[Congressional Record Volume 162, Number 163 (Tuesday, November 15, 2016)]
[House]
[Pages H6217-H6220]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                          EVENTS OF LAST WEEK

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the Speaker's announced policy of 
January 6, 2015, the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee) is 
recognized for the remainder of the hour as the designee of the 
Minority Leader.
  Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, my words still count for the 
presentation that the gentleman from California made, and count me as 
one of those that will continue to join him in that.
  Mr. Speaker, might I take a moment to do a number of things as I 
engage in a conversation on the floor with my colleagues and 
acknowledge the importance of the work of this body. And also, I want 
to speak to the last week's occurrences.
  We, as Members of Congress, may have disagreements on the actions of 
last week, one of the most important acts that the American people 
engage in, so I certainly want to applaud the American people for the 
peaceful transfer of power. That power is not completely transferred. 
Everyone knows that it is the inauguration on January 20, 2017, in 
which we will have the opportunity to, in actuality, transfer power 
from President Obama to the next President of the United States that 
has been voted on by the people of this country.
  In the course of my discussion, I will raise a number of concerns 
that I think are important for us to listen to. Again, these may be 
issues that draw a little bit of provocativeness, if you will, but I 
hope to be thoughtful in my words.
  I do want to acknowledge the works or the words of my colleagues 
previously honoring the recognition of the Bible and say that so many 
of us not only find comfort in that wonderful book but we also use it 
for counsel.
  As I begin, I hope that those who may be listening will, in fact, see 
in my words the kind of temperament and tone that, as I said, even if 
we have disagreement, we will certainly not be disagreeable. And I cite 
for my friends and for this body Psalm 16:7-11, but I only read chapter 
16 and verse 7 at this point.
  ``I bless the Lord who gives me counsel; in the night also my heart 
instructs me.''
  Verse 8:
  ``I have set the Lord always before me; because he is at my right 
hand, I shall not be shaken.''
  That is, I think, a wonderful testimony for this Nation. It is a 
testimony for the structure of government. It is a testimony for this 
Congress as we proceed. It is a testimony for the men and women who are 
in faraway places who are wearing the uniform. It certainly is a 
testimony, I believe, for many who find themselves suffering at this 
moment in a variety of ways.
  I do want to acknowledge and offer my deepest sympathy to the family 
of Gwen Ifill, someone who I have come to know over the years as one of 
America's award-winning journalists.
  Gwen Ifill was, in fact, a journalist that perceived her work as a 
profession, as a calling, and I am so sad to hear of her untimely 
death. She had a storied career, including being the first African 
American female to moderate a Vice Presidential debate in 2004, and 
handling it some 4 years later. She brilliantly moderated the 2008 Vice 
Presidential debate between Vice President Joe Biden and Alaska 
Governor Sarah Palin, her steadiness as a host on the PBS NewsHour, and 
the wonderful family from which she has come.
  I want to acknowledge her wonderful sister, who heads the NAACP Legal 
Defense Fund, and all of her family members to say that we celebrate 
her life, but we also mourn her passing.
  I wanted this evening to manage to combine the things that we need to 
get done--as I said, the actions of last week--and I want to combine it 
with the First Amendment and the Bill of Rights that we all have.
  I want to make it very clear that the First Amendment gives us the 
freedom of speech or of the press or the right for the people peaceably 
to assemble. So I take issue with statements that have been made by the 
recent elected person who sought the Presidency from New York who 
indicated in some early comments that he viewed the protesters as being 
paid and, I guess, incited by the media or caused to be protesting by 
the media. I take as a very sacred document that we are blessed to have 
as the Constitution.
  I watched as throngs of young people walked past the United States 
Capitol just a few hours ago. I think it is important for the American 
people and

[[Page H6218]]

my colleagues to know what a beautiful sight of young, peaceful 
Americans who were frustrated and hurt by what they perceive as an 
exclusionary election that did not include them.
  So, I do want to put on the record that this will be a constitutional 
discussion as we weave in and out of the challenges that I see that we 
will be having and, in essence, speak to some of the concerns that 
these protesters would have.
  Let me first say that, with respect to military force, in a 
Washington Post article by Bob Woodward, it says:
  ``The president can select nuclear strike packages against three 
categories--military targets, war-supporting or economic targets and 
leadership targets.''
  It means, in the hands of any Commander in Chief, President, they 
will have that power.

