[Congressional Record Volume 153, Number 23 (Wednesday, February 7, 2007)]
[House]
[Pages H1336-H1341]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
FREE BORDER PATROL AGENTS IGNACIO RAMOS AND JOSE COMPEAN
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the Speaker's announced policy of
January 18, 2007, the gentleman from California (Mr. Bilbray) is
recognized for 60 minutes.
Mr. BILBRAY. Mr. Speaker, tonight I am privileged to yield to the
second best surfer in Congress, Mr. Dana Rohrabacher of the great State
of California, and I yield to him whatever time he may consume.
Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Speaker, today we discuss a black mark on this
administration, a vile crime against two law enforcement officers whose
job has been protecting our families and communities and keeping
control of America's borders. This sad episode started back on February
17, 2005, just another routine day for Border Patrol agents Ignacio
Ramos and Jose Compean. Both were Border Patrol veterans with
unblemished service records. Agent Ramos, in fact, had been nominated
for Border Patrol Agent of the Year.
As they did their rounds that day 2 years ago, a trip sensor at the
border was discovered, and Agent Compean then discovered footprints and
drag marks, a usual indication of a drug load being smuggled across the
river. He then spotted a vehicle and radioed the description and then
followed the suspect. The suspect realized he had been made and turned
around to rush back towards Mexico.
Agent Ramos then spotted the van driving at a high rate of speed.
After the driver ignored all commands to pull over, of course, Ramos
gave chase.
By the way, according to the prosecuting attorney, pursuing fleeing
suspects without a supervisor's permission is against Border Patrol
policy.
This, in and of itself, is an insane policy. The drug smuggler who
they were pursuing abandoned his vehicle and fