[Congressional Record Volume 149, Number 75 (Tuesday, May 20, 2003)]
[House]
[Pages H4349-H4355]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
TEXAS REDISTRICTING
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Cole). Under the Speaker's announced
policy of January 7, 2003, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sandlin) is
recognized for 60 minutes.
Mr. SANDLIN. Mr. Speaker, the issue of redistricting has been before
the Texas public now for several weeks. I think it deserves some
attention here tonight. I hope we have several speakers to talk about
the issue of redistricting and how it has played out in our State, the
confusion it has caused and the public and political high-handedness
that has occurred from the power brokers from the Republican Party in
Washington.
Mr. Speaker, from 1800 on, we have redrawn our congressional lines
every 10 years. That is to comply with the requirements of
reapportionment. The first House, the U.S. House of Representatives,
had 65 Members which reflected the population guidelines set out in the
Constitution. Each 10 years thereafter, after the constitutionally
mandated census, seats were added to the House to reflect the growing
numbers of our population and the numbers set out in the Constitution.
By 1910, the numbers in the House had grown to more than 400. At that
point, the House decided to cap the Members at 435 Members, which
required a different set of criteria for redistricting from that point
forward. The census would count the population leading to a formula to
divide up the 435 seats among the States to fit the numbers. Then each
of the States except those with only one House Member, such as Alaska
or North Dakota or South Dakota, the Sunshine State, would redraw the
lines to fit population shifts. According to Norman Ornstein, who wrote
``Congress Inside Out'' in Roll Call on Wednesday May 14, ``Frequently
the fights in the States over redistricting have been fierce and bloody
and as partisan as any in American politics.'' He writes, ``The stakes
are high. The problems are not new. Remember the term gerrymander,
referring to the skewed and twisted lines of congressional districts to
fit partisan ends, came from Eldridge Gerry, a signer of the
Declaration of Independence from his efforts in 1811 as Governor of
Massachusetts to draw lines to favor Democrats over Federalists. But as
a rule, the fierce fights would take place only once a decade. That has
been the process from that point forward.''
Once a decade, Mr. Speaker, we reapportion, we divide the lines, and
we go forward. That did not happen in Texas this year. In Texas in
2001, we had a redrawing of the lines. We had a redistricting by court
order. That is because it was not done by the legislature. The court
held a hearing and after extensive evidence, after a trial, after
experts from both sides, from the Republicans and from the Democrats,
after members of the public and elected officials testified, a map was
drawn by a three-panel Federal court in Texas that has since been
approved that meets the voting rights standards and was in effect
during the last election.
However, due to the fact that the Republicans took control of the
House and the Senate in Texas in the last election, Tom DeLay has now
taken it upon himself to rewrite history, to do something
unprecedented, to say, we are not going to just redistrict every 10
years, we are going to redistrict when I say we should. We are not
going to respect the election of the Members of Congress. We are not
going to respect what the voters said. We are not going to approve who
they decided to elect for themselves; but since I, Mr. DeLay, do not
like who was elected, I am going to decree who the elected officials,
who the congressmen are in Texas by my own design. I do not like what
happened in Texas and so I am going to change the rules.
This is unprecedented, Mr. Speaker. This has never happened before.
And this is not proper. And everyone in the State and everyone in this
Congress knows it. As a result of those efforts, the news has been full
recently of the 51 Members who went to Oklahoma and the 53 brave
members total that left the State legislature in Austin and
[[Page H4350]]
made themselves absent from the floor to break a quorum so
redistricting could not come forward in the regular session.
{time} 1945
I think it is important to look at the rules. In the State Senate,
article IV, rule 4.03 talks about interruption of a member speaking;
and it says: ``No member shall interrupt another Senator who has the
floor or otherwise interrupt the business of the Senate, except for the
purposes of making a point of order,'' and it goes on. Basically that
is the rule, Mr. Speaker, that allows for a filibuster in the State
Senate. That is a procedural rule in the Senate that allows for the
stopping of certain pieces of legislation when it is offensive.
Our Texas House, Mr. Speaker, does not have that rule. The Texas
House does provide procedurally, though, for a way to stop proceedings,
for a way for the minority to stop the tyranny of the majority. There
is a way to put a stop on procedures, to say, let us stop a minute, let
us discuss this, let us negotiate it, let us let cooler heads prevail,
let us look at what the majority is doing and see what we can do to do
a better job.
Rule 5 in the Texas Constitution, this is provided for in article 3,
and rule 5 of the floor procedure of the House says they must have a
quorum in the House to act, and that is 100 members by their
definition. There are 150 members of the House. But the rule goes on to
say: ``Until a quorum appears, should the roll call fail to show one
present, no business shall be transacted, except to compel the
attendance of absent members or to adjourn. It shall not be in order to
recess under a call of the house.''
