[House Report 108-215]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]



108th Congress                                                   Report
 1st Session            HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES                108-215
======================================================================
 
             RESOLUTION OF INQUIRY TO THE ATTORNEY GENERAL

                                _______
                                

   July 17, 2003.--Referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be 
                                printed

                                _______
                                

 Mr. Sensenbrenner, from the Committee on the Judiciary, submitted the 
                               following

                             ADVERSE REPORT

                             together with

                            DISSENTING VIEWS

                       [To accompany H. Res. 287]

                  [Including Committee Cost Estimate]

    The Committee on the Judiciary, to whom was referred the 
resolution (H. Res. 287) directing the Attorney General to 
transmit to the House of Representatives not later than 14 days 
after the date of the adoption of this resolution all physical 
and electronic records and documents in his possession related 
to any use of Federal agency resources in any task or action 
involving or relating to Members of the Texas Legislature in 
the period beginning May 11, 2003, and ending May 16, 2003, 
except information the disclosure of which would harm the 
national security interests of the United States, having 
considered the same, reports unfavorably thereon with 
amendments and recommends that the resolution as amended not be 
agreed to.

                                CONTENTS

                                                                   Page
The Amendment....................................................     2
Purpose and Summary..............................................     2
Background and Need for the Legislation..........................     2
Hearings.........................................................     3
Committee Consideration..........................................     3
Vote of the Committee............................................     3
Committee Oversight Findings.....................................     5
New Budget Authority and Tax Expenditures........................     5
Committee Cost Estimate..........................................     5
Performance Goals and Objectives.................................     5
Constitutional Authority Statement...............................     6
Section-by-Section Analysis and Discussion.......................     6
Changes in Existing Law Made by the Resolution, as Reported......     6
Markup Transcript................................................     6
Dissenting Views.................................................    51

    The amendments are as follows:
    Strike all after the resolving clause and insert the 
following:

That the Attorney General is directed to transmit to the House of 
Representatives not later than 30 days after the date of the adoption 
of this resolution all physical and electronic records and documents in 
his possession related to any use of agency resources, the theft of any 
records, and the use of United States congressional staff in any task 
or action involving or relating to Members of the Texas Legislature in 
the period beginning May 11, 2003, and ending May 16, 2003, except 
information the disclosure of which would harm the national security 
interests of the United States.

    Amend the title so as to read:

      Resolution directing the Attorney General to transmit to 
the House of Representatives not later than 30 days after the 
date of the adoption of this resolution all physical and 
electronic records and documents in his possession related to 
any use of Federal agency resources, the theft of any records, 
and the use of United States congressional staff in any task or 
action involving or relating to Members of the Texas 
Legislature in the period beginning May 11, 2003, and ending 
May 16, 2003, except information the disclosure of which would 
harm the national security interests of the United States.

                          Purpose and Summary

    House Resolution 287, introduced by Rep. Green on June 19, 
2003, directs the Attorney General to transmit to the House of 
Representatives not later than 14 days after the date of its 
adoption all physical and electronic records and documents in 
his possession related to any use of Federal agency resources 
in any task or action involving or relating to Members of the 
Texas Legislature in the period beginning May 11, 2003, and 
ending May 16, 2003, except information the disclosure of which 
would harm the national security interests of the United 
States.

                Background and Need for the Legislation

    House Resolution 287 is a resolution of inquiry, which 
pursuant to clause 7 of Rule XIII of the Rules of the House of 
Representatives, directs the Committee to act on the resolution 
within 14 legislative days, or a privileged motion to discharge 
the Committee is in order. In calculating the days available 
for Committee consideration, the day of introduction and the 
day of discharge are not counted.\1\ H. Res. 287 was introduced 
and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary on June 19, 
2003.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ ``House Practice: A Guide to the Rules, Precedents, and 
Procedures of the House'' Ch. 49 Sec. 4, pg. 819 (2003).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Under the rules and precedents of the House, a resolution 
of inquiry is a means by which the House requests information 
from the President of the United States or the head of one of 
the executive departments. According to Deschler's Procedure it 
is a ``simple resolution making a direct request or demand of 
the President or the head of an executive department to furnish 
the House of Representatives with specific factual information 
in the possession of the executive branch.'' \2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \2\ Deschler's Precedents, H. Doc. No. 94-661, 94th Cong., 2d 
Sess., vol. 7, ch. 24, Sec. 8.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    A Committee has a number of choices after a resolution of 
inquiry is referred to it. It may vote on the resolution up or 
down, or amend it. It can report favorably, adversely, or with 
no recommendation. The fact that a Committee reports a 
resolution of inquiry adversely does not necessarily mean that 
the Committee opposes looking into this matter. In the past, 
resolutions of inquiry have frequently been reported adversely 
for several reasons. The two most common reasons are 
substantial compliance and competing investigations.
    In the first case, the Executive Branch may deliver 
documents which substantially comply with the resolution, thus 
making it unnecessary for the Committee to report the 
resolution favorably for floor action. In the second case, a 
Committee may decide to report a resolution of inquiry 
adversely because it may impede another investigation that is 
regarded as the more appropriate avenue for inquiry.
    According to a May 12, 2003, press release issued by the 
Texas Department of Public Safety, the public was asked for 
assistance in locating 53 Texas legislators who had 
``disappeared.'' According to the release, under the Texas 
Constitution, the majority of members present in session in the 
Texas State House can vote to compel the presence of enough 
members to make a quorum. Members of the House did so and 
directed the Sergeant-at-Arms of the House and the Department 
of Public Safety to locate the absent members and bring them 
back to the State capital.
    On May 27, 2003, Sen. Joseph Lieberman of Connecticut sent 
a letter to the Office of the Inspector General of the U.S. 
Department of Justice asking for ``a full investigation into 
this matter.'' After receipt of the letter from the Senator, in 
a statement to the press, the Office of the Inspector General 
disclosed that on June 4, 2003, it began investigating what, if 
any, Department of Justice resources were expended in 
connection with this matter. As of the filing of this report, 
that investigation is still ongoing.
    The Committee believes that an investigation by the 
Inspector General of the Department of Justice is the more 
appropriate avenue to determine whether or not any Federal 
agency resources were properly or improperly used in relation 
to the Members of the Texas legislature. Because this 
resolution of inquiry may impede that investigation, the 
resolution is reported adversely.

                                Hearings

    No hearings were held on H. Res. 287 by the Committee on 
the Judiciary.

                        Committee Consideration

    On July 9, 2003, the Committee met in open session and 
adversely reported the resolution H. Res. 287 as amended by a 
rollcall vote of 19 to 15, a quorum being present.

                         Vote of the Committee

    In compliance with clause 3(b) of Rule XIII of the House of 
Representatives, the Committee sets fort the following rollcall 
votes that occurred during the Committee's consideration of H. 
Res. 287.
    1. A motion was made by Mr. Watt to postpone consideration 
of the resolution H. Res. 287 for 1 day. The motion was 
defeated by a rollcall vote of 12 to 18.

                                                   ROLLCALL NO. 1
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                       Ayes            Nays           Present
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Hyde........................................................
Mr. Coble.......................................................                              X
Mr. Smith.......................................................                              X
Mr. Gallegly....................................................                              X
Mr. Goodlatte...................................................                              X
Mr. Chabot......................................................                              X
Mr. Jenkins.....................................................                              X
Mr. Cannon......................................................                              X
Mr. Bachus......................................................                              X
Mr. Hostettler..................................................                              X
Mr. Green.......................................................                              X
Mr. Keller......................................................                              X
Ms. Hart........................................................                              X
Mr. Flake.......................................................                              X
Mr. Pence.......................................................
Mr. Forbes......................................................
Mr. King........................................................                              X
Mr. Carter......................................................                              X
Mr. Feeney......................................................                              X
Mrs. Blackburn..................................................                              X
Mr. Conyers.....................................................              X
Mr. Berman......................................................              X
Mr. Boucher.....................................................
Mr. Nadler......................................................
Mr. Scott.......................................................              X
Mr. Watt........................................................              X
Ms. Lofgren.....................................................              X
Ms. Jackson Lee.................................................              X
Ms. Waters......................................................              X
Mr. Meehan......................................................              X
Mr. Delahunt....................................................              X
Mr. Wexler......................................................
Ms. Baldwin.....................................................
Mr. Weiner......................................................              X
Mr. Schiff......................................................              X
Ms. Sanchez.....................................................              X
Mr. Sensenbrenner, Chairman.....................................                              X
                                                                 -----------------------------------------------
    Total.......................................................             12              18
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    2. Final Passage. The motion to report the resolution, H. 
Res. 287 as amended, adversely was agreed to by a rollcall vote 
of 19 to 15.

                                                   ROLLCALL NO. 2
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                       Ayes            Nays           Present
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Hyde........................................................
Mr. Coble.......................................................              X
Mr. Smith.......................................................              X
Mr. Gallegly....................................................              X
Mr. Goodlatte...................................................
Mr. Chabot......................................................              X
Mr. Jenkins.....................................................              X
Mr. Cannon......................................................              X
Mr. Bachus......................................................              X
Mr. Hostettler..................................................              X
Mr. Green.......................................................              X
Mr. Keller......................................................              X
Ms. Hart........................................................              X
Mr. Flake.......................................................              X
Mr. Pence.......................................................              X
Mr. Forbes......................................................              X
Mr. King........................................................              X
Mr. Carter......................................................              X
Mr. Feeney......................................................              X
Mrs. Blackburn..................................................              X
Mr. Conyers.....................................................                              X
Mr. Berman......................................................                              X
Mr. Boucher.....................................................
Mr. Nadler......................................................                              X
Mr. Scott.......................................................                              X
Mr. Watt........................................................                              X
Ms. Lofgren.....................................................                              X
Ms. Jackson Lee.................................................                              X
Ms. Waters......................................................                              X
Mr. Meehan......................................................                              X
Mr. Delahunt....................................................                              X
Mr. Wexler......................................................                              X
Ms. Baldwin.....................................................                              X
Mr. Weiner......................................................                              X
Mr. Schiff......................................................                              X
Ms. Sanchez.....................................................                              X
Mr. Sensenbrenner, Chairman.....................................              X
                                                                 -----------------------------------------------
    Total.......................................................             19              15
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                      Committee Oversight Findings

    In compliance with clause 3(c)(1) of Rule XIII of the Rules 
of the House of Representatives, the Committee reports that the 
findings and recommendations of the Committee, based on 
oversight activities under clause 2(b)(1) of Rule X of the 
Rules of the House of Representatives, are incorporated in the 
descriptive portions of this report.

               New Budget Authority and Tax Expenditures

    Clause 3(c)(2) of House rule XIII is inapplicable because 
this legislation does not provide new budgetary authority or 
increased tax expenditures.