                              {time}  1900

  Under practice, as the Commander in Chief, the President can employ 
U.S. military forces as he or she sees fit; and that means that the 
concern that many are expressing, these young people, what kind of 
Commander in Chief, as evidenced by words said during this very 
extended Presidential campaign of ``I like war,'' or the idea that 
there would be, I guess, an extensive use of war powers or the powers 
that an individual President can use, this raises concern for a lot of 
people.
  Let me, as well, indicate that, when you begin to think about the 
structures of government, you have a headline from the Associated Press 
that the children of this candidate could run a blind trust, and so 
that is certainly of concern.
  When Mr. Giuliani indicated that Mr. Trump should set up some kind of 
blind trust, when pressed, Mr. Giuliani told CNN's ``State of the 
Union'' that Trump's unusual situation might call for more flexibility; 
and that is something we have never seen before, where there is at 
least some mixture of government and the using of a business structure 
and more flexibility. And then a new announcement that these 
individuals that would be involved in the blind trusts, or running the 
business, now would be called upon to--or are being sought, if you 
will, to have a top secret clearance, which means that the interests of 
business could be mixed with the security interests of the American 
people.
  I find that quite puzzling. And as a member of--concerned about 
homeland security on a number of my committees, I find that of great 
concern. This is what happens when there are elections, maybe, with 
less information than we should have had.
  So I think it is important to note that protesters are rightly 
concerned. Certainly, there is additional information in a recent ``60 
Minutes'' interview where the question came up about deporting 
undocumented individuals.
  Certainly, amongst undocumented individuals are young people called 
DACA, who have been given work permits and delays from deportation, who 
are scholars, who are in college, who are young high school students. 
Because the system of legal immigration that has been presented to this 
Congress any number of times has not been debated or passed, we have 
not done our job; so we have not passed a system in which those who are 
unstatused could legally pay fines, stand in line, and do the 
appropriate thing that I think Americans would care for them to do.
  What we have is a system that is broken, and so, in his wisdom, the 
President of the United States worked to step in the gap where there 
was no law as it relates to these young people, and, of course, the 
Congress did not act. No answer from that in the ``60 Minutes'' 
interview.
  There is a question, or a point, that individuals that have criminal 
records--gang members, drug dealers, probably about 2 million people, 
allegedly--would be deported, without any suggestion of how you would 
pay for it. I think deportation is about $10,000 per person.
  Also, criminal record is a relative question. Is that a misdemeanor? 
Is that a ticket? Is that a young person that is a gang member that 
could be rehabilitated and then, of course, have some way to access 
citizenship in some appropriate manner?
  Let this be very clear. None of us want to coddle or to protect 
anyone that will do us harm here in the United States. That is not in 
any way the stance that I take. But I do ask the question: Is there any 
thought to these policies? And these policies have now caused great 
fear, intimidation, which generates thousands of young people and 
others across America taking to the peaceful protests because they are 
confused--and the confusion is continuing to grow.
  In addition, it was said often that this is a powerful country with a 
wonderful democracy. That democracy means that, in the battle of 
campaigns, much is said. Once campaigns are over, then we move on to 
respect the opponent, the loyal opposition, and we move on to ensure 
that we do not have a punitive and--how should I say?--unfair treatment 
of the individual that lost.
  We have repeated over and over again, Mrs. Clinton, who I think was 
an excellent candidate for the Presidency--as evidenced by the fact 
that, right now, the numbers are mounting. She has actually received 
more than 1 million votes over the individual that will take up the 
helm by inauguration in January of 2017. So the popular vote, more 
Americans voted for Mrs. Clinton than the person who will be 
inaugurated. That is a very hard pill to swallow, and I will speak 
about the electoral college.
  With that in mind, we also know that there have been many hearings in 
this Congress that have looked at a number of aspects of some of the 
concerns that have been raised in the battle, in the contest, and those 
have not evidenced any basis for moving forward.
  That being said, in an inquiry for ``60 Minutes,'' regarding Mrs. 
Clinton, kind words were said, of course, and I agree with them, that 
she proceeded in the appropriate manner to protect the peaceful 
transfer of government. She reached out to the American people to ask 
them to work with this new government. She spoke about our values and 
that we should continue to maintain our values. I thank her for that. 
And, of course, she appropriately called and conceded, and that action 
was called lovely.
  But when the question was posed about appointing a special 
prosecutor, rather than performing or speaking in a Presidential 
manner, that wasn't the case. The response was that this action would 
not be ruled out, and some words that were attempting to comfort were 
said: ``They are good people. I don't want to hurt them.''
  Where is the responsible response, which is: The election is over. I 
thank Mrs. Clinton for her service to the Nation, and we look forward 
to healing this Nation and working together? That did not occur.
  So let me say, let us not discount the pain that my constituents and 
many others are feeling because there have been no words that are 
conciliatory; and certainly, there are no words that would seem to 
respect the loyal opposition, the opponent, only the words that would 
seem to provoke those who worked so hard on behalf of the other 
candidate. The newspapers are rampant with these examples of what kind 
of administration will we have.

