[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]]



                          ____________________