                        Committee Cost Estimate

    In compliance with clause 3(d)(2) of the Rule XIII of the 
Rules of the House of Representatives, the Committee estimates 
the costs of implementing the resolution would be minimal. The 
Congressional Budget Office did not provide a cost estimate for 
the resolution.

                    Performance Goals and Objectives

    H. Res. 287 does not authorize funding. Therefore, clause 
3(c)(4) of Rule XIII of the Rules of the House of 
Representatives is inapplicable.

                   Constitutional Authority Statement

    Pursuant to clause 3(d)(1) of Rule XIII of the Rules of the 
House of Representatives, the Committee finds that the rule 
does not apply because H.Res 287 is not a bill or joint 
resolution that may be enacted into law.

               Section-by-Section Analysis and Discussion

    H. Res. 287 as amended by the Committee is a simple 
resolution, that directs the Attorney General to transmit to 
the House of Representatives not later than 30 days after the 
date of the adoption of this resolution all physical and 
electronic records and documents in his possession related to 
any use of agency resources, the theft of any records, and the 
use of United States congressional staff in any task or action 
involving or relating to Members of the Texas Legislature in 
the period beginning May 11, 2003, and ending May 16, 2003, 
except information the disclosure of which would harm the 
national security interests of the United States.

            Changes in Existing Law Made by the Resolution, 
                              as Reported

    In compliance with clause 3(e) of Rule XIII of the Rules of 
the House of Representatives, the Committee notes H. Res. 287 
makes no changes to existing law.

                           Markup Transcript







                            BUSINESS MEETING

                        WEDNESDAY, JULY 9, 2003

                  House of Representatives,
                                Committee on the Judiciary,
                                                    Washington, DC.
    The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:00 a.m., in 
Room 2141, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. F. James 
Sensenbrenner, Jr., [Chairman of the Committee] presiding.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The Committee will be in order. A 
working quorum is present. Pursuant to notice, I now call up 
the resolution H. Res. 287, a resolution directing the Attorney 
General to transmit to the House of Representatives not later 
than 14 days after the adoption of this resolution all physical 
and electronic records and documents in his possession related 
to any use of Federal agency resources in any task or action 
invoking or relating to members of the Texas Legislature in the 
period beginning May 11, 2003, and ending May 16, 2003, except 
information the disclosure of which would harm the national 
security interests of the United States, for purposes of markup 
and move its adverse recommendation to the House.
    Without objection, the resolution will be considered as 
read and open for amendment at any point.
    [The resolution, H. Res. 287, follows:]
    
    
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The Chair now recognizes himself 
for 5 minutes.
    This resolution, which was introduced by Representative 
Green of Texas, directs the Attorney General to transmit to the 
House documents related to the use of--any use of Federal 
agency resources in any task or action involving or relating to 
members of the Texas Legislature for a 5-day period in May 
2003.
    Now, I notice that many of my colleagues from Texas have 
bumper stickers on their car that says ``Don't Mess With 
Texas.'' Well, what this resolution does is bring Texas' mess 
to Washington and ask us to work on it. And I don't think that 
that's something that we ought to be doing. Let Texas solve 
their own problems.
    Under the rules and precedents of the House, a resolution 
of inquiry is one means by which the House requests information 
from the President or the head of an executive department. The 
Committee must act on the resolution within 14 legislative days 
or a privilege motion to discharge the Committee is in order.
    The motion before the Committee is to report the resolution 
adversely. The fact that a Committee reports a resolution of 
inquiry adversely does not necessarily mean that the Committee 
opposes looking into the matter. In the past, resolutions of 
inquiry have frequently been reported adversely for several 
reasons. Two of the most common reasons are substantial 
compliance and competing investigations.
    In the first case, the executive branch may deliver 
documents which substantially comply with the resolution, thus 
making it unnecessary for the Committee to report the 
resolution favorably for floor action.
    In the second case, the Committee may decide to report a 
resolution of inquiry adversely because it competes with other 
investigations that are regarded as the most appropriate avenue 
of the inquiry.
    The second case is the situation that we're faced with 
today. According to a May 12 press release issued by the Texas 
Department of Public Safety, the public was asked for 
assistance in locating 53 Texas legislators who had 
disappeared. According to the release, under the Texas 
Constitution the majority of members present in session in the 
Texas State House can vote to compel the presence of enough 
members to make a quorum. Members of the House did so and 
directed the Sergeant-at-Arms of the House and the Department 
of Public Safety to locate the absent members and to bring them 
back to the State capital.
    On May 27, Senator Lieberman of Connecticut sent a letter 
to the Office of Inspector General of the U.S. Department of 
Justice asking for a full investigation into this matter. After 
receipt of this letter from the Senator, in a statement to the 
press the IG's office disclosed that on June 4, his office 
began investigating what, if any, Department of Justice 
resources were expended in connection with this matter. That 
investigation is still ongoing.
    An investigation by the Inspector General of the Department 
of Justice is the more appropriate avenue to determine whether 
or not any Federal agency resources were properly or improperly 
used in relation to members of the Texas Legislature. Because 
this resolution of inquiry competes with that investigation, 
the resolution should be reported adversely, and I urge the 
Members to support the motion to report adversely and yield 
back the balance of my time.
    The gentleman from Michigan, Mr. Conyers, is not present. 
Does anybody wish to give the opening statement for the 
minority? The gentleman from the Commonwealth of Virginia, far 
removed from Texas, is recognized for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Scott. I thank the gentleman for yielding. Not quite as 
far--well, it might be as far further than Wisconsin, but I'd 
have to see.
    Mr. Chairman, I have an article from the Fort Worth Star-
Telegram that says that a spokesman for the Department of 
Justice says it's not an investigation that they're doing. I 
would hope that we would--that we would report the resolution 
favorably. All it does is ask for documents. I think it is a 
very serious allegation when you have Federal resources being 
allegedly used for partisan political purposes. I think that's 
something this Judiciary Committee ought to look into. We're 
not asking anybody to do an investigation, just to give us 
documents so that we can review what happened.
    So I would hope, Mr. Chairman, that the recommendation 
would be that the resolution be reported favorably, and I yield 
back the balance of my time.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. Without objection, all Members may 
insert opening statements in the record at this point.
    The question is on report----
    Mr. Scott. I'm sorry.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The question is on reporting the 
resolution adversely. Those in favor will----
    Mr. Scott. Mr. Chairman? I move that the substitute motion 
that the amendment be reported favorably.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The parliamentarian advises me that 
that is not in order. The motion to report adversely must be 
voted down first. The question is--the gentleman from 
California, Mr. Schiff. The gentleman's recognized for 5 
minutes. How far away is California from Texas?
    The gentleman is recognized. The gentleman from 
California's microphone is not working. Oh, no. Maybe it's 
because you blew a fuse in there the last markup.
    Would the gentleman from California like to get to the top 
row? Because I know the microphones are working there.
    Mr. Schiff. Mr. Chairman, I'm dying to get to the top row. 
[Laughter.]
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The Chair has reset the clock, and 
the gentleman's recognized for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Schiff. I thank the Chairman. Much better.
    Mr. Chairman, I wanted to speak this morning in support of 
the resolution and in opposition to the motion to report it 
unfavorably. It is true that California is a long distance from 
Texas, but the capital is not far from the Department of 
Justice. Having come from the Department of Justice, I 
recognize the value of congressional oversight of what the 
Department does, and I think there is tremendous value in 
having these documents transmitted to the House of 
Representatives so that we can do our oversight job thoroughly 
and that we not leave purely to the discretion of the 
Department of Justice how diligent an inquiry to undertake of 
the actions of that Department and its agents and what appears 
to be a misuse or potential misuse of Federal resources on a 
political matter.
    We have the opportunity through this resolution to review--
to review the actual records and documents in the possession of 
the relevant agencies, to make our own determination about 
whether the Federal Government was called upon improperly to 
conduct an investigation into political opposition in Texas, 
something that I don't think anyone has claimed, at least not 
recently, that they have proper authority to be investigating 
or is a proper utilization of Federal resources.
    So rather than merely delegate to the Justice Department to 
conduct an inquiry into possible misuse of Federal resources, I 
think that issue should be addressed in this Congress. And for 
that reason, I oppose the motion to report unfavorably and urge 
my colleagues to do the same. And I yield back the balance of 
my time.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. At last we hear from the gentleman 
from Texas, Mr. Smith, who is recognized for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Smith. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Mr. Chairman, this resolution should be adversely reported 
by the Committee. Multiple inquiries either are underway or 
have been completed. The Department of Homeland Security's 
Inspector General recently cleared the Department of any 
improper involvement in the Texas Legislature redistricting 
session. The Federal Aviation Administration also has been 