  So how did we get here? We got here because of the structure of the 
electoral college, which was in place as we began this Nation. And of 
course it is established in Article II, section 1 of the U.S. 
Constitution.
  The Constitution gives each State a number of electors equal to the 
combined total of its Senate membership, two for each State, the House 
of Representatives delegation currently ranging from 1 to 52. Under the 
23rd Amendment of the Constitution, the District of Columbia is 
allocated three electors. So the electoral college consists of 538 
electors; 535 electors from the several States and 3 from the District 
of Columbia. None of those individuals should stand in place of the 
popular vote, but that is the concept that we used in that earlier 
point.
  On November 6, 2012, Mr. Trump tweeted that the electoral college is 
a disaster for democracy. I think many of us in America totally agree.
  Most States require that all electoral votes go to the candidate that 
received the plurality in that State; and so, in some sense, it is 
connected to that State and has some basis to it.
  It was amended in the 12th Amendment--I think that was in 1804--which 
provides what happens if the electoral

[[Page H6219]]

college fails to elect a President or Vice President. Here lies the 
very crux of the reason why a popular vote should now be the standard.
  Let me say also that I could not read the minds of our Founding 
Fathers. They managed to put in a system of democracy that has now 
lasted for a very, very, very long period of time. They are to be 
commended. This was through the Constitutional Convention that met in 
Philadelphia in 1787. This was an important acknowledgment, and there 
were a variety of processes upon which they suggested there be a 
Presidential selection.
  A committee formed to work out various details, including the mode of 
election of the President, recommended that the election be decided by 
a group of people apportioned among the States. I would offer to say 
that that did not go forward. There were fears of intrigue if the 
President was chosen by a small group of men.
  At the time, as you are well aware, slaves were not counted as a full 
person, and slaves were in the United States. Women were not allowed to 
vote, and there were other prohibitions against voting. Concerns for 
the independence of the President if he was elected by the Congress was 
also part of the mix in terms of how you would discern and vote, and 
the electoral college was being developed.
  In Federalist Paper No. 39, James Madison explained the Constitution 
was designed to be a mixture of State-based and population-based 
government. Alexander Hamilton defended the electoral college on the 
grounds that the electors were chosen directly by the people.
  All of that, trying to get it right, I think, speaks volumes--
volumes--to the idea of moving forward beyond this idea of the 
electoral college and to begin to look at other options; and so I am 
going to be asking our committees--in particular, the Judiciary 
Committee--to hold hearings on the electoral college.
  I think it is extremely appropriate for the American people to be 
able to understand the crux of how this works but, more importantly, 
how this impacts the leadership of this country.
  Five times a candidate has won the popular vote but not the electoral 
college: Andrew Jackson in 1824, Samuel Tilden in 1876--we remember 
that compromise--Grover Cleveland in 1888, Al Gore in 2000, and, 
certainly, Hillary Clinton in 2016. I would suggest that this is an 
appropriate time to review this.
  We tried to do an electoral college review from 1969 to 1971. H.J. 
Res. 681 proposed the direct election of a President and Vice 
President, requiring a runoff when no candidate received more than 40 
percent of the vote. The resolution did pass the House in 1969 but 
failed to pass the Senate.
  So, I think it is important that we look at this in a manner that can 
be reviewed, and there are ways of doing so. I believe there is a 
national popular vote, which I will find in just a moment, that has 
already worked with 13 States to devise another approach, or which is 
the popular vote, and to make sure that the bar that we have that deals 
with the electoral college and bars the count of the popular vote to 
the extent that one person, one vote, I think, has to be reviewed. 
There has to be a congressional review of this. There is too much at 
stake and too much emphasis on the right to a vote that we cannot let 
Americans vote for their President.
  And I say that some of the discussions around the idea of the 
electoral college were that maybe the voters were not informed enough, 
maybe they were not at a level of education that we should entrust to 
them the idea of the situation dealing with the popular vote. So I 
think the issue is that we need to make sure that the one vote, one 
person counts. We talk about it all the time, and we don't seem to act 
on it. Let's hold hearings. That is important.
  Let me quickly go to the aftermath of these elections that has really 
disturbed many of us. The Southern Poverty Law Center reports more than 
201 incidents of election-related harassment and intimidation across 
the country as of November 11, 5 p.m. They range from anti-Black to 
antiwoman, to anti-LGBT incidents.
  People are hurting. There were many examples of vandalism and 
epithets directed at individuals. Oftentimes, the types of harassment 
overlapped, and many incidents, though not all, involved direct 
references to the Trump campaign.