Mr. Speaker, this is the procedure in the Texas House that allows the
minority to call attention to, as Thomas Jefferson would say, the
tyranny of the majority. And this is not something new. This has been
used before. The ``Killer Bees'' used it in Texas, the Senate, to stop
a quorum. Our Speaker of the House right now, Mr. Tom Craddick,
Republican, he was a member of the ``dirty 30'' who absented themselves
from the House floor. They did not break a quorum, but they absented
themselves from the House floor to call attention to the high-handed
maneuvers of the then Speaker of the House.
Also, in about 1990 or 1991, this happened again as 30 members left
the floor and attempted to break quorum but were not able to muster the
numbers necessary to do so. So it is a common and well-known and well-
respected procedural maneuver that is contained within the rules of the
House.
Let us look at what some of the Republican members in the Statehouse
said about this maneuver. Not Tom DeLay, not the Republican power
brokers in Washington dictating to our State legislature, not the folks
in the United States Congress telling the Republicans and the Democrats
in the Texas State legislature what to do. Let us look at what those in
Texas in the legislature say. Let us look at those that were elected by
their constituents that have respect for the Texas State legislature,
that have respect for the elections, that have respect for the
procedures of the Statehouse. Let us hear what Representative Charlie
Geren, a Republican from Fort Worth, said about the Democrats breaking
quorum in accordance with the rules that I just mentioned, the proper
procedural rules.
Mr. Charlie Geren, Republican from Fort Worth, said the Democrats
were doing what they believed they needed to do in order to represent
their constituents. ``I understand what they're doing. It's just really
the only tool in their toolbox,'' Geren said. ``They're passionate
about the map that's in front of us not being good for their
constituents.''
Later Representative Pat Haggerty, a Republican from El Paso, again
in the Statehouse, elected in the Statehouse, who is familiar with the
rules of the Statehouse and knows how the House operates, he said:
``It's the smartest move they could have made. Under the circumstances,
it was the only alternative they had. It's been done before. It's in
the rules, and they are playing by the rules.''
So, Mr. Speaker, members of the Statehouse are familiar with the
rules of the Statehouse, and they know breaking a quorum is the proper
procedural move to make under the circumstances to defeat the tyranny
of the majority.
Let us look forward, and the media has been replete with instances
criticizing the moves of the Republicans in shutting out the Democrats
from the process. And, Mr. Speaker, I was there for the committee
hearings. I have never seen anything like it. We talk about in this
body partisanship. We talk about the lack of getting along. We talk
about a political division between Republicans and Democrats.
I was at the hearing, Mr. Speaker, and as the Republican chairman of
that committee held the committee hearings when the Democrat said, ``I
would have a question, Mr. Chairman,'' he said, ``You are not
recognized.''
``I have a Parliamentary inquiry, Mr. Chairman.''
``You are not recognized.''
It was the most outrageous procedure that I have ever seen in any
legislative body.
And, Mr. Speaker, editorials from throughout Texas, I want to take
just a minute to read some of those. This is from the Waco Tribune.
``Craddick,'' and that is referring to the Speaker of the House in
Texas, ``Craddick has no one to blame but himself. He helped write
history when he was one of 30 members of the Texas House who
disappeared during the 1971 legislative season. Craddick and his `dirty
30' colleagues were protesting the heavy-handed actions of then House
Speaker Gus Mutscher and his cronies who were involved in the
Sharkstown bribery conspiracy scandal. What Craddick has done is to put
his friendship with U.S. majority leader Tom DeLay over the lessons of
history and his own promises to run a bipartisan house.''
The Corpus Christi Caller Times said this: ``Instead of seeking
conciliation and appeasement of opponents, Craddick and Governor Rick
Perry have chosen to run roughshod over their opposition, all but
ending any semblance of bipartisanship. The other heavy in this drama
is Tom DeLay, the U.S. House majority leader, whose attempt to muscle a
redistricting bill through the legislature triggered the revolt.
Doesn't DeLay have more pressing business in Washington?''
The Dallas Morning News: ``House Speaker Tom Craddick can halt the
work stoppage in Austin. Mr. Craddick should resist pressure from
Congress to contaminate a generation's old census-based exercise by
converting it into an ill-considered purely partisan power grab. He
should commit to leave Texas's political boundaries alone, and
protesting Democrats should promptly return to the house.''