cleared of any improper activities.
    The Inspector General of the U.S. Department of Justice has 
already begun an investigation into this issue. This 
investigation is well underway but has not yet been completed. 
These investigations, not a partisan resolution of inquiry, are 
the proper way to obtain information on Government activities. 
Unless we have some reason to believe that this process is not 
working, we have no legitimate reason to make broad demands on 
the Department of Justice.
    We need to give the Office of the Inspector General time to 
complete its investigation rather than second-guess the 
Inspector General before the process is completed. Until the 
Inspector General at the U.S. Department of Justice has 
provided Congress with a report, it is entirely unnecessary for 
us to demand the release of any records. In fact, it's a waste 
of this Committee's time and efforts. We should adversely 
report this resolution, Mr. Chairman, and I will yield back the 
balance of my time.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The other Representative from 
Texas, Ms. Jackson Lee----
    Ms. Jackson Lee. I thank the Chairman----
    Chairman Sensenbrenner.--is recognized for 5 minutes.
    Ms. Jackson Lee. I thank the Chairman very much. I ask to 
strike the last word.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The gentlewoman is recognized for 5 
minutes.
    Ms. Jackson Lee. I'm glad to be the other Member from 
Texas, and I'm glad to be able to ask this Committee to 
consider the distinguished gentleman from Texas Mr. Green's 
resolution as a resolution of truth and a resolution of duty. 
It is interesting, having sat in this Committee I think almost 
10 years as a Member of the United States House of 
Representatives, and to my knowledge, this Committee has never 
turned its face away from any opportunity to investigate and to 
in some instances instigate and to create, if you will, a 
pattern of responsibility and oversight.
    In many instances, some of us disagreed with the direction 
of this Committee. Having served this Congress under the 
administration of William Jefferson Clinton, I can assure you 
that there was not one moment that this Judiciary Committee did 
not attempt to investigate that Administration. Vigorously 
disagreeing with the Articles of Impeachment and the basis upon 
which those articles were represented, many of us still 
participated in the process of investigation of the Presidency 
of the United States of America.
    This resolution is a simple resolution. It is not a 
resolution that is loaded with politics. It's loaded with 
facts. And it simply asks the Attorney General to transmit to 
the House of Representatives not later than 14 days of the date 
of this adoption all documents, electronic records and other 
documents in their possession, with respect to the use of any 
agency resources, benign, nonpartisan, non-instigating, only a 
resolution of truth.
    I disagree with my distinguished colleague from Texas. 
There is not an investigation going on at the Department of 
Justice. It is simply a review. It is the job of the House 
Judiciary Committee to oversee the Justice Department for this 
Congress. It is the job of the Inspector General to oversee the 
Justice Department for the executive branch. And there are 
numerous allegations regarding the use of Federal resources.
    The Rudman Report recently came out and said that we are 
not prepared with respect to our first responders in the local 
communities for, God forbid, another tragic incident similar to 
9/11. We might as well just lay it on the table. We are not 
prepared. And, frankly, it saddens me, but it frightens me. And 
that's a job that we have to continue to work on as Members of 
Congress.
    But how ridiculous it is when first responders are not 
receiving the dollars that they need and there are questions as 
to whether or not the homeland is truly secure that we are 
failing to ask the questions whether or not Federal resources 
that should be used constructively to protect the homeland are 
being frivolously used to track down, intimidate, and frighten 
individuals who've used their constitutional right, their 
political right, to make a position known not only to the State 
but to the Nation.
    We owe it to the American people to pass this resolution 
out favorably. It is ridiculous that there were Federal 
resources--in this instance, Homeland Security resources--
potentially used to track down an individual elected by his 
constituency to represent his constituency and to act upon his 
conscience. It is well known and documented that those 
resources out of Homeland Security was used under false 
pretenses to track someone in an airplane under the allegations 
or suggestions that that plane might have been lost.
    It is well known that there had been calls to suggest by 
the Majority Leader that we should call out the FBI and call 
out others who might be able to assist, and the U.S. Attorney 
in Texas was researching this question. Those are Federal 
resources.
    It also from my perspective brings back the fear of 1984, 
Big Brother is watching you. How dare the Federal Government 
engage in domestic surveillance to the extent that had nothing 
to do with securing the homeland or preventing a crime.
    This Judiciary Committee will be less than its status, will 
be, if you will, un-representative of this room and the 
responsibilities that we have if we do not allow, I think, this 
very plainly worded resolution that simply asks for 
documentation, Mr. Chairman, and asks----
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The gentlewoman's time----
    Ms. Jackson Lee.--for us to be able to----
    Chairman Sensenbrenner.--has expired.
    Ms. Jackson Lee.--do our job. I would ask this to be 
favorably reported out.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. For what purpose does the 
gentlewoman from California seek recognition?
    Ms. Waters. Strike the last word.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The gentlewoman's recognized for 5 
minutes.
    Ms. Waters. Mr. Chairman, I strongly support the resolution 
of inquiry and urge all my colleagues to support it. It's 
essential that the House promptly gain access to all of the 
facts that bear upon this sorry episode. My colleagues have 
ably detailed the facts, and so I won't repeat them. Suffice it 
to say that both press reports and the words of Majority Leader 
DeLay himself strongly suggest that resources of the Department 
of Homeland Security were used, not to fight terrorism but for 
partisan political purposes.
    We need to get to the bottom of this immediately. If the 
facts are as they now appear, we also need to take decisive 
action to ensure that resources of the Department of Homeland 
Security are never again used for partisan political purposes. 
The Homeland Security Department exists to protect all 
Americans from terrorists, not to assist Mr. DeLay in his 
unfair, unprecedented efforts to redraw Texas congressional 
district lines in an attempt to add Republican House seats. The 
Homeland Security Department is a resource of and for the 
American people, not the Republican Party leadership.
    Mr. Chairman, once we act on the resolution of inquiry, it 
is essential that the Republican House leadership bring this 
resolution to the House floor for a vote. I've seen the same 
press reports that all of us have read suggesting that the only 
reason that this issue is before us today is because the 
resolution would become a privileged resolution that could be 
brought to the House floor by any Member of Congress if the 
Committee of jurisdiction, our Committee, does not act on it.
    This resolution presents a test for the Republican House 
leadership. Will they allow the House to work its will on this 
issue by bringing this resolution to the floor for a vote? Or 
will they bury this resolution and make themselves party to a 
coverup?
    Mr. Chairman, it is vital that it be the House itself that 
requests and receives the information sought by the resolution 
of inquiry, not some subgroup of individual Members of Congress 
acting in their personal capacity. All Members of the body 
should have the same rights to examine the evidence. Under 
clause 7, rule XIII of the House Rules, the House has a right 
to request this information from the executive branch, and it 
surely has ample reason to do so. The fact that Inspector 
Generals at the Department of Homeland Security or the Justice 
Department may be investigating this incident or that certain 
Members of Congress may be seeking information in their 
individual capacity under the Freedom of Information Act is no 
reason for the House itself not to exercise its oversight 
powers.
    I believe that we will set a terrible precedent that will 
substantially diminish the House rights and hamstring future 
exercises of our oversight authority if we refuse to request 
information from the executive branch simply because a 
Department's Inspector General is investigating.
    The correspondence generated by the Administration in 
connection with this controversy clearly demonstrates that the 
executive branch is stonewalling and slow-walking those Members 
of Congress who are seeking information from the Inspector 
General or through the Freedom of Information Act. I believe 
and certainly hope that the executive branch would not refuse 
to supply this information to the House if the House were to 
request it collectively by adopting this resolution of inquiry.
    It is my belief that the Administration would comply with 
an official request from the House when this is certainly 
something that is important to know.
    Mr. Chairman, I strongly believe that congressional 
redistricting should be a decennial event, not a perennial one. 
And so in May of this year, I introduced H.R. 2090, a bill to 
limit the redistricting that the States may do after an 
apportionment of representatives. My bill, which now has 20 
cosponsors, limits congressional redistricting in each State to 
one redistricting plan every decade in response to the 
decennial census unless a Federal court orders additional 
redistricting to address constitutional or Voting Rights Act 
problems. The bill forbids State courts from entering orders 
that require additional congressional redistricting. I hope 
that my bill will receive a fair hearing from my Subcommittee 
on the Constitution.
    Now, given the tremendous disruption to the constituent 
relationships that occur when any constituent's Representative 
changes as a result of redistricting, our goal should be to 
avoid more frequent redistricting than absolutely necessary. 
Yet Mr. DeLay's partisan antics make it abundantly clear that 
we can no longer rely upon the longstanding tradition of 
limiting congressional redistricting to one plan per decade. 
And so I believe----
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The gentlewoman's time----
    Ms. Waters.--that we need to codify this practice----
    Chairman Sensenbrenner.--has expired.
    Ms. Waters.--and make it law. I will ask unanimous consent 
to put the balance of my statement in the record.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. Without objection.
    [The prepared statement of Ms. Waters follows:]
    