                              {time}  1915

  Let me give you some examples. This is an example from the Southern 
Poverty Law Center: My 12-year-old daughter is an African American. A 
boy approached her and said, ``Now that Trump is President, I am going 
to shoot you and all the Blacks I can find.'' We reported it to the 
school, who followed up with my daughter and the boy appropriately.
  Another at this time in the college setting: The day after the 
presidential election, my friend, a Black female freshman in a Boston-
area college heard a White female student say, ``This is their 
punishment for 8 years of Black people.'' When she turned around to see 
who said it, the White student laughed at her.
  In Louisiana, a woman was harassed by White men in a passing car, 
which was a frequently reported venue of harassment since election day: 
I was standing at a red light waiting to cross the street. A black 
truck with three White men pulled up to the red light. One of them 
yelled something inappropriate. The other two began to laugh. One began 
to chant ``Trump'' as they drove away.
  I have an employee who happens to be Hispanic who was coming to work 
in my own hometown and was told, ``Wetback in a suit, go home.''
  ``Death to diversity'' was written on a banner displayed on our 
library--this happened, I think, in Colorado--for people to see, as 
well as written on posters across the campus, as well as White males 
going up to women saying unfortunate things about grabbing unfortunate 
things.
  This is from Austin, Texas: Harassment, today a young Latino man in 
his 20s and a coworker of mine were walking into work as a truck slowed 
down and two White men threw a bag of garbage onto him and yelled, 
``You are going back to where you came from.''
  There are, obviously, many such instances. When asked about this, to 
his credit, Mr. Trump said to stop it. That is not going to be enough. 
That will not answer the thousands upon thousands of those who are 
protesting and the thousands upon thousands of those who are looking 
for leadership to be able to suggest that we are, in fact, a nation 
that represents all people.
  Now, it is the prerogative of the person who got elected and who will 
be honored to serve as the President of the United States, it will be 
their privilege to select persons that will lead. We do know that there 
is discussion about an individual for the Secretary of State, and I 
choose to cite this as an individual who is now possibly being looked 
at for the many conflicts of interest that they will have.
  This is the highest office in the land. There must be a responsible 
ordering of those who are actually able to do the job. It is important 
to reward your friends. But these are important governmental positions 
that will either be the face--the Secretary of State--of the United 
States internationally or the Attorney General who will be the chief 
law enforcement officer or in the White House staff will likewise be 
the face of the President of the United States.
  In the last week, an individual has now been selected who was in the 
campaign as the chief strategist--that is the face of the White House--
that has given a signal to White supremacists that they will be 
represented at the highest levels. It is clearly documented of the 
kinds of actions that this individual has been engaged in. The ex-wife 
indicated in a court document that he didn't want the girls going to 
school with Jews. He said that he doesn't like Jews.
  Heading up a periodical that deals with the alt-right movement which 
has been known to deal with skinheads and various issues that are just 
completely untoward in a country that is 21st century and that is so 
diverse.
  So I believe that having joined my colleagues and asked for 
reconsideration, you have the right to choose your cabinet. You have 
the right to choose your various aids that you will have. But I don't 
believe in this Nation that you have the right to deal with this 
question of these issues where people feel divided.