The Houston Chronicle: ``If they,'' referring to the house Democrats,
``believe their principles are worth fighting for and they have only
one means to fight for them, it's difficult to fault them for it,
particularly in a fight that was thrust upon them by Washington-driven
partisan politics. At the very least, Republicans pushing the
redistricting effort bear a large share of the responsibility for this
legislative standstill. We and many others have been saying since
before the session began that Texas has too many important pieces of
business to conduct to get bogged down in a needlessly partisan and
divisive political and legal cat fight over redistricting.''
The San Antonio News: ``The Gingrichian hubris of the Republican-led
House prompted Monday's revenge of the house flies.''
The Austin American Statesman: ``It's sad that it came to this, but
the Speaker has been tested and found wanting on a number of issues.
The one that sent the quorum buster toward the exits was the grossly
partisan congressional redistricting bill and how Craddick let it
advance in the hasty backroom way that it did. The villain in the
Democratic statement is not Craddick but U.S. majority leader Tom DeLay
of Sugarland, an extremely partisan Republican who wants more members
of his party elected to the U.S. House from Texas. Refusing to show up
for a legislative session is a desperate measure, and the fact that
more than 50 Democrats, one third of the house's total membership of
150, did so is a sign of just how trampled they feel. This isn't a few
disgruntled members sulking in their tents.''
Mr. Speaker, thank God we have principled legislators in Austin such
as
[[Page H4351]]
Barry Telford, such as Mark Homer, such as Chuck Hopson who stood up
for the Constitution, who stood up for their constituents. Thank God we
had a leader in the committee such as Richard Raymond. Thank God we had
organizers such as Jim Dunnam. Thank God for Garnet Coleman. Thank God
for all of these members who stood up and said, we respect the Texas
legislature. We respect the rules of the Texas legislature. We respect
the House, and we will not be dictated to by power brokers in
Washington, D.C., for purely partisan gain.
Mr. Speaker, the State of Texas has many pressing problems right now.
Right before the elections it appeared that Texas had plenty of money
to maintain and finance our State. Magically, after the elections were
over, we came up with what was estimated to be a $5 billion to $7
billion deficit. That quickly grew, the next estimate, to $10 billion,
and some have said now it is even $13 billion. Who in the world knows
what it is? I certainly do not.
But I do know this: We have a deficit. I do know that the governor
has proposed knocking a quarter of a million children off of CHIPS. I
do know that there are talks of cuts in transportation, Medicare,
essential services. I do know that we have education problems in Texas.
We have many challenges that are faced by other States across the
Nation.
And in the waning days of the legislature, rather than take up these
pressing issues, rather than deal with the schoolchildren of Texas,
rather than help our schoolteachers who were I think in about the 30th
or 36th in their pay, rather than help them, rather than take care of
this budget, rather than make sure the children of Texas have health
insurance, we have decided to move forward with a partisan
redistricting bill, taking up the time of the legislature.
That is why it is important these principled members stood up and
said enough is enough. The rules are made to protect our constituents.
The rules are made to comply with the Constitution. The rules are made
to make sure that the legislative body in Austin properly represents
Texas citizens. We are not to be dictated to by people in the U.S.
House of Representatives who say we want another seat, who say we want
to get rid of every rural representative in the U.S. House from Texas
and make them urban/suburban representatives. We want to make sure
power is vested in the few in the urban areas and to heck with water
rights, to heck with timber rights, to heck with agriculture rights.
This is to protect our constituents, and I congratulate those members
that did that. I think all of Texas owes them a great debt of gratitude
for standing up for the Constitution and standing up for their
constituents.
Another thing has come forward, Mr. Speaker, that is very, very
troubling, and this should be of concern to all Americans, regardless
of where they are from, regardless of their political party, regardless
of political persuasion. All Americans should be concerned about the
Homeland Security cover-up that is occurring in Texas, California, and
Washington, D.C.
Because, Mr. Speaker, it has now come to light that Homeland
Security, the agency charged with fighting terrorism in this country
and protecting our family from terrorism and protecting our borders,
the Department of Homeland Security has used government assets for a
political investigation, and it is now engaged in covering up the facts
and refusing to release the information.
Mr. Speaker, as the Members know, efforts are now under way to find
out why and how Homeland Security took part in a hunt for the Texas
legislators that absented themselves from the floor and went to
Oklahoma, a hunt that continued even after everyone in America saw on
television that those legislators were in Oklahoma, a hunt that
continued by Federal authorities while they coordinated with State
authorities to terrorize the families of the Texas legislators, to
follow their wives, to go into the hospitals, to go by their homes, to
search their cars, when everyone in this body, everyone in the state
legislature, everyone in America knew exactly where they were.