    
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. For what purpose does the gentleman 
from Virginia seek recognition?
    Mr. Goodlatte. Move to strike the last word.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The gentleman is recognized for 5 
minutes.
    Mr. Goodlatte. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield to the 
gentleman from Texas.
    Mr. Smith. I thank my friend from Virginia for yielding.
    Mr. Chairman, I'd like to direct a couple of questions to 
the gentlewoman from Texas, Ms. Jackson Lee, although I see she 
may have left the room. Oh, there she is. I'm sorry. I didn't 
see you.
    Ms. Jackson Lee, I'd like to ask you a couple of questions. 
As you may well know, this privilege resolution is amendable, 
and I'm thinking of offering a couple of amendments which I 
want to know if you would support. It was widely reported in 
local newspapers during the redistricting process of a couple 
of weeks ago--a couple of months ago that one Member of 
Congress might have been implicated in the theft of a 
redistricting map which was State property and in conveying 
that map across State lines and transferring it back to 
Washington, DC, which admittedly and allegedly could be a 
Federal offense. And I'm wondering if the gentlewoman from 
Texas would agree to expand the resolution to include an 
investigation of that alleged crime.
    My second question is that, according to reports, also, 
there were two Members of Congress who had their Washington 
staff down in Austin trying to thwart the redistricting 
process, and those staff were being paid for, of course, by 
Federal monies, and thereby that might have been both a 
violation of the ethics rules under which we live in the House 
as well as Federal law. And I'm wondering if the gentlewoman 
from Texas would agree to support an amendment to broaden the 
investigation called for in the resolution to include that 
incident as well.
    Ms. Jackson Lee. As the distinguished gentleman from Texas 
knows, on the first account, the staff issue, the State 
investigation of that found that there was no culpability. But 
if the distinguished gentleman will support reporting this 
resolution out favorably, I would suggest to him that all 
records regarding matters dealing with this question of 
redistricting and the use of Federal resources as well as any 
other attending issues certainly would be eligible for 
documentation being received from the Department of Justice. 
And I would encourage the gentleman----
    Mr. Conyers. Would the gentlewoman yield?
    Ms. Jackson Lee.--to help in supporting this to be reported 
out favorably.
    I yield to the distinguished gentleman. Would he be willing 
to do so?
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The time belongs to the gentleman 
from Virginia.
    Mr. Conyers. Would the gentleman yield? Would the gentleman 
from Virginia yield to me?
    Mr. Goodlatte. I yield to the gentleman.
    Mr. Conyers. Thank you very much, Mr. Goodlatte.
    I would like to inquire if I were to go along with the 
proposal, would the gentleman support the proposition that is 
before----
    Mr. Smith. I'll be happy to draw the amendments up 
specifically as I've just outlined and see if the gentleman 
would support them.
    I should say to the gentleman that he needs to realize that 
all the individuals implicated in the investigations that I've 
suggested are from his side of the aisle. And if he would----
    Mr. Conyers. Well, that's a terrifying proposing.
    Mr. Smith. Okay. Well, if you're willing to support that 
amendment, then I don't mind drafting it.
    Mr. Conyers. This is frightening and it's getting very 
dangerous, but you haven't drawn them up yet so this is just 
theoretical.
    Mr. Smith. That is correct. I don't have them in writing 
yet.
    Mr. Conyers. Well, would you get--would you--if they were 
drawn up and if our side drew them up for you, what would you 
do then? [Laughter.]
    Mr. Smith. As I said, I was referring to amendments that I 
was draft, and I'll be happy to proceed if the gentleman will 
support them.
    Mr. Berman. Would the gentleman yield? Would the gentleman 
from Virginia yield?
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The time belongs to the gentleman 
from----
    Mr. Goodlatte. I yield. I yield to the gentleman from 
California.
    Mr. Berman. I thank the gentleman for yielding. If I might 
ask my friend from Texas, was he suggesting that this 
investigation's scope should not be broadened to investigate 
whether any congressional staff from either party's Members of 
Congress in the Texas delegation----
    Mr. Smith. If the gentleman would yield----
    Mr. Berman.--used Federal funds to go down to--to go down 
to Austin, just Democratic Members' staffs?
    Mr. Smith. No, no. If the gentleman would yield, I wasn't 
suggesting that. What I was suggesting was that based upon 
reports in newspapers, these specific incidents occurred, and 
they occurred involving certain individuals and they incurred a 
certain theft of a map and so forth. It is those incidents that 
have been reported that I thought perhaps should be 
investigated.
    Now, if the gentleman will support that amendment, as Mr. 
Conyers might, then I can proceed to draft them. But they were 
very incident-specific because those were the incidents 
reported in the local newspapers.
    Ms. Jackson Lee. Would the gentleman from----
    Mr. Watt. Would the gentleman yield?
    Mr. Berman. If I may just on the yield just ask one other 
question. I was stunned to hear about this issue of alleged 
thefts of reapportionment maps. The Texas Legislature doesn't 
immediately post all reapportionment maps on the websites so 
the people of Texas can see what plans are----
    Mr. Smith. As the gentleman knows----
    Mr. Berman. I'm shocked.
    Mr. Smith. As the gentleman knows from his California 
experience, a lot of maps are written. They are not immediately 
posted. And if a map is taken prior to posting, it is still 
State property. And it is still theft, and it is still possibly 
a Federal offense if it crosses State lines, as was the case 
here.
    Mr. Berman. It's secret from----
    Mr. Smith. Mr. Berman, the issue is not secret/not secret. 
The issue is theft.
    Mr. Berman. Oh, okay.
    Mr. Smith. And whether or not you would join me in 
investigating that theft.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The time of the gentleman from 
Virginia has expired.
    The gentleman from North Carolina.
    Mr. Watt. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that 
consideration of this matter be delayed until Mr. Smith from 
Texas has the opportunity to draft his amendments so that we 
could consider them. I think he has an excellent idea, and he 
obviously hadn't drafted the amendments. I think there's a 
growing element of----
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. Is there objection to the unanimous 
consent request of the gentleman from North Carolina?
    Mr. Coble. Objection.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. Objection is heard.
    Mr. Conyers. I didn't hear it.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. I did. [Laughter.]
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The other gentleman from North 
Carolina is very soft-spoken. You should heed his advice more 
often.
    For what purpose does the gentlewoman from California seek 
recognition?
    Ms. Sanchez. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The gentlewoman's recognized for 5 
minutes.
    Ms. Sanchez. Today we're considering a bill that is 
important because of what it represents to us as Americans. It 
allows Congress to live up to its responsibility to oversee 
Federal agencies, such as the Department of Justice and the 
Department of Homeland Security. And it allows the American 
people to have peace of mind that their Government is not in 
the business of hiding evidence, of covering up, or of secrecy.
    Unfortunately, without a bill like House Resolution 287, 
the American people will have plenty of reason to fear their 
own Government.
    Despite repeated requests from Members of the Homeland 
Security Committee, the Department of Homeland Security has 
refused to reveal information relating to the Department's 
discussions with or activities on behalf of the Texas 
Department of Public Safety and various elected officials 
relating to the tracking of Texas State legislators.
    The Department of Justice has been investigating this 
affair since June 4, 2003, but it, too, has released absolutely 
no information despite repeated requests by various Members of 
Congress.
    These Departments are refusing to release written 
documents, audiotapes and/or full transcripts relating to its 
involvement with the incident, and I find this very troubling. 
The Department of Homeland Security is charged with a very 
important and sensitive mission: to guard the homeland against 
terrorist attack. And with great power comes great 
responsibility. I'm deeply concerned that elected officials 
working with the Texas Department of Public Safety would seek 
to employ the resources of the Department of Homeland Security 
for partisan political purposes. Likewise, I'm equally 
concerned about DHS and DOJ's unwillingness to release the 
records pertaining to this incident.
    There is no question that the Department of Homeland 
Security was asked to intervene by someone. There is no 
question that the Department of Homeland Security did, in fact, 
intervene. There is no question that the DHS has records 
pertaining to these requests and the subsequent action taken by 
the Department. And there is no question that the people of the 
United States have a right to know why they intervened and who 
requested that Department's involvement.
    In fact, the only question on the table is why won't the 
Department of Homeland Security and the Department of Justice 
tell us what happened. If there is nothing to hide, then why 
not release the information?
    The bottom line is this: This is a very serious issue. The 
use of Federal law enforcement resources in a political matter 
was wholly inappropriate and a gross abuse of power. If there 
is one thing we learned from Watergate, it's that Americans 
will not tolerate the use of law enforcement to pursue a 
political agenda. Americans expect more from their elected 
leaders. We as elected officials have a responsibility to work 
within the law, and when power is abused, the public has a 
right to know. The American people deserve to have these 
questions answered. It is time that we take this next step. 
Congress must not sit back and allow a Federal agency to 
completely disregard its request for information. If we allow 
that to happen, then we have completely shirked our 
responsibilities to the American people.
    This bill provides a good opportunity for Congress to 
investigate this situation, to help show that no Administration 
at any time should permit such actions, and to show that any 
Administration at any time must be willing to take a careful 
look into the actions of its agencies.
    I urge my colleagues to support this bill----
    Ms. Jackson Lee. Would the gentlelady yield----
    Ms. Sanchez.--and I yield back the balance----
    Ms. Jackson Lee. Would the gentlelady yield? Would the 
gentlelady yield?
    Ms. Sanchez. I will.
    Ms. Jackson Lee. I thank the distinguished gentlelady, and 
I would appreciate it if I could ask the gentleman from Texas a 
question, Mr. Smith. If the gentlelady would yield to him, I 
think I'm not controlling the time.
    Ms. Sanchez. I will.
    Ms. Jackson Lee. Thank you.
    Mr. Smith, the unanimous consent was objected to, but I'm 
still trying to understand. You'd be prepared to support this 
resolution to be reported out favorably?
    Mr. Smith. If the gentlewoman would yield, no, I didn't say 
that. What I asked was: Would you be willing to support an 
amendment that would call for the investigation of the two 
incidences that I described?
    Ms. Jackson Lee. I made my point very clear that I believe 
the culpability of the individuals have already been proven to 
not be such. But certainly I would support any effort----
    Mr. Smith. If the gentlewoman----
    Ms. Jackson Lee.--to get at the truth. So, yes, would you 
now support this resolution being reported out favorably?
    Mr. Smith. Did I understand you to say you would support 
the amendments that I might offer?
    Ms. Jackson Lee. I indicated that I would be interested in 
supporting getting at the truth.
    Mr. Smith. Well, that didn't answer my question.
    Ms. Jackson Lee. Well, you haven't answered mine. Would 
you----
    Mr. Smith. Yes, I did. I was very explicit in answering 
your question.
    Ms. Jackson Lee. And that is what, that you would support 
the resolution?
    Mr. Smith. That I would not support the resolution, but I 
would try to improve it to see if you would support my 
amendment.
    Ms. Jackson Lee. If she would reclaim your time, I'd like 
to continue to have your time, Ms. Sanchez.
    Ms. Sanchez. I will, and I will yield to the gentlewoman 
from Texas.
    Ms. Jackson Lee. I thank you so very much. I see----
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The time of the gentlewoman from 
California has expired. [Laughter.]
    Mr. Watt. Mr. Chairman?
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The gentleman from North Carolina, 
Mr. Watt.
    Mr. Watt. Mr. Chairman, I move that consideration of this 
resolution be delayed until a time certain to be set by the 
Chairman of the Committee no later than tomorrow afternoon at 
2:00 p.m. to enable Mr. Smith of Texas to draft and----
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The question is on the motion to 
postpone to a day certain. Those in favor will say aye. 
Opposed, no.
    The noes appear to have it----
    Mr. Conyers. I ask for a record vote.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. A rollcall is ordered. The question 
is on the motion to postpone to a day certain to be chosen by 
the Chair not later than 2:00 p.m. tomorrow. Those in favor of 
the motion will as your names are called answer aye, those 
opposed no, and the clerk will call the roll.
    The Clerk. Mr. Hyde?
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. Coble?
    Mr. Coble. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Coble, no. Mr. Smith?
    Mr. Smith. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Smith, no. Mr. Gallegly?
    Mr. Gallegly. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Gallegly, no. Mr. Goodlatte?
    Mr. Goodlatte. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Goodlatte, no. Mr. Chabot?
    Mr. Chabot. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Chabot, no. Mr. Jenkins?
    Mr. Jenkins. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Jenkins, no. Mr. Cannon?
    Mr. Cannon. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Cannon, no. Mr. Bachus?
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. Hostettler?
    Mr. Hostettler. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Hostettler, no. Mr. Green?
    Mr. Green. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Green, no. Mr. Keller?
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Ms. Hart?
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. Flake?
    Mr. Flake. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Flake, no. Mr. Pence?
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. Forbes?
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. King?
    Mr. King. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. King, no. Mr. Carter?
    Mr. Carter. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Carter, no. Mr. Feeney?
    Mr. Feeney. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Feeney, no. Mrs. Blackburn?
    Mrs. Blackburn. No.
    The Clerk. Mrs. Blackburn, no. Mr. Conyers?
    Mr. Conyers. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Conyers, aye. Mr. Berman?
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. Boucher?
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. Nadler?
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. Scott?
    Mr. Scott. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Scott, aye. Mr. Watt?
    Mr. Watt. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Watt, aye. Ms. Lofgren?
    Ms. Lofgren. Aye.
    The Clerk. Ms. Lofgren, aye. Ms. Jackson Lee?
    Ms. Jackson Lee. Aye.
    The Clerk. Ms. Jackson
    The Clerk. Ms. Jackson Lee, aye. Ms. Waters?
    Ms. Waters. Aye.
    The Clerk. Ms. Waters, aye. Mr. Meehan?
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. Delahunt?
    Mr. Delahunt. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Delahunt, aye. Mr. Wexler?
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Ms. Baldwin?
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. Weiner?
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. Schiff?
    Mr. Schiff. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Schiff, aye. Ms. Sanchez?
    Ms. Sanchez. Aye.
    The Clerk. Ms. Sanchez, aye. Mr. Chairman?
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Chairman, no.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. Members who wish to cast or change 
their vote?
    The gentleman from Alabama, Mr. Bachus?
    Mr. Bachus. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Bachus, no.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The gentleman from Florida, Mr. 
Keller?
    Mr. Keller. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Keller, no.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The gentlewoman from Pennsylvania, 
Ms. Hart?
    Ms. Hart. No.
    The Clerk. Ms. Hart, no.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. Further Members who wish to cast--
the gentleman from California, Mr. Berman?
    Mr. Berman. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Berman, aye.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. Further Members who wish to cast?
    The gentleman from New York, Mr. Weiner?
    The Clerk. Mr. Chairman, Mr. Nadler is not recorded.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. No, this is Mr. Weiner.
    The Clerk. Oh, I am sorry, Mr. Weiner, excuse me.
    Mr. Weiner. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Weiner, aye.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. Further Members who wish to cast or 
change their vote?
    [No response.]
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. If not, the clerk will report.
    The gentleman from Massachusetts, Mr. Meehan?
    Mr. Meehan. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Meehan, aye.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The clerk will try again.
    The Clerk. Mr. Chairman, there are 12 ayes and 18 noes.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. And the motion to postpone to a day 
certain is not agreed to.
    Mr. Conyers. Mr. Chairman?
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The gentleman from Michigan, Mr. 
Conyers?
    Mr. Conyers. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The clerk will report the 
amendment.
    The Clerk. Amendment to H. Res. 287, offered by Mr. 
Conyers. At Page 2, line 5, after resources, add the following: 
``, the theft of any records and the use of U.S. congressional 
staff.''
    [The amendment of Mr. Conyers follows:]
    
