19–008

108TH CONGRESS REPORT " ! HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 1st Session 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

2

1 ‘‘House Practice: A Guide to the Rules, Precedents, and Procedures of the House’’ Ch. 49 § 4,

pg. 819 (2003). 2Deschler’s Precedents, H. Doc. No. 94–661, 94th Cong., 2d Sess., vol. 7, ch. 24, § 8.

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.

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

3

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. 

4

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. Sa ́nchez ...................................................................................................... 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

5

ROLLCALL NO. 2—Continued

Ayes Nays Present 

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. Sa ́nchez ...................................................................................................... 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. 

6

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:]

7


I287A.eps
8


I287B.eps
9

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 

10

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 

11

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 

12

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, noninstigating, 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. 

13

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 

14

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:]

15


Waters1.eps
16


Waters2.eps
17


Waters3.eps
18


Waters4.eps
19


Waters5.eps
20


Waters6.eps
21


Waters7.eps
22

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——

23

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——

24

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. SA ́ NCHEZ. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. 

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. The gentlewoman’s recognized for 5 

minutes. 

Ms. SA ́ NCHEZ. 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 

25

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. SA ́ NCHEZ.—and I yield back the balance——

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Would the gentlelady yield? Would the 

gentlelady yield? 

Ms. SA ́ NCHEZ. 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. SA ́ NCHEZ. 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——

26

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. Sa ́nchez. 

Ms. SA ́ NCHEZ. 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? 

27

[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? 

28

Ms. SA ́ NCHEZ. Aye. 

The CLERK. Ms. Sa ́nchez, 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:]

29

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 


Res287A.eps
30

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. 

31

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. 

32

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? 

33

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. 

34

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. 

35

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 


Res287B.eps
36

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 critiVerDate Jan 31 2003 00:07 Jul 18, 2003 Jkt 19008 PO 00000 Frm 000036 Fmt 06659 Sfmt 06601 E:\HR\OC\HR215.XXX HR215
37

cisms 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 

38

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 maVerDate Jan 31 2003 00:07 Jul 18, 2003 Jkt 19008 PO 00000 Frm 000038 Fmt 06659 Sfmt 06601 E:\HR\OC\HR215.XXX HR215
39

jority 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 

40

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. 

41

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? 

42

Mr. WEINER. No. 

The CLERK. Mr. Weiner, no. Mr. Schiff? 

Mr. SCHIFF. No. 

The CLERK. Mr. Schiff, no. Ms. Sa ́nchez? 

Ms. SA ́ NCHEZ. No. 

The CLERK. Ms. Sa ́nchez, 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:]

43


Mueller1.eps
44


Mueller2.eps
45


Fine1.eps
46


Fine2.eps
47


Fine3.eps
48


Fine4.eps
49


Ash1.eps
50


Ash2.eps
(51)

1 Rep. Jackson Lee (D-TX) was an original co-sponsor. 

2The Press-Enterprise (Riverside, CA), May 16, 2003. 

3 Id. 

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

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 

52

4Office of Inspector General: Report of Investigation (INO3–LA–0662–S). 

5Letter 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). 6Letter from Assistant Attorney General, Office of Legislative Affairs, dated May 16, 2003. 

7Fort Worth Star-Telgram, June 27, 2003 8OIG Report, Exhibit 13, second paragraph from bottom. 

9 Houston Chronicle, May 13, 2003. 10Washington Times, May 14, 2003. 11Dallas Morning News, June 27, 2003 12Office of Inspector General: Report of Investigation (INO3–LA–0662–S). 13Letter from Honorable John Conyers, JR. (D-MI) et. al., to the Honorable John Ashcroft. 

Attorney General of the United States, (June 18 2003). 

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 DHSOIG 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

53

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 

54

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. SA ́ NCHEZ.

Æ