{time} 2000
Now, what is the coverup? It has come to light as we have talked
about this issue that a full transcript and a complete audiotape exists
of contact between the Homeland Security Agency and law enforcement
agencies in Texas. Let me pause and say this: we have absolutely no
quarrel with the Department of Public Safety. We have the finest and
most professional Department of Public Safety in the Nation. These fine
agents were not acting on their own. They were not acting on their own
volition. They were acting at the instructions of higher-ups. They were
acting at the insistence of the Speaker of the House, Tom Craddick.
They were acting at the insistence of power brokers in Washington, D.C.
and had to do their jobs.
But, Mr. Speaker, it is just wrong when Department of Public Safety
officers follow the wives of State legislators in their car. It is
wrong when they go into the homes of State legislators, when their
children are there alone, and insist on finding their father and say
they are committing a felony. It is wrong for them to go forward and
tell staff they are committing a felony by not saying where the members
are. It is wrong of them to stake out homes when they know very well
where the legislators are. This abuse of power is chilling, and it
should upset every American.
Now, when it came to light that a tape existed and a transcript
existed, you would think that would clear it up. And what has been
Homeland Security's response? They will not release the tape, they will
not release the transcript, and, Mr. Speaker, they cannot even get
their story straight.
On May 13, 2003, just a few days ago, AP reported that ``Tom DeLay
consulted an attorney in his office who formerly worked with the
Justice Department to determine for Texas Speaker Tom Craddick whether
FBI agents and U.S. marshals could be used to arrest Democratic
lawmakers out of state.'' Well, now, is that not special?
On that same day, the Fort Worth Star Telegram quoted Tom Delay as
saying, ``The Speaker asked the FBI and/or U.S. Marshals to go up and
get these members.'' But the Speaker, who a day earlier had suggested
the possibility of Federal involvement, said he made no calls to
Federal agencies.
Someone did not get their story right or straight. On the same day, a
spokesman for the U.S. Attorney's Office in San Antonio said he had no
``official comment,'' but a source confirmed that an unidentified
person had called to inquire about federalizing an arrest warrant.
On May 15, the AP reported ``An agency within the Homeland Security
Department said Thursday it helped search for a plane believed to be
carrying Texas lawmakers because a State law officer made it seem as
though the plane had run into trouble and might have crashed.''
Mr. Speaker, that is just not credible. Homeland Security first
reported that day that they had been requested to find a missing
aircraft. Whoops. Later that day Homeland Security issued another
statement, a second statement, saying that they received an urgent
phone call that a plane was missing and a State rep was on board.
Which was it, the first statement, or the second? Who knows? But we
do know they cannot get their stories straight, and we do know that
that story just does not pass the smell test.
Do they expect us to believe that someone just called and said there
is a plane missing, we think it may have crashed, and they got no
details?
Mr. Speaker, it just does not make sense that law enforcement called
and talked with Homeland Security and said a plane is down, and they
got no more information about it than that. They had to make two
statements they issued. They are not consistent with each other.
If in fact there is no problem, and if in fact it is, as is now
claimed by the Department of Homeland Defense, they can fix it, they
can cure it, they can clean up the inconsistencies. They can make sure
that everyone in Texas and everyone in the State House and State Senate
and U.S. Congress and the public knows exactly what happened. This is
easy to do. All they have to do is release the tape and release the
transcript.
Mr. Speaker, I am calling upon them today to do that. Release the
tape; release the transcript. We want to know
[[Page H4352]]
what happened in Austin, we want to know what happened in Washington,
we want to know what happened in California, Houston, San Antonio and
everywhere else. We want those records.
Today, Tom Ridge appeared before the Select Committee on Homeland
Security and was asked by the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Turner) to turn
over the tape. He claimed not to know that there was a problem, that
only portions of it had been turned over, and he pledged to check on
it.
Mr. Speaker, that is not enough. There is absolutely no legal
authority to allow Homeland Security or Mr. Ridge to keep those tapes
from a legitimate investigation. If those tapes are not turned over,
they should be subpoenaed by the committee, and we should be looking at
the Freedom of Information Act to get that information.
Quit hiding the information. Quit covering it up. Quit keeping from
the American public exactly what happened in the use of Federal
Government assets for a political purpose.
Now, after the two stories came out of Homeland Security, on May 17
the Fort Worth Star Telegram Austin Bureau reported, ``Officials in
Washington have said the Air and Marine Interdiction Coordination
Center, a Customs Agency that is part of Homeland Security, was merely
responding to an ``urgent plea'' for help from the Texas Department of
Public Safety. It said the DPS indicated that an airplane carrying
legislators might have been ``missing, lost or possibly crashed.'' The
California-based AMICC made phone calls to the Federal Aviation
Administration offices in Fort Worth and to airports in Mineral Wells,
Texas, and Plain View, Texas. However, as I mentioned, and importantly,
Homeland Security has now acknowledged the existence of an audiotape
and a transcript.''