    
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The gentleman is recognized for 5 
minutes.
    Mr. Conyers. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    This amendment was inspired by the distinguished gentleman 
from Texas who I think is concerned about us making this a 
bipartisan event, and it is in that spirit that I offer it 
because the theft of records and the use of congressional staff 
potentially improperly is a matter of concern to everyone on 
this Committee.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. Will the gentleman yield?
    Mr. Conyers. Of course.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The resolution of inquiry is 
directed to the Attorney General. What records would the 
Attorney General have relative to the theft of records and the 
use of U.S. congressional staff?
    Mr. Conyers. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    The Department of Justice, I hope, is already investigating 
this and have records already.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. Will the gentleman yield further?
    Mr. Conyers. Of course.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. Has there been any allegation in 
the press that the Justice Department has any of these records? 
Because this resolution is restricted only to the Justice 
Department and no other department, including the Homeland 
Security Department or the U.S. House of Representatives.
    Mr. Conyers. Yes, sir, that is true. Well, I know the 
Attorney General of the United States has been doing something 
about this. Well, I don't know it; I sus----
    Ms. Lofgren. Would the gentleman yield?
    Mr. Conyers. I suspect that the Attorney General has been 
doing something about this because the distinguished leader of 
the House of Representatives has been asking him to do 
something about it. But, worst-case scenario, maybe the 
Department doesn't have any records, and if they don't, let 
them tell us that they haven't done a blooming thing about 
this.
    Ms. Lofgren. Would the gentleman yield?
    Mr. Conyers. Of course.
    Ms. Lofgren. I think this is an excellent amendment and, as 
I am sure the Chairman realizes, this would require the 
Department to transmit this material, but if they don't have 
the material, obviously it would not mandate them to transmit 
something they don't have. So there is really no harm or 
downside in approving the amendment, and I commend the 
gentleman for offering it and yield back and thank him for 
allowing me to comment.
    Mr. Conyers. Let us be candid about this, my fellow 
Committee Members. We have got two of the most powerful people 
in the Texas delegation in the Judiciary Committee halls this 
morning. Well, I haven't seen Martin Foss, but Gene Green has 
been patrolling the aisles. I mean, we are under a lot of 
pressure over on this side here, and we have got to produce 
something here today, folks. This is pretty serious potatoes in 
Texas, and when you have people like our colleague, Gene Green, 
and Martin Foss--look, Gene has just come in again. Here he is. 
He has got two Committees that he should be in attendance.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The gentleman from Michigan knows 
that it is against the rules to refer to persons present in the 
audience.
    Mr. Conyers. But he is behind here, up here with us. He is 
not in the audience.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. Well, he doesn't belong here. 
[Laughter.]
    Mr. Conyers. He has been walking up and down here. Okay. 
All right. Let's ask ourselves this question: What is the 
problem here with the proposal at hand? The answer to it is 
that minority voters, particularly Hispanic voters, Hispanic-
American and African-American voters will be severely 
disenfranchised if the pending Republican plan in the Texas 
legislature is approved. That is why we are here.
    Now, all we are asking, it is not that we can stop the plan 
or that we can exert a Federal jurisdiction superior to that of 
the State legislature, we just want it to be fair, and we want 
to know how much anybody else, besides alleged Democratic 
congressional staffers, has been doing this, besides the 
majority leader himself.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The gentleman's time has expired.
    Ms. Jackson Lee. Mr. Chairman?
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The chair recognizes himself for 5 
minutes.
    First of all, the gentleman from Michigan and everybody 
else knows that the Voting Rights Act applies to any 
redistricting plan, past, present or future. And any 
redistricting plan which disenfranchises minority voters will 
end up being struck down either by the courts or by the Justice 
Department because Texas is a preclearance State.
    Now, I would urge the Members to accept the gentleman's 
amendment. If my friend's on the minority side want to amend 
their own resolution, I think they should be given the 
opportunity to do so, and I would hope that we can speedily 
approve the amendment of the gentleman from Michigan and go 
ahead to the vote.
    I yield back the balance of my time.
    Mr. Conyers. I call for the vote.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The question is on the amendment 
offered by the gentleman from Michigan, Mr. Conyers.
    Those in favor will say aye.
    Opposed, no.
    The ayes appear to have it, the ayes have it, and the 
amendment is agreed to.
    The question now is on reporting----
    Mr. Watt. Mr. Chairman?
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The gentleman from North Carolina, 
Mr. Watt?
    Mr. Watt. I move to strike the last word.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The gentleman is recognized for 5 
minutes.
    Mr. Watt. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I really am surprised by 
the rhetorical level of this debate and by the fact that we are 
engaged in a debate at this level because when I read the 
resolution, the original resolution, it seemed so patently 
clear and straightforward that it seemed to me that this would 
be something that we handle in this Committee quickly, pass and 
everybody would recognize that it is within this Committee's 
jurisdiction.
    As many of you know, I have very strong feelings and have 
had very strong involvement in the redistricting process, in 
redistricting litigation, in the representation of redistricted 
districts throughout my career here, but this resolution really 
is not about redistricting. If you read the resolution, it 
simply says that the Attorney General is directed to transmit 
to the House of Representatives, not later than 14 days after 
the date of the adoption of this resolution, all physical and 
electronic records and documents in his possession related to 
any use of agency resources in any task or action involving or 
relating to members of the Texas legislature in the period 
beginning May 11, 2003, and ending May 16, 2003, except 
information, the disclosure of which would harm the national 
security interests of the United States.
    If we were focusing on the content of the resolution 
itself, which I think is our Committee's jurisdiction and 
responsibility, rather than focusing on all of the rhetorical 
trappings that go with it, I would expect us, as a Committee, 
to maybe question whether 14 days would be a sufficient amount 
of time for the Attorney General to transmit to us the 
information that the Attorney General or the Attorney General's 
staff has on this issue.
    I would expect to focus on the fact that the Attorney 
General is and the Attorney General's Office is an office over 
which the Judiciary Committee of the House has oversight 
jurisdiction and that we would be entitled, as a Committee, to 
at least receive the information that the Attorney General has 
on this issue for our review. The resolution doesn't obligate 
us to undertake an inquiry. So I am not persuaded by the fact 
that there are other inquiries going on.
    I hope there are other inquiries going on, but simply 
exercising our responsibility as a Judiciary Committee to get 
information from the Attorney General, over whom we have 
oversight jurisdiction, doesn't strike me as being anything all 
that controversial and to elevate this to the rhetorical level 
that all of us have elevated it to just seems to me to be 
beyond what we ought to be doing.
    It seems to me that this is in our oversight jurisdiction. 
It is our responsibility. If the Members of this Committee wish 
to review this information to obtain the information and then 
decide what to do with it----
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The gentleman's time has expired.
    Mr. Berman. Mr. Chairman?
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. Who seeks recognition? The 
gentleman from California, Mr. Berman.
    Mr. Berman. Mr. Chairman, as I understand it, there is one 
argument against this resolution which simply seeks to get 
information delivered to the Congress about a matter which has 
received a great deal of publicity, and that argument is that 
there is currently an investigation going on.
    In a little time we are going to come to a vote, and the 
majority party is going to vote, my guess is, en bloc, to--
well, there is a difference of opinion on our side about 
whether or not the majority party will vote to defeat this 
resolution, and it will go down.
    And then I remember the Whitewater investigation, when the 
Resolution Trust Corporation was investigating it, when an 
Independent Council was investigating it, and none of those 
arguments had any weight in the Committee on Government 
Reform's decision to subpoena all kinds of information about a 
matter then under investigation by the Federal Government and 
by an Independent Counsel.
    I remember the Vince Foster death, the suicide, where, 
notwithstanding investigations by Federal agencies and the FBI 
into that matter, the majority party, in its Government Reform 
Committee, sought information and subpoenaed information from 
the Federal Government while that investigation was going on.
    And so I expect that the one thing we will have here, when 
the majority party defeats this resolution, which makes no 
prejudgment about the incident, which simply asks for the 
information to be delivered to the Congress, is that we will 
have another victory for relativist ethics and for double 
standards when, depending on whose ox is getting gored, the 
majority party will decide when it will and when it won't use 
its authority to get information for investigation purposes.
    I yield back.
    Ms. Lofgren. Would the gentleman yield?
    Mr. Berman. I would be happy to. I will yield.
    Ms. Lofgren. Obviously, we cannot be unmindful of the 
partisan overlay of this discussion, but yesterday we had the 
awarding of medals to retired Members of Congress. It was 
actually a very impressive and important session because it 
reminded me of a time when, although we are of different 
parties, the Congress did actually work together on behalf of 
the American people, and in particular we had the former 
minority leader, Mr. Michael, and a former Member of this 
Committee, Don Edwards, who were both present and involved in 
the impeachment proceedings relative to President Nixon.
    And at that time, the Congress showed itself to be up to 
the task of putting partisanship aside and seeking the truth. 
And I think if the majority declines to take this action today, 
whether you feel it is true or not, it will look like you are 
involved in a cover-up, and I think that will reflect poorly on 
this Committee and poorly on this Congress. And so I would urge 
the Members of the majority to ponder that public perception 
that might be created and to step back from that activity.
    I thank the gentleman for yielding.
    Mr. Berman. I yield back, Mr. Chairman.
    Mr. Carter. Mr. Chairman?
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The gentlewoman from Texas and the 
gentlewoman from California have been recognized on this 
question, previously.
    The gentleman from Texas, Mr. Carter.
    Mr. Carter. I move to strike the last word.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The gentleman is recognized for 5 
minutes.
    Mr. Carter. Mr. Chairman, in all due respect to my 
colleague, Mr. Smith from Texas, there is an inquiry being made 
in Texas about this issue.
    I wrote a letter to the Prosecutor's Office in Austin and 
asked them that because of the partisan nature of this fight, 
we have a--there is a famous picture by Remington of a roper 
with his horse all tangled up in the rope and about to be 
thrown off in a ditch, and it is called ``A Wreck.'' Well, this 
whole process has become a wreck down there in Texas. And I 
asked him to submit these issues, because of its partisan 
nature, to a jury, either a grand jury or a petit jury, and let 
them hash it out to see if there was actually a crime committed 
and if someone, in fact, they should go through the criminal 
justice process.
    I have received no answer to that inquiry or they have 
given me no courtesy of a response, and I am sure it has to do 
with the partisan nature of the whole proceeding. But my point 
is that there are proper procedures in Texas to go through.
    I also feel that there are proper procedures, and they are 
being gone through, here in Washington. We have the Justice 
Department and others who are making inquiries. The first thing 
you do in any investigation is make an inquiry to find out if 
there is actually anything to investigate. If you have a reason 
to believe there is something to investigate, then you do an 
investigation, which is the same thing that the D.A. or the 
county attorney would be required to do in Texas on allegations 
of criminal acts in Texas.
    I believe in the process. I believe in the process. I 
believe that we ought to let the people who are doing their job 
do their job. Oversight comes if it looks like they are not 
doing their job. I see no indication in either theater that the 
job is not being done, even though I cannot seem to get any 
reply to my request from the prosecutor in Texas, I still think 
that we should vote against this because it is an ongoing 
process, and it does not call for oversight at this time.
    Ms. Jackson Lee. Would the gentleman yield?
    Mr. Carter. I yield back my time.
    Ms. Jackson Lee. Would the gentleman yield?
    Mr. Nadler. Mr. Chairman?
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The gentleman from New York, Mr. 
Nadler?
    Mr. Nadler. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I was listening to the 
comments of the gentleman who just spoke, and he makes a number 
of interesting points, but they al ignore one point. The 
investigation going on in Texas by whoever is doing it is a 
State investigation. We are talking in this resolution of 
inquiry about the misuse or alleged misuse or possible misuse 
of Federal resources of the Federal United States Department of 
Justice, the United States Department of Homeland Security.
    The State of Texas has neither the jurisdiction nor the 
business, frankly, to investigate that. Insofar as it impacts 
on what they are doing locally they can tangentially look at 
that. But if there is going to be a proper and jurisdictionally 
relevant inquiry, it has to be at a Federal level because we 
are talking about Federal resources that may or may not have 
been used improperly in a State political dispute.
    We are not urging an investigation of the State political 
dispute. That is none of our business.
    Mr. Carter. Would the gentleman yield?
    Mr. Nadler. Just a moment.
    We are urging an investigation by the Federal Government of 
the possible misuse of Federal resources and the possible 
subversion for political purposes of an agency or agencies of 
the Federal Government, and that demands a Federal inquiry, and 
that is all we are asking here, is a Federal inquiry as to the 
possible misuse of Federal Government or the possible 
subversion of the Federal Government institutions for 
nongovernmental and improper partisan purposes.
    Now, whether that occurred is for the resolution to 
determine, whose fault, if any, is for the inquiry to 
determine, but to say that Texas is investigating this is 
wholly beside the point. Texas can investigate any possible 
misconduct by Texas officials or by Texas agencies, but can it 
investigate the Federal Government?
    Mr. Carter. Would the gentleman yield?
    Mr. Nadler. Yes, I will yield.
    Mr. Carter. I think that my colleague may have missed a 
little bit, having been out of the room temporarily, I am sure, 
but we added to the resolution an investigation of the 
incidents in Texas that I was referring to. It was added to 
this and was approved and made a part of Mr. Green's 
resolution.
    Also----
    Mr. Nadler. Reclaiming back my time.
    In other words, you are objecting only to that part of the 
resolution?
    Mr. Carter. No, sir. What I am saying is----
    Mr. Nadler. Having been amended, it refers to Texas? I will 
yield back.
    Mr. Carter. I am saying let Texas investigate the crime, 
let our investigatory agencies investigate the incidents here, 
and this is a premature thing. We are not finished with----
    Mr. Nadler. Reclaiming my time.
    In other words, as I understand the gentleman, you are 
objecting only to that part of the amended resolution, 
referring to investigating Texas agencies?
    Mr. Carter. No, sir, I am saying let both the State and the 
Federal Government finish their inquiry because they have not 
had an opportunity to----
    Mr. Nadler. Reclaiming my time.
    Texas can do whatever it wants with its inquiry on Texas 
matters, but we are asking for an inquiry on the Federal 
matters, and it has to be a Federal inquiry. Insofar as we are 
relating to the misuse of Federal resources and Federal 
agencies for the possible or alleged misuse for improper 
purposes, then we need this resolution now.
    I yield back.
    Ms. Jackson Lee. Would the gentleman yield?
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The gentleman has yielded back his 
time.
    Mr. Nadler. I have, yes.
    Mr. Watt. Mr. Chairman?
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. For what purpose does the gentleman 
from North Carolina seek recognition?
    Mr. Watt. I have an amendment at the desk.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The clerk will report the 
amendment.
    The Clerk. Amendment to H. Res. 287 offered by Mr. Watt. At 
Page 2, line 3, strike 14 and insert instead 30.
    [The amendment of Mr. Watt follows:]
    
