to review certain changes to voting laws and practices before they were implemented. In this way, elections could proceed without the fear of discrimination at the polls.

In 2013, in Shelby vs. Holder, the Supreme Court held that, while preclearance is a constitutional response to voter discrimination; it is unconstitutional to apply it to states based on a 1965 formula — which was what the 1982 and 2006 reauthorizations were modeled after. The result is that pre-clearance remains, but almost no jurisdictions are subject to it.

In response to this ruling, I introduced the Voting Rights Amendment Act in 2015, and reintroduced it again last week with my Democratic colleague Rep. John Conyers of Michigan. Among other things, the bill modernizes the original 1965 law — which applied preclearance to the same nine states for 48 years — so that the pre-clearance rules apply equally to every state in the country.

As a nation, we have made significant strides in correcting the mistakes of the past and fighting against voter discrimination but it’s imperative that we continue our efforts to ensure that history never again repeats itself.

The Voting Rights Act is not only about ending discrimination at the polls. It also gives faith to the voters who need to know that their vote counts and the election process is fair. Despite previous congressional inaction on this bill, I will continue to pursue it because no American eligible to vote should be silenced or deterred from voting due to the color of his or her skin.

You can view this piece online here.

WASHINGTON, D.C. – Today, House Judiciary Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, Homeland Security, and Investigations Chairman Jim Sensenbrenner (R-Wis.) and House Judiciary Committee Ranking Member John Conyers, Jr. (D-Mich.) reintroduced the bipartisan  Voting Rights Amendment Act of 2017 (VRAA), which would fully restore and modernize the original Voting Rights Act (VRA) of 1965 to reflect today’s societal needs and challenges. 

One of the VRA’s core protections is its preclearance system, which previously required states with a documented history of discrimination to allow the federal government to review changes to voting laws and practices before they were implemented. This provision was struck down in 2013 by the Supreme Court in Shelby v. Holder, where the court held that while preclearance is constitutional; it is unconstitutional to apply it to states based on the 1965 formula.

Congressmen Sensenbrenner and Conyers introduced the Voting Rights Amendment Act of 2017 in response to this ruling. The VRAA would make all states and jurisdictions eligible for coverage formula based on voting violations in the last 15 years. Key elements of the legislation include:

  • Applies equally to every state in the country and only applies if a state has a documented history of discrimination.
  • States would only be subject to preclearance if they have committed five voting violations in the last 15 years.
  • Provides greater transparency in elections so that voters are made aware of any changes to polling times, dates, locations, and protocols. The additional sunlight will deter discrimination from occurring and protect voters from discrimination.
  • Allows for preliminary relief to be obtained more readily, given that voting rights cannot often be vindicated after an election is already over.

Congressman Sensenbrenner: “Every American – no matter the color of their skin – needs to know that we understand their right to vote is sacred. That is why reauthorizing the Voting Rights Act is so important. I’m confident that congressional leaders of both parties can come together in support of this modernized legislation and show their unfailing commitment to protecting that right.”

Congressman Conyers: “As a founding member of the Congressional Black Caucus who cosponsored the original Voting Rights Act in 1965, I have witnessed firsthand the stain that discrimination has placed on our democracy.   The right to vote is the foundation of all other rights and the Voting Rights Act was critical to ensuring equal access to the ballot box for all Americans. In the wake of the 2013 Supreme Court decision, some states immediately worked to roll back the progress that has been made.  Congress has a long history of protecting and expanding access to the ballot box and it should continue to build on that legacy by fully restoring and enhancing the Voting Rights Act.”

President Lyndon Johnson signed the Voting Rights Act into law in August of 1965, and it has been reauthorized four times since.  President George W. Bush signed the most recent reauthorization into law in 2006, after the House voted 390-33 and the Senate 98-0 in favor of the legislation.

By: Chris Barlow of Wauwatosa NOW

With a backdrop of protesters outside the building, a rambunctious, overflow crowd packed the Firefly Room at the Wauwatosa Public Library Thursday, July 6 for a town hall meeting hosted by U.S. Rep. James Sensenbrenner. 