According to The New York Times, on May 16, the Department of
Homeland Security said that it would conduct an investigation ``to see
if there was a misuse of Federal resources when the Department helped
Texas law enforcement agencies in a politically inspired search for the
private plane of a prominent Democratic State legislator.''
Mr. Speaker, they are saying they are conducting an investigation to
see if it is improper when they did help law enforcement agencies in a
politically inspired search for the private plane of a Democratic State
legislator. They are saying we are trying to figure out if this is
improper. We are admitting that we helped law enforcement agencies in a
politically inspired search. We are admitting that. But we wanted to
see if it is a misuse of Federal resources to do so.
Now, however, on May 19, I guess it was May 18 when it was written
and May 19 when it was printed, 2 days later, the story changed. This
is becoming a habit. The story changed. The Associated Press reported,
``The Bureau said it at no time used any Federal planes to find the
Democrats, and ultimately told the law officer it could not locate the
aircraft.''
So by May 19 they did not use any Federal planes. Just what is the
story? What assets were used? What do the tapes say? Who knows what?
When did they find out what they found out? What Federal assets were
used for politically motivated purposes, as reported in the press? Why,
why do we have a coverup of this, and Tom Ridge and Homeland Security
changing their stories and going mum?
It has not gone unnoticed in Texas or in the Nation. Let me read what
was printed in the Star Telegram on May 18 about this travesty, about
this coverup, about this admission with no explanation. Let me read
what someone thought when they examined that:
``To meet the threat of global terrorism, the United States is
assembling enormous Federal resources focused on activities in American
cities, neighborhoods and countrysides that could endanger those
citizens. If we are to have this security apparatus, it must be
contained to its designated purpose. There must be every safeguard, so
that it does not cross the thin line between protecting innocent
citizens and spying on their private lives. That these security
resources were used, no matter in what manner or way, in a Texas
political dispute should be alarming to us all.''
Mr. Speaker, that is what the press had to say about the use of
Federal assets, the use of our security capabilities, to track private
citizens, and the use of law enforcement to terrorize the families of
our legislators. And I find it quite interesting that they were able to
terrorize and track the wives of our legislators, but not the husbands
of other legislators. I find it very interesting they were able to go
where children were, but not where the head of the household was. We
all know what they were doing. We all know it is improper. We all know
it is illegal.
Today, Mr. Speaker, the U.S. Congress is calling on Homeland Security
to release the tape, to release the transcript, to tell America what
happened. If in fact there is a defense, bring forth the defense in the
tape. If in fact they want to go with their third or fourth or fifth or
sixth or tenth story, bring forth the tape that tells us exactly what
happened.
If in fact they are as innocent as they now claim, bring forth the
tape. Bring forth the transcript. Tell this Congress that they are
acting with the authority given them by the United States Congress to
prevent terrorism in this country; not for political purposes, not to
attack political enemies, not to control the State legislature in the
State of Texas, not to redraw congressional lines.
Tell us, tell us, Mr. Ridge, tell us Homeland Security. Bring forth
that tape. Bring forth that tape now. We deserve it. We are entitled to
it. There is no legal defense not to produce it.
Homeland Security admitted involvement. Then they did not. Then they
had a tape. Now they will not release it. Transparency is required.
Stop the coverup. Transparency is the word of the day. Release the
tape.
Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I thank the distinguished
gentleman for yielding, and I would like to broaden the discussion and
also reflect upon the fact that the gentleman has served as a judge in
our State. We are not here to provide our portfolios to this House.
{time} 2015
I think it is important when we raise these questions that we give
sort of the expanded window or the expanded field in which we operate.
It is clear that government has never operated as a perfectionist,
though we strive to ensure that all that we do is for the benefit and
the best interests of the American people.
I think the judge, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sandlin), is
expressing a point of view that is not for his personal position but
more for the issue of answering questions on behalf of the American
people.
Let me say that I have a great deal of respect for Governor Ridge,
now the Secretary of the Homeland Security Department. We had the
opportunity to have him before the Select Committee on Homeland
Security hearing just this day. It was a very intense hearing, very
thorough for the Members who posed inquiries.
It was a very important one because, as most of America knows, in the
last 24 hours the FBI has indicated that there are possible, if you
will, actions that may occur as it relates to terrorist incidents in
the United States or on western facilities. That means that Governor
Ridge's position and the Department's position are enormously
important.