    
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. Would the gentleman yield?
    This is you amending your own resolution. I am happy to 
accept this amendment.
    Ms. Jackson Lee. I would like to strike the last word after 
Mr. Watt to support his amendment.
    Mr. Watt. I move to strike the last word.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The gentleman is recognized for 5 
minutes.
    Mr. Watt. Just briefly. I addressed this in my comments 
that I thought the 14-day time limitation was too stringent on 
the Attorney General. I think we ought to give them the time. 
They have got other things that they are doing over there that 
require their attention, too, and I don't think we ought to be 
asking them to take resources from other important homeland 
security and other things to do this. So this would simply 
expand the time from 14 days to 30 days for their response.
    Mr. Delahunt. Would the gentleman yield?
    Mr. Watt. Yes, I yield.
    Mr. Delahunt. I think we should note that with the 
acceptance of the Watt amendment, what we have accomplished is 
to remove this issue that is before us from the political issue 
in Texas of redistricting. I presume that whatever is going to 
happen in Texas will occur within the next 30 days. And by 
adopting or by accepting the amendment put forth by the 
gentleman from North Carolina, it is important I think for all 
of us to understand that it depoliticizes, as much as we can, 
this particular issue because I think the real issue is, as 
others have indicated, it is not about redistricting, it is not 
about what the State may or may not do, it is about an inquiry 
into the conduct of Federal agencies over which this Committee 
has jurisdiction, and that is our responsibility.
    There has been much written in the news in the course of 
the past several years about allegations of incompetence and 
misconduct by various Federal investigative agencies. And I 
think we all can agree that any effort to abuse or misuse the 
power of investigative agencies, for whatever purposes, be they 
political or otherwise, is very, very dangerous, and really, at 
some level, puts at risk democratic institutions.
    We have had our own history in terms of the misuse of 
Federal agencies over the course of the past several decades. I 
am particularly thinking of what occurred during the Watergate 
era. I think that simply focusing on the issue at hand requires 
passage of the resolution, as amended. I think that the 
gentleman's amendment, and since it will be accepted, reassures 
the majority that when the information is made available to the 
Committee whatever is going to occur in Texas will have 
occurred, but it is our responsibility to ensure and to insist 
that Federal agencies within the purview and the oversight 
responsibility of this Committee act appropriately. And that is 
what this issue is about, and if we do not do it, we abrogate 
our responsibility to ensure that our democratic institutions 
are healthy, and viable, and acting appropriately.
    Mr. Watt. I thank the gentleman, and I will reclaim my 
time, just to say, from my perspective, this is, I mean, we 
have made a lot of rhetorical smoke about this resolution, but 
this is about the responsibility of this Committee to oversee 
what the Justice Department and the Attorney General are doing, 
and this gives us time, it gets us out of the political 
context. It gives us the opportunity to evaluate the 
information we get, and that is what this should be about. This 
should not be about redistricting, it should not be about 
politics, it should be solely about responsibility as a 
Committee to oversee an agency of Government that we have 
oversight jurisdiction over, and I will yield back the balance.
    Ms. Jackson Lee. Mr. Chairman?
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. Vote----
    Ms. Jackson Lee. Mr. Chairman?
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. For what purpose does the 
gentlewoman from Texas seek recognition?
    Ms. Jackson Lee. I would like to strike the last word.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The gentleman is recognized for 5 
minutes.
    Ms. Jackson Lee. I thank the distinguished Chairman very 
much, and I rise to support the distinguished gentleman from 
North Carolina's amendment. Based upon the words of my 
colleagues, previously, in terms of the broader view that we 
should look at as we look to pass this resolution out 
favorably.
    I think the point that the distinguished gentlelady from 
California made was extremely potent and moving, and that is 
what is the litmus for this Committee? What is the mantra? What 
is the defining, if you will, standard for this Committee? What 
is this Committee perceived to be in the United States 
Congress, and that is the Committee that has as its mission the 
resolve to find out the truth, the resolve for justice, and in 
some instances equality.
    One of the acts that we did collaboratively as a Congress 
is we allowed the Independent Counsel statute to expire. One of 
the criticisms of that statute was that we couldn't look to the 
left or to the right or the front or the back without a series 
of investigations going on that might have been somewhat out of 
control. Certainly, under the Clinton administration, there 
were a number of different strains of Independent Counsel 
investigation that I myself would question as whether they were 
credible.
    But one of the bases upon which we could allow that statute 
to expire was the fact that the House Judiciary Committee and 
the Judiciary Committee in the other body would take up the 
responsibility of being the oversight of this Government as it 
relates to finding out the facts and delving into facts that 
were unpleasant that had to do with the abuse of power.
    This resolution singularly defines a question of the abuse 
of power. This is not a resolution based upon fallacy or lack 
of fact. In fact, we do have witnesses, representatives who 
will be able to testify or provide information to the Justice 
Department only if they would probe it in a probative fashion, 
not in an inquiry, but an investigation of which this 
resolution requires.
    I would like to read into the record a comment noted in two 
newspapers. ``State Representative Juan Manuel Escobar, [D] 
Kingsville, said that he got a cellular phone call from Corpus 
Christi-based FBI Special Agent David Troutman asking whether 
State Representative Gabi Canales, [D] Alice, was with the 
lawmakers. He said, `Is Gabi there with you so we can call our 
surveillance off?' said Mr. Escobar, who said he knew Agent 
Troutman from their days of working together before Mr. Escobar 
retired as a Federal law enforcement and immigration officer in 
March.''
    Obviously, there is a denial of such comments, but we have 
the actual individuals who say that they received a cellular 
phone call. I believe that you can secure cellular records as 
to whether a call was made.
    This is the basis upon which this resolution should be 
passed--nothing more and nothing less. It should be passed on 
the basis of our mandate to be the truth-finders and to have 
the oversight responsibility of which we allow to expire with 
the Independent Counsel.
    I cannot imagine that we would resolve today to oppose the 
favorable passage of this resolution and, of course, in support 
of this amendment for 30 days to take it beyond the question of 
politics to give the Justice Department the adequate time to 
fully investigate. How can we call ourselves the House 
Judiciary Committee and split ourselves in a partisan manner 
over a simple, plain truth, plain-talking resolution? It has no 
editorial comment. It does not mention redistricting. It simply 
asks the question, nonpartisan, for the responsibility of the 
Justice Department to investigate as to what Federal resources 
were utilized.
    It will possibly ask the questions of the majority leader 
of this Congress, but no one, as we have said in this 
particular Committee, is above the law. I inquired of my good 
friend from Texas who suggested that he would offer amendments 
asking to investigate other aspects of this question, Mr. 
Smith. I asked him in a very plain-talking manner whether or 
not if his amendments were supported, he would support the 
favorable reporting of this resolution. I am frankly 
disappointed in my good friend for his response because it 
seems that we are debating this in a lop-sided, one-sided 
manner--my way or the highway. And, frankly, I believe that is 
beneath us, as I said earlier.
    I totally agree with the distinguished gentlelady about 
cover-up, but I believe even more so this is a litmus test, an 
absolute litmus test. I saw, those of us who believed that 
impeachment was not the appropriate way to go in 1998, as it 
related to William Jefferson Clinton, that there were no 
impeachable offenses to be investigated. I saw us being rolled 
over like a Mack truck because we disagreed and pursued. 
Fortunately, the American people agreed with us.
    But I saw us being rolled over in a truly partisan way. We 
did not have our voices heard during that process, and it 
proved that this Committee happened to have been wrong in its 
moving forward, but neither here nor there, the majority 
thought that was the appropriate approach to take, that they 
wanted to investigate on behalf of the American people, they 
wanted to indict on behalf of the American people.
    Can you now say in 2003, when the whole Government is 
controlled by the Republicans, Republican President, Republican 
House, Republican Senate, that you can believe that by not 
applying or approving this resolution----
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. Would the gentlewoman yield?
    Ms. Jackson Lee.--that you, in any way, can carry the 
dignity of this particular Committee----
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. Would the gentlewoman yield?
    Ms. Jackson Lee.--and do our job?
    Mr. Chairman, I would be happy to yield.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The Inspector General of the 
Justice Department, Mr. Fine, was appointed by President 
Clinton. He is responding to a letter requesting an 
investigation by Senator Lieberman, who was your party's vice 
presidential candidate.
    One of the reasons why resolutions of inquiry are reported 
adversely is because they conflict with investigations that are 
ongoing. It doesn't close the matter out completely. It merely 
says that there will not be parallel investigations going on. 
The reason that I moved that this be reported adversely was 
simply due to the fact that the Inspector General is looking 
into the same question, and I am anxiously awaiting the report 
of Mr. fine on this issue.
    Ms. Jackson Lee. Could I ask the gentleman, the 
distinguished Chairman, for an additional 2 minutes, unanimous 
consent?
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. Without objection.
    Ms. Jackson Lee. I didn't know if you had finished, Mr. 
Chairman. Had you finished, Mr. Chairman?
    Mr. Chairman, thank you very much, and I respect that 
response. What I would suggest to you, that the procedures in 
the Justice Department at this time may simply meet the level 
of an inquiry. It is not an investigation of which this 
resolution would insist on and direct.
    I think these issues are so important, of such high 