[[Page H6220]]

  There is a picture here. We know that there is the burning of a 
church. This is the Hopewell Missionary Baptist Church in Greenville, 
Mississippi, that has written on the outside of the sacred place. I 
began my message or my statement on the floor with a word from Psalms. 
And here is written, ``Vote Trump.''
  Now, we know that there are people that may want to provoke or not 
provoke, but what I think is important is that one candidate got more 
of the popular vote. We need to review the electoral college. Out of 
this election has come great concerns from the words that have been 
offered during the campaign that cannot be pulled back. The words that 
cannot be pulled back now have generated not only actions by 
individuals not in the government, children being maligned and 
attacked, individuals being attacked on the street, people feel 
frightened. Churches are being burned, which we passed a law some years 
back that it is a Federal crime to burn a church. Then to have an 
individual who has been associated with the kind of propaganda that, in 
essence, is discriminatory against so many of us as women, African 
Americans, Hispanics, and certainly people who have differences. 
Certainly we have seen potential of the KKK marching in North Carolina, 
been denounced by the Republican and Democratic State party chair in 
North Carolina; and we thank them for that.
  So what does that mean for all of us?
  We have work to do. We have work to do. As Justice Learned Hand 
observed, if we are to keep our democracy, there must be one command: 
Thou shalt not ration justice.
  We have criminal justice reform to deal with. We have to address the 
individuals that have been incarcerated unfairly. We must give them a 
second chance. This is not myself speaking, this is religious groups 
speaking. This is Republicans and Democrats speaking about the 
importance of criminal justice reform. We have not heard any discussion 
on that, but we do know that there has been over 200 hateful acts in 
the election aftermath. That is a problem.
  We also know that the electoral college has now, again, selected an 
individual that did not get the most votes from the American people.

  So I would offer to say that, among the work that we have to do 
working to rebuild America and put America first, I certainly join in 
that. We have some healing to do, and we should be doing this in a 
corrective manner. We should be doing our job and looking at some of 
the constitutional fractures that occurred.
  Let me close on one last point that I want to make sure that, as I 
speak, I offer a great respect for the individuals who have offered to 
serve in this government. But I would be remiss if I did not cite a 
shocking episode that occurred on October 28, 2016, in the midst of the 
Presidential election. It is important for the American people to know 
whether they agree or disagree.
  My colleagues, there lies another opportunity for an investigation 
because there is no more storied an agency in law enforcement than the 
FBI. I have the greatest respect--I have worked with them as a young 
lawyer, as a staffer in this body. I have been on a committee that has 
worked with the FBI.
  What was that committee?
  I served on the committee as a staffer to investigate the 
assassinations of Dr. Martin Luther King and John F. Kennedy when we 
opened it again where Chairman Gonzalez and Chairman Stokes served as 
chairpersons of that committee. We worked with then-FBI agents who were 
willing to provide information on how things happened during that 
timeframe. We have always looked to them to investigate and to be the 
armor of investigation to find the truth. But no protocol ever 
suggested that any announcement about an unknowing situation, unrelated 
to anything, could be announced and blatantly interfere in a 
Presidential election.
  We must find out why that determination was made and what leaks were 
forthcoming. Many have written to determine if that is the case. So I 
am looking forward to a thorough investigation in the altering of the 
campaign landscape that occurred historically on October 28, 2016, and 
it did have a damaging and drastic impact statistically in a 1-to-2-
point measure. That was an impact that was not the making of the 
American people. It was not something that was life or death.
  Factually, the ultimate determination is that the announcement was 
irrelevant. It had nothing to do with or did not generate any new 
information on the particular incident that was being addressed at that 
time.
  So I came to the floor today because I believe that we should not let 
things last and fester, and we in the Congress can be factfinders in an 
evenhanded and unbiased way. Our Judiciary Committee set up a task 
force dealing with overregulation. We have done it on antitrust and we 
have done it on criminal justice. Right now, the Constitution is being 
challenged, and aspects of the Constitution, the electoral college, is 
being challenged.
  The interference of a democratic process of the election occurred no 
matter what good intentions were behind it. So the American people 
deserve many a factfinding situation--not in any way a targeting, not 
in any way a finger pointing, but a pure factfinding. This has to be 
corrected. Those who are charged with the responsibility of serving 
this Nation must do it in the context in which they do it. 
Investigations go on until you find the resolve of that investigation 
and the prosecutor, the Attorney General, makes the announcement that 
they will proceed to prosecute or they may not proceed to prosecute.
  So I am very grateful to live in a nation that cherishes the 
Constitution and cherishes our Bill of Rights. I beg that we appreciate 
those who have sought to protest, and we appreciate those who have 
voted because it is a process of democracy. I will accept that. But I 
will also say that the voices of those who are being raised should be 
heard, and we as factfinders should do our job.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

                          ____________________