Just yesterday, I joined my colleagues on the Select Committee on
Homeland Security and other Members of Congress at the northern border,
because we wanted to assess the vulnerability or the assistance that
might be needed there. I was graciously hosted in that region by the
gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Slaughter).
So we are working toward the bottom line responsibility of this
committee, the Select Committee on Homeland Security and the Department
of Homeland Security, of securing the homeland, protecting America,
protecting our neighborhoods, protecting our families and our children.
So Members can imagine, Mr. Speaker, when it came to our attention by
newspaper articles that in the course of their State responsibilities
and their judgment as to what they should do with respect to their
responsibilities, 55 members of the Texas legislature heroically left
Austin in order to avoid a
[[Page H4353]]
catastrophe, it was shocking to be told that Federal resources, in
particular staff, personnel, and equipment of the Department of
Homeland Security, were asked, requested, and possibly utilized in
tracking these civilians.
This afternoon, I was in the Subcommittee on the Constitution
discussing the PATRIOT Act with the Department of Justice. Last week, I
sent a letter to the Department of Justice, one, requesting that no
interference be given by the Federal Government with respect to these
legislators and indicating that I saw no Federal question, no Federal
violation, and no need for Federal action.
Mr. Speaker, I am grateful that the Justice Department sent a letter
back dated May 16, 2003, confirming my interpretation and indicating
that they saw no Federal question and they saw no need for their
involvement, and they were not involved.
Today, however, I asked the Justice Department to give a full
accounting of that but also to investigate the questions dealing with
the Department of Homeland Security.
I believe what we are speaking to tonight, Mr. Speaker, and I thank
the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sandlin) for giving me the opportunity,
is the question of, in the backdrop of the severest time of our history
when threats of terror are abounding, when embassies are being closed
by the United States, when citizens are concerned for their civil
liberties as well as their security, when we have to be able to defend
stricter rules and procedures and questioning the utilization of
procedures that may step on the Constitution, it is extremely tragic
that we would think that it would be all right to intervene in a
totally civilian matter that had nothing to do with the securing of
this Nation. It is as simple as that, a civilian matter that had
nothing to do with the security of this Nation.
The mandate for the Select Committee on Homeland Security and the
mandate for the Department of Homeland Security is clearly enunciated:
the monitoring, protecting, the securing of the homeland. So this is
not a frivolous exercise, Mr. Speaker.
I am grateful for the very forthright, if you will, response that the
Secretary gave; one, that there is an independent investigation going;
that certain personnel have recused themselves from involving
themselves in the investigation because of their close kinship to the
issue, or close kinship to the parties and the party involved. I
believe there was a great deal of sincerity in the Secretary's
representation that he would look into the reason why any congressional
committee would be denied the tapes, transcripts, and any other
documentation.
So I again renew our request that those documents of all kinds should
be immediately delivered to the United States Congress. I would ask
duly that the Department of Homeland Security proceed with its
investigation, and I would ask that the Department of Justice as well
proceed with an investigation.
We are hoping that this matter can be resolved, as we do in a
democracy, with a fair airing of the facts and the accountability of
anyone who was responsible for using resources that are deemed to be
utilized to protect us to intervene on a civilian manner and also to
intrude upon the Constitution by utilization of such resources; and, as
well, to intimidate civilians who are doing nothing more than acting on
behalf of their constituents.
It is a simple question, a simple process. We hope this country will
rise to its higher angels and be able to respond to what I think are
honest inquiries. We look forward to hearing expeditiously from the
Department of Homeland Security so that it can get on with its
business.
As I said, I believe that the Secretary was forthright, and I expect
for him to respond forthwith, because I know that he has impeccable
credentials and therefore is concerned, as we are, that any of his
personnel and staff would be so misused.
I want to thank the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sandlin) for allowing
us to present what I think is an enormously important question. I would
just ask the gentleman a question for a moment.
I would ask the gentleman, in addition to what we have speculated or
what we have heard from newspapers, we understand as well, and again,
they were following orders, and I know the gentleman has seen many law
enforcement personnel in his court as he has practiced law, and I have
seen many in my court as I have practiced law, and the bulk of their
actions are legal and done to secure the area to support law and order.
But I understand that we can also chronicle a number of uses of law
enforcement around the State about the family members who were
encountered, if you will; law enforcement officers going way beyond the
call of duty, as I understand it.
I think it is important for our colleagues to understand, again, and
I have used that word about three times, I think it is important for
our colleagues to be informed, I would say, of the depth of what we are
speaking and that we do not do this lightly. We are not intending to
make light of the power of this body and request information for no
reason whatsoever.