importance to the question of the integrity of this Government, 
the integrity of a Government that is at this time controlled 
by a single party, is above partisan politics, is, if nothing 
else, to show the Democrats up, and when I say that, meaning by 
the investigation, nothing is proven, but more importantly, 
clear the air for the fact that whether or not you are in power 
or not, whether or not you have the majority leadership of the 
United States Congress, that you feel that it is imperative 
that the officials and resources of this Government be used for 
nothing more than the benefit of the American people.
    Tracking down State representatives who were acting on 
their own, individual prerogative and their rights is not, one, 
a threat to national security or of any business of the Federal 
Government. Asking or utilizing, by way of your power, 
position, majority leader, Speaker of the House, Member of 
Congress, to call and ask for State officials to be tracked 
using Federal resources is not, from my perspective, within the 
integrity and the rights of this Federal Government. It is an 
abuse of power, and I respect what the Chairman has said, but 
we do not have an investigation, Mr. Chairman----
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The gentlewoman's time has----
    Ms. Jackson Lee.--and I would ask for the amendment to be 
supported and the resolution.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner.--once again expired.
    The question is on the Watt amendment.
    Ms. Jackson Lee. I thank the Chairman.
    Ms. Waters. Mr. Chairman?
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. For what purpose?
    Ms. Waters. I move to strike the last word.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The gentlewoman is recognized for 5 
minutes.
    Ms. Waters. Mr. Chairman, let me just recognize that this 
may be taking longer than you would like, that you may even be 
irritated by the fact that Members on this side of the aisle 
are drawing this out, but it is absolutely amazing that the 
Republicans on the opposite side of the aisle are oblivious to 
the perception that stonewalling is taking place here, that 
there appears to be a coverup.
    I am very, very concerned about this issue because I 
believe that the majority leader, Mr. DeLay, is out of control, 
and he is abusing his power.
    First of all, to reach into the Texas legislature and cause 
it to take the unprecedented action of redistricting, despite 
the fact all over this country it is done once every 10 years, 
is an act that should help everyone to understand that Mr. 
DeLay intends to use his power in the most abusive way. Now, 
people joke around here about Mr. DeLay, and they call him the 
``enforcer,'' the ``exterminator,'' but I think it is about 
time we take this seriously.
    Those on the opposite side of the aisle who may be afraid 
to cross Mr. DeLay or feel that you have to do whatever he 
tells you to do, that may be your politics, but that is not my 
politics, and that is not why I am in this Congress, to allow 
the abuse of power in the way that we are seeing it exercised 
by Mr. DeLay.
    I would simply say to you that it was Mr. DeLay who said 
that, yes, Federal resources were used. It was Mr. DeLay who 
said that bringing in either the U.S. Marshals or the FBI 
agents is justified because redistricting is a Federal issue 
involving congressional seats. If that is true, then certainly 
congressional oversight is indicated, and we should be doing 
that.
    We have, in this Committee, a subcommittee of the 
Constitution, and our Constitution has some guarantees that we 
will not be placed under surveillance, that we will not be 
tracked, that we will not allow our Government to use the power 
to violate the rights and the privacy of citizens, whether they 
are elected officials or not.
    And so while there have been a few jokes around here this 
morning and some feel that this is something to laugh about, I 
don't think so. I take this very seriously. I do believe that 
power has been abused, and it is the most unlikely kind of 
abuse of power because we have just created this Homeland 
Security Department. I mean, we just had 9/11 that really 
happened. We are still struggling to try and get the dollars 
that are needed in order to defend against terrorist attacks 
and to have that department belittled and used in such a 
fashion should not be acceptable to any Member of this 
Committee.
    So we can laugh, and we can kind of joke about this, and we 
can continue to kind of wink and nod at the way Mr. DeLay used 
his power, but I want to tell you that on the record today in 
this Committee it will be recorded that there were Members who 
were not willing to exercise their oversight responsibility and 
make sure that we never allow this kind of thing to happen 
again.
    Mr. Chairman and Members, I would ask you to reconsider the 
direction that you are going in and support this resolution of 
inquiry because this issue is not going to go away. Some of us 
are going to stay on the issue as long as we believe that the 
kind of investigations that should be going on or not going on, 
as long as we believe that this issue will be swept under the 
rug by the same people who have exercised the kind of power and 
abused their power----
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The gentlewoman's time has expired.
    The question is on the Watt amendment. Those in favor will 
say aye.
    Opposed, no.
    The ayes appear to have it. The ayes have it. The Watt 
amendment is agreed to.
    The question now is on the motion to report the resolution 
adversely. Those in favor will say aye.
    Opposed, no.
    The ayes appear to have it.
    Mr. Conyers. Mr. Chairman, a rollcall is desired.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. A rollcall will be ordered. The 
question is on reporting House Resolution 287 adversely as 
amended. Those in favor--a reporting quorum is present. Those 
in favor will, as your names are called, answer aye. Those 
opposed, no. The clerk will call the roll.
    The Clerk. Mr. Hyde?
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. Coble?
    Mr. Coble. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Coble, aye. Mr. Smith?
    Mr. Smith. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Smith, aye. Mr. Gallegly?
    Mr. Gallegly. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Gallegly, aye. Mr. Goodlatte?
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. Chabot?
    Mr. Chabot. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Chabot, aye. Mr. Jenkins?
    Mr. Jenkins. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Jenkins, aye. Mr. Cannon?
    Mr. Cannon. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Cannon, aye. Mr. Bachus?
    Mr. Bachus. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Bachus, aye. Mr. Hostettler?
    Mr. Hostettler. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Hostettler, aye. Mr. Green?
    Mr. Green. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Green, aye. Mr. Keller?
    Mr. Keller. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Keller, aye. Ms. Hart?
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. Flake?
    Mr. Flake. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Flake, aye. Mr. Pence?
    Mr. Pence. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Pence, aye. Mr. Forbes.
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. King?
    Mr. King. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. King, aye. Mr. Carter?
    Mr. Carter. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Carter, aye. Mr. Feeney?
    Mr. Feeney. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Feeney, aye. Mrs. Blackburn?
    Mrs. Blackburn. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mrs. Blackburn, aye. Mr. Conyers?
    Mr. Conyers. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Conyers, no. Mr. Berman?
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. Boucher?
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. Nadler?
    Mr. Nadler. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Nadler, no. Mr. Scott?
    Mr. Scott. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Scott, no. Mr. Watt?
    Mr. Watt. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Watt, no. Ms. Lofgren?
    Ms. Lofgren. No.
    The Clerk. Ms. Lofgren, no. Ms. Jackson Lee?
    Ms. Jackson Lee. No.
    The Clerk. Ms. Jackson Lee, no. Ms. Waters?
    Ms. Waters. No.
    The Clerk. Ms. Waters, no. Mr. Meehan?
    Mr. Meehan. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Meehan, no. Mr. Delahunt?
    Mr. Delahunt. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Delahunt, no. Mr. Wexler?
    Mr. Wexler. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Wexler, no. Ms. Baldwin?
    Ms. Baldwin. No.
    The Clerk. Ms. Baldwin, no. Mr. Weiner?
    Mr. Weiner. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Weiner, no. Mr. Schiff?
    Mr. Schiff. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Schiff, no. Ms. Sanchez?
    Ms. Sanchez. No.
    The Clerk. Ms. Sanchez, no. Mr. Chairman?
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Chairman, aye.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. Members who wish to cast or change 
their votes? Gentleman from Virginia, Mr. Forbes.
    Mr. Forbes. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Forbes, aye.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. Gentleman from California, Mr. 
Berman?
    Mr. Berman. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Berman, no.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. Further Members who wish to cast or 
change their vote? How is the gentlewoman from Pennsylvania 
recorded?
    The Clerk. Mr. Chairman, Ms. Hart is not recorded.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. Gentlewoman from Pennsylvania?
    Ms. Hart. Aye.
    The Clerk. Ms. Hart, aye.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. Further Members who wish to cast or 
change their vote? If not, the clerk will report.
    The Clerk. Mr. Chairman, there are 19 ayes and 15 noes.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. And the motion to report adversely 
the resolution as amended is agreed to. Without objection, the 
resolution will be reported adversely to the House in the form 
of a single amendment in the nature of a substitute, 
incorporating the amendments adopted here today. Without 
objection, the staff is directed to make any technical and 
conforming changes and all Members will be given 2 days as 
provided by House rules in which to submit additional 
dissenting, supplemental or minority views.
    Pursuant to notice, I now call up the bill----
    Ms. Jackson Lee. Mr. Chairman, I'd like to submit some 
letters into the record, please, and ask unanimous consent if I 
could submit these letters into the record.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. Without objection.
    Ms. Jackson Lee. Can I call the dates so you'll know? A 
June 5 letter, 2003, to Director Mueller of the FBI; June 26, 
2003 letter to Inspector General Glenn Fine; and a May 14, 
2003, letter to Attorney General Ashcroft, Secretary Tom Ridge 
and Director Robert Mueller, signed by members of the Texas 
delegation. I thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. Without objection, the letters will 
appear in the record following the vote.
    [The letters follow:]