The meeting was scheduled for 7 p.m. but began about ten minutes early with Sensenbrenner announcing that he would shut it down if attendees grew noisy or disrespectful.

The proceedings were interrupted by the host at about 7:15 p.m. when the crowd began to grumble, groan and verbally react to Sensenbrenner's answer to a question about possible Russian interference in the U.S. election.

"We need to start being more respectful of opposing views," Sensenbrenner said. "We don't decide things on who yells the loudest."

The congressman went on to say that the current political climate has led to occurrences such as the shooting of several congressmen at a baseball practice June 14 in Washington D.C.

Sensenbrenner said he was keeping a tally of the interruptions to dissuade further outbursts. He then proceeded to say that cable news and the internet were to blame for the current amount of discord he has witnessed at his various meetings around southeastern Wisconsin.

Questions asked 

During the meeting attendees who had submitted their names via a sign-up process were chosen by Sensenbrenner to ask their questions verbally.

The most often-asked question by the attendees was in regard to health care, but questions also covered Russia, voter rights, voter fraud and treatment of veterans.

When an attendee asked a question on what measures Sensenbrenner has or will take in regard to working "across the aisle," the Republican cited his track record as an indication of his willingness to work with Democrats.

President Donald Trump and his current trip to Europe to meet with world leaders including Russian President Putin was brought up in several ways by the attendees.

When a questioner asked about Sensenbrenner's relationship with Trump and his attention to the investigation about Russian interference in last year's election, the congressman was quick to distance himself from the president.

"I have yet to talk to anyone that changed their vote from (Hillary) Clinton to Trump because Putin told them to," Sensenbrenner said. "I've met (Trump) once. I said I would support the party's nominee. I also said I would not vote for Trump in the primary."

Health care debate

When the subject turned to the current health care debate, Sensenbrenner said projections for Medicare will cause the system to go broke in 10 years or sooner.

"It is probably not moral to spend money on ourselves and pass (the debt) on to our grandchildren," Sensenbrenner said.

The congressman said he does not believe the Congressional Budget Office's projections on how many Medicare patients would lose insurance under the proposed bill, saying the number would be lower than predicted.  

When Tosa resident Jeff Wilcox was called on to ask his question, Wilcox questioned Sensenbrenner's adherence to his previous pledge to completely repeal the Affordable Care Act known as "Obamacare."

"(Conservatives) truly oppose government-funded health care and will never stop fighting against it," Wilcox said. "This legislation leaves the root's stumps and most of the branches of Obamacare. Paul Ryan and Mitch McConnell broke their word. I am calling for new leadership."

Sensenbrenner responded by saying it was clear from the town hall meetings held around the country by members of Congress that the people desire to keep many aspects of the ACA. He said that includes the provision on requiring insurance companies to give coverage to people with pre-existing conditions.

Effect on schools 

Wauwatosa School Board President Shawn Rolland attended the meeting and said he was concerned about the House and the Senate health care bills because they would cut special education funding for Wauwatosa and all Wisconsin public schools. 

"Medicaid funds are used for audiology services, speech therapy, physical therapy, nursing assistance or other medical equipment or services as outlined in a child's individual education plan," Rolland said. "Medicaid funds also can be used to pay for nurses, psychologists and guidance counselors."

Rolland added that if the bill isn't amended or voted down — and Medicaid funds are capped — funding for Wisconsin public schools will get cut. According to Rolland, the resulting federal funds loss for the district could be as much as $150,000 to $250,000.

"We need to care for children with special needs, legally and morally, so cuts will mean cuts somewhere in our kids' schools," Rolland said. "Sen. Ron Johnson, Sen. Tammy Baldwin and Rep. Sensenbrenner can protect kids, especially kids with special needs, from funding cuts, but only if they act."

The meeting ended at 8:23 p.m. when Sensenbrenner said the meeting was about to go over the allotted time.