I am very concerned about what transpired last week, in the last 2
weeks.
Mr. SANDLIN. Mr. Speaker, I would respond to my good friend's
questions, and certainly the gentlewoman from Houston, Texas (Ms.
Jackson-Lee) is an attorney and someone who respects our Constitution
and legal process completely.
In response to the questions raised by my good friend, the
gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee), certainly we are all
concerned about the abuse of process and the abuse and use of Federal
assets for a purely political purpose, as has been acknowledged and has
been reported in the press.
Closely akin to that are these issues that she has rightly brought up
about our concern about the abuse of the use of law enforcement
officers, whom we all respect, for undue political influence.
Again, we are not criticizing the officers. We feel like we have the
finest Department of Public Safety and deputy sheriffs and sheriffs and
police and law enforcement officers in the country. They merely follow
their orders.
But let us look at some of these very serious things that have
happened. Some I alluded to briefly in my opening remarks. Let us see
exactly what we are talking about, the use of the power of the State to
intimidate citizens of this country.
Craig Eiland is a State Representative from Texas. His wife recently
had premature twins. They are in the neonatal intensive care unit in
the hospital. The Texas Rangers were sent to the neonatal unit in the
hospital to question nurses. His wife was not there but was at home, so
the Texas Rangers went to her home to question her about the
whereabouts of her husband.
Chuck Hopson is one of the State Representatives from east Texas in
my district. He is not only a courageous public servant, a thoughtful
man, someone interested in his constituents and his family and a
political friend of mine, but he is a personal friend of mine, as is
his wife.
His wife left Austin, the capital city of Texas. On the way home to
Jacksonville, Texas, an approximately 4 to 4\1/2\ hour drive, as she
left Austin, a DPS officer got on her bumper and followed her the
entire way home. As she sped up, so did the officer; as she slowed
down, so did the officer; when she pulled over, so would the officer,
all the way to her home, purely for the purposes of intimidation.
It is important to note at this time everyone in the country knew
where the legislators were. They were in Ardmore, Oklahoma. But Chuck
Hopson's wife, as a result of his commitment to service to the people
of the State of Texas, he placed his wife in a difficult situation.
El Paso police entered the home of Representative Joe Pickett. Joe
Pickett is a State Representative. He was gone. His wife was away from
the home. His 17-year-old daughter was there alone. The police came in
inquiring about his whereabouts; and, as Joe said, ``They scared the
holy hell out of her.'' She did not know what was going on. Again, they
knew exactly where Representative Pickett was.
Representative Joe Menendez, his wife found her car vandalized after
a legislative ladies luncheon. It was parked in front of the Governor's
mansion. I would think it would be safe.
[[Page H4354]]
Law enforcement officers were dispatched, and this is particularly
egregious, dispatched to terrorize the staff of the House of
Representatives in Austin. A senior staff member of Representative
Elliott Naishtat was told that it was a felony to withhold information
on the whereabouts of the State Representative. When asked what law was
broken, the staff member was shown a copy of the House rules; clearly
not a felony, and clearly what they said was a lie.
These folks, these young people that give of their time and effort in
poorly paid jobs to serve the people of the State of Texas were being
terrorized by law enforcement officers, only for political purposes.
Representative Patrick Rose is a Democrat from Dripping Springs,
where I recently had an opportunity to be. His car was searched. His
car was left at a friend's house, and it was searched after the
lawmakers were found in Oklahoma, after. This is no attempt to find
these folks. They know exactly where they are. They are terrorizing
their families, and they are terrorizing their property, trying to get
them to come back or say, we can show you. We can use the power of the
State to intimidate you and to make you buckle and to make you cave in.
But they misjudged the character of our State Representatives.
Let me tell Members about what a Corpus Christi newspaper reported.
In southeast Texas, the wife of State Representative Jaime Capelo,
Democrat, Corpus Christi, looked out her kitchen window Tuesday and
noticed a blue four-door vehicle driving past. The driver looked at her
home as it passed. The driver pulled up next to a white Chevrolet pick-
up down the street. ``I asked him why he was watching my house. The man
identified himself as a State trooper,'' and he told her that officials
in Austin had called his office and told the troopers to follow her.
{time} 2030
Told the troopers to follow her. Using law enforcement officers, with
other challenges, to follow people for those reasons.
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. If the gentleman will yield, this is
incredulous what the gentleman is recounting, and probably from a list
that is short by its very pronouncements, in that there were 55. As the
gentleman well knows, the very incident that we are talking about
involved one of the members who was flying. We have not specifically
recounted, or maybe my colleague did, that particular incident, but one
can imagine the panic in the air if and when those various search
planes were deployed.