    
    
                            Dissenting Views

    We strongly disagree with the Majority's determination to 
report H. Res. 287 adversely. This matter desperately calls out 
for this Committee to exercise its oversight over the 
Department of Justice. The facts we have uncovered to date make 
out a prima facie case that the Department's law enforcement 
resources were used for partisan political purposes and that 
the Department has obstructed our efforts to find out the 
truth.

                       BACKGROUND ON H. RES. 287

    H. Res. 287 was introduced by Rep. Gene Green (D-TX) on 
June 19, 2003 with fourteen co-sponsors.\1\ The resolution 
directs the Attorney General to transmit to the House of 
Representatives all physical and electronic records and 
documents in his possession related to the use of Federal 
agency resources in any task or action involving the Members of 
the Texas Legislature in the period beginning May 11, 2003, and 
ending May 16, 2003. The resolution makes exceptions for 
information which if disclosed would harm the security 
interests of the United States. These records are required to 
be transmitted no later then 30 days after final adoption of 
the resolution. On May 12, an official with the Texas 
Department of Public Safety (DPS) asked Federal agents at the 
Air-Marine Interdiction Coordination Center based at the March 
Air Reserve Base to find what he described as a missing plane. 
In fact, the DPS official was looking for a plane belonging to 
Rep. Pete Laney, former Democratic speaker of the Texas House. 
Texas Republicans believed that finding Rep. Laney's plane 
would help them locate the 51 Texas Democrats who, in protest 
of a proposed Republican redistricting plan, fled the state 
capital to Ardmore, OK, in order to deny Republican legislators 
a quorum.\2\ Reports suggest that a DPS official made a call to 
the March facility after Texas Republicans had sought the 
assistance of DPS officers in finding the missing Democratic 
legislators. The DPS should have been aware that the March 
center was under the jurisdiction of the Department of Homeland 
Security (DHS) and normally used to seek out terrorists.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ Rep. Jackson Lee (D-TX) was an original co-sponsor.
    \2\ The Press-Enterprise (Riverside, CA), May 16, 2003.
    \3\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    In response to the DPS officer's call, Federal agents at 
the March center treated the request as urgent and used their 
radar technology to try to track the plane. In addition, March 
agents made several phone calls to the Federal Aviation 
Administration's Fort Worth Center. After the FAA search failed 
to turn up the plane, the March officer gave the DPS officer 
the phone number of the FAA in order to initiate lost-aircraft 
procedures. The reports of misuse of the Department of Homeland 
Security resources for a political dispute led Members of 
Congress to request that the Office of Inspector General (OIG) 
investigate the matter.\4\ Letters were also drafted to 
Attorney General Ashcroft asking whether any law enforcement 
resources, ``have been employed in any regard to this matter.'' 
Finally, these letters asked whether the use of these resources 
compromised in any way our national security.\5\ The Justice 
Department replied that it was not aware of any information 
pertinent to the Texas case that would warrant action by 
Federal law enforcement authorities and accordingly it had no 
plans to deploy law enforcement resources in connection with 
the matter.\6\ It was recently disclosed that the Justice 
Department's Office of the Inspector General is investigating 
this matter.\7\ We also learned as part of this OIG report that 
even House Republicans were dismayed at the abuse of Federal 
Government law enforcement resources, with Rep. Ken Calvert (R-
CA) calling the AMMIC facility in Riverside to express his 
``shock that the AMMIC was involved in looking for the 
aircraft.'' \8\ During this time period, House Majority Leader 
Tom DeLay (R-TX) who had devised the redistricting plan, made 
many troubling comments to the press. On May 13, he told 
reporters that, ``bringing in either U.S. Marshals or FBI 
agents is justified because redistricting is a Federal issue, 
involving congressional seats.'' \9\ Moreover, Mr. Delay said 
the issue (of whether help could be sought from the FBI or U.S. 
Marshals on the grounds that the lawmakers crossed state lines 
and that redistricting is a Federal matter) was being 
researched by a U.S. attorney in Texas whom he did not name.'' 
\10\ He also acknowledged having sought assistance from the 
Department of Justice.\11\ Even more troubling, documents 
produced from a DHS-OIG investigation into the matter suggests 
that members of the Texas DPS might be involved in covering up 
the names of individuals that prompted the DPS to mislead the 
Federal agents into using terrorism fighting resources for 
partisan purposes. This conduct may constitute violation of 
Federal criminal laws pertaining to obstruction of justice. 
Indeed, the DHS-OIG report describes that DPS officers 
deliberately withheld names from Federal investigators and may 
have shredded important relevant documents.\12\ As a result, 
Democratic members of the Judiciary sent a letter to Attorney 
General Ashcroft on June 18, formally requesting to open an 
immediate investigation into this conduct.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \4\ Office of Inspector General: Report of Investigation (INO3-LA-
0662-S).
    \5\ Letter from Honorable Lloyd Doggett (D-TX) et al., to the 
Honorable John Ashcroft, Attorney General of the United States, the 
Honorable Tom Ridge, Secretary of Homeland Security, and the Honorable 
Robert Mueller, FBI Director (May 14, 2003).
    \6\ Letter from Assistant Attorney General, Office of Legislative 
Affairs, dated May 16, 2003.
    \7\ Fort Worth Star-Telgram, June 27, 2003
    \8\ OIG Report, Exhibit 13, second paragraph from bottom.
    \9\ Houston Chronicle, May 13, 2003.
    \10\ Washington Times, May 14, 2003.
    \11\ Dallas Morning News, June 27, 2003
    \12\ Office of Inspector General: Report of Investigation (INO3-LA-
0662-S).
    \13\ Letter from Honorable John Conyers, JR. (D-MI) et. al., to the 
Honorable John Ashcroft. Attorney General of the United States, (June 
18 2003).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

             CONCERNS WITH COMMITTEE'S DECISION TO REPORT 
                         H. RES. 287 ADVERSELY

    It is clear to us that there are numerous issues to which 
the Justice Department has not adequately responded to by the 
Justice Department which warrant an affirmative vote on H. Res. 
287.
    For example, FBI agent David Troutman called one of the 
State Representatives, asking if another representative was 
present so he could ``call our surveillance off.'' How did the 
FBI come to be involved in a search for Texas Democrats trying 
to stop a partisan manipulation of redistricting orchestrated 
by Tom DeLay?
    The answer may have come from DeLay himself. He said that 
``bringing in . . . FBI agents was justified'' and that a 
``U.S. Attorney in Texas'' was researching it. But the Justice 
Department won't tell us whether this is true or whether other 
resources were utilized.
    In addition, The United States Marshals service was 
reportedly involved. While one marshal has denied there was any 
official request for help in what he acknowledges was a ``state 
matter,'' he--and the Justice Department--have refused to say 
whether any informal request was made. It would be quite 
valuable if the Committee was able to learn how the U.S. 
Marshals service came to be involved in this partisan exercise.
    The answer again may have been provided by Tom DeLay, who 
said bringing in the U.S. Marshals ``was justified.'' This 
conduct is troubling by itself. Even more troubling, however, 
is the stonewalling by the Justice Department.
    The Assistant Attorney General has asserted a new and 
unprecedented privilege to evade Congressional inquiries. He 
says that he can't tell us who asked the Department to become 
involved because it would discourage individuals from 
contacting Federal law enforcement agencies about potential 
violations of Federal law.
    In other words, if he told us who asked the Justice 
Department to become involved in partisan politics, that person 
might be afraid to ask the Justice Department to become 
involved in partisan politics again. Voting this resolution 
adversely, dangerously reaffirms the use of inappropriate new 
privileges by the Department.
    The Texas Department of Public Safety destroyed documents 
possibly in violation of Federal criminal laws. The Department 
of Homeland Security asked the FBI to investigate it. The FBI 
replied that it was ``not interested'' in investigating it. 
Since when is the FBI not interested in obstruction of justice? 
Again, the Committee is entitled to learn about such matters.
    According to another report, Tom DeLay bragged to 
Republican state officials that he killed a voting rights 
complaint filed with the Civil Rights Division of the 
Department of Justice. It is because of statements like this 
that the Committee's oversight role is so critical, and this is 
why we are so disappointed that H. Res. 287 was adversely 
reported by the Committee.
    Our concerns about a coverup of improper behavior have only 
expanded since the Committee markup. The Transportation 
Department of Inspector General reported late last week that 
the FAA was heavily involved in the search for the plane used 
by the Texas Democrats and that Tom DeLay was deeply involved 
in inducing the Federal Government to become involved in a 
partisan squabble. Moreover, late last week a court ruled that 
the Texas Department of Public Safety lacked the legal 
authority to track down and arrest the Texas Democrats.
    As a result of all of the foregoing, the conclusion could 
not be more clear. It is this Committee's and the Congress' 
job, not the job of the Justice Department inspector general or 
anyone else, to oversee the Federal Government and the Justice 
Department. We should do that whether wrongdoers are 
Republicans or Democrats. This resolution asks for information. 
The American people have a right to that information. Neither 
the Justice Department nor any other agency should be allowed 
to hide it anymore. For these reasons, we dissent.

                                   John Conyers, Jr.
                                   Howard L. Berman.
                                   Jerrold Nadler.
                                   Robert C. Scott.
                                   Melvin L. Watt.
                                   Zoe Lofgren.
                                   Sheila Jackson Lee.
                                   Maxine Waters.
                                   Martin T. Meehan.
                                   Robert Wexler.
                                   Tammy Baldwin.
                                   Anthony D. Weiner.
                                   Adam B. Schiff.
                                   Linda T. Sanchez.

                                