The capacity of the Firefly Room is 125 people. More than that number attended, meaning there were folks who were not able to take part in the meeting. The additional attendees stood in a line hoping to get in if others left.

In addition, a couple dozen protesters stood outside the building before, during and after the meeting.

You can view this article online here.

WASHINGTON, D.C. – Today, Congressman Jim Sensenbrenner reintroduced the Moving Obstructed Trains In-between Openings Now (MOTION) Act.

Due to current federal regulations, train operators are required to immediately stop operations when they reach a specified number of hours. This means that even if a train is blocking traffic or has not reached its final destination, it must stop.

The issue is particularly troublesome in Wisconsin, which is one of the nation’s largest exporters of stone, gravel, and sand. The increased traffic on Wisconsin’s railways has caused trains to stall on the tracks for hours, leading to significant disruptions for motorists and communities throughout the state.

The MOTION Act would allow railroad employees to remain on duty and continue working in excess of federal hours of service limits to ensure their trains are not blocking crossings when they have reached their hour allotments.                                                                                                                                                                                          

Congressman Sensenbrenner: “Blockages at crossing-grades are both inconvenient and dangerous for communities in Wisconsin, and nationwide.  We must reform the arbitrarily-set federal regulations governing freight operators’ hours of service in order to decrease traffic interruptions and protect public safety.”

Congressman Sensenbrenner first introduced H.R. 390, the Moving Obstructed Trains In-between Openings Now (MOTION) Act, in the House of Representatives in 2015.

WASHINGTON, D.C. – Today, U.S. Reps. Jim Sensenbrenner (R-Wis.) and Zoe Lofgren (D-Calif.) reintroduced the Tibetan Refugee Assistance Act, which would provide visas to displaced Tibetans.

Thousands of Tibetans have gone into exile due to continuing repression in their homeland. These refugees have worked to preserve their religious and cultural identity in exile communities in India and Nepal, but the influx of Tibetans creates many challenges and places an economic burden on these countries. Because they fled Tibet, current U.S. law may consider the Tibetans “firmly resettled” in a third country and might render them inadmissible to the U.S.

The Tibetan Refugee Assistance Act addresses this problem by providing 3,000 immigrant visas to qualified displaced Tibetans over a three-year period. The bill supports the well-being of the Tibetan exile community as they strive to find a peaceful solution for Tibet; helps the overburdened settlements in India and Nepal; and gives displaced Tibetans the opportunity to flourish as Tibetan-Americans.

Congressman Sensenbrenner: “The United States has a long record of giving humanitarian assistance to other countries in need, including providing refuge to those persecuted abroad. The religious injustice occurring to the Tibetan people by the Chinese government cannot be tolerated. As a global leader, America must act immediately to help these religiously persecuted individuals.”

Congresswoman Lofgren: “The Tibetan people have suffered decades of persecution at the hands of the Chinese government. After the devastation of the 2015 earthquake in Nepal, it is even more necessary for displaced Tibetans to be recognized by the United States for refugee assistance and afforded protection under U.S. Law.”

WASHINGTON, D.C. – Today, House Judiciary Committee Chairman Bob Goodlatte (R-Va.) announced that Congressman Jim Sensenbrenner will be the new Chairman of the Crime, Terrorism, Homeland Security, and Investigations Subcommittee. He replaces Congressman Trey Gowdy (R-S.C.) who was recently named Chairman of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee.

Since the beginning of the 115th Congress, Congressman Sensenbrenner has served as Chairman of the Immigration and Border Security Subcommittee, a position which will be taken over by Congressman Raul Labrador (R-Idaho). Sensenbrenner will remain a member of this committee.

Congressman Sensenbrenner previously chaired the Crime, Terrorism, Homeland Security, and Investigation Subcommittee during the 114th Congress. He is also the former House Judiciary Committee Chairman from 2001-2006.

Congressman Sensenbrenner: “I’m honored to accept this new role within the House Judiciary Committee and I’m looking forward to bringing my experience and expertise to the table as my colleagues and I work together to find solutions for the many challenges our nation faces in these vital issue areas.”