But the point I think I want to add, and I thank the gentleman for
yielding to me, is that now we must recognize and I think it is
important to note, as we have noted the particular names of our
members, Representative Thompson, Garnet Coleman, Scott Hochberg, and
Joe Moreno, Jessica Farrar, out of my area, and certainly Kevin Bailey,
and so many others, I believe that I have represented them all, and
then others, of course.
But this represented I think a sense of intimidation in how much
money they caused to be wasted. That is why we are here on the floor.
We want accuracy, truth and transparency. And to suggest that they
caused a loss of money to the taxpayers of the State, I think, is
clearly a bogus presentation, inasmuch as the redistricting plan that
might have been put in place, had they not stepped aside, one, would
have cost Federal funds in terms of the representation here in the
United States Congress; two, leadership roles would have been
completely eliminated, which generate Federal funds, members who are
holding leadership roles; and the cost of redrawing and running
elections in an off year would have cost millions of dollars.
It is my understanding that in addition to the redistricting plan,
our Republican friends that are now in charge in the State legislature,
after 140 years, are cutting 270,000 children of the members' districts
off of the CHIPs program; they are cutting some of the members'
constituents off of Medicaid by rewriting the rules; some of the
members have teachers being fired in their districts, and with school
districts in crisis. And I might add that no school finance plan, as I
understand it, was moving through the House at this time.
So I think it is important as we stand here tonight that we emphasize
the word transparency, and we emphasize this as a broader view. And it
is clearly to be able to define these members not as the criminals that
the actions suggest they were, not as the escaping, I hate to use the
word, and I guess I will not, but people who might have done harm to
the State of Texas so that homeland security needed to be out. These
are legislators duly representing not the gentleman from Texas (Mr.
Sandlin) or the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee) or the
congressional delegation, or the Congress of the United States. They
were representing their constituents.
So in yielding back to the gentleman, I would just say that we are
here putting this on the record and requesting this direct information.
Because, if anything, the names of these brave souls need to be
cleared; but more importantly, we need to clear the deck on how we use
Federal resources and how we should not be able to be abusive. Just
because you have the power, does not mean you can use the power.
Mr. SANDLIN. I thank the very articulate gentlewoman from Houston.
Mr. Speaker, may I inquire about the time remaining.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Cole). The gentleman from Texas has 6
minutes remaining.
Mr. SANDLIN. Mr. Speaker, my good friend from Houston makes a good
point, and it is important to note that these were not people fleeing
from a responsibility but people fleeing to exercise and claim a
responsibility that they had under the Constitution and under the rules
of the House. These are the rules that I read from previously. They
were doing what the rules required to make sure that they had an
opportunity to represent their constituents. So they were fleeing to
responsibility. They were fleeing and taking the hard road.
It would be easy to stay. It would be easy to stay and lose the vote
and lose rural representation and make sure that children were kicked
off of CHIPs and that Medicare had no funding. It would be easy to say
we are not going to respect what the voters did in the election. That
would be easy to do, to show up and to vote and to get outvoted. But
these legislators knew the rules, they knew their responsibilities,
they knew how to act; and that is exactly what they did. And they
should be commended for their actions.
Now, Mr. Speaker, it has worked out. It did exactly what it was
intended to do. It stopped a runaway train. It made sure that something
that was about to happen that was improper would not happen. It gave
time for cooler heads to prevail. And as they left the floor of the
House and broke the quorum, now the Governor, the Speaker, the House,
the Senate, and others have had an opportunity to get together. They
are back in Austin taking care of the people's business, things that
are very important.
I think it is important as we look at this to see what has driven it.
Partisan politics makes people do strange things. The problem with all
of this is the very foundation of it is a disrespect of the
Constitution, a disrespect of the people, a disrespect of the law and
putting politics above all.
Let me read in closing, Mr. Speaker, what the Republicans' own
witness said about the plan presented for redistricting. This is the
expert witness hired by the Republicans to testify in the court
proceeding the last time. He testified on behalf of the Republicans and
their plan. And when he saw the current plan recently, this is what he
said. This is Rice University Professor John Alford, the Republican
witness. He referred to the current plan, the attempt being driven down
the throat of the Texas public, he called it this: A pro-Republican
partisan gerrymander on top of an already pro-Republican existing plan.
It is raw politics at its worst.
Mr. Speaker, we are asking that the tape, the transcripts be made
available, and that transparency be the word of the day in the United
States Congress dealing with the issue of redistricting. We
congratulate those members at the State House who have been named here
tonight for the principled stand they took for their constituents and
for the constitution of the State of Texas.
[[Page H4355]]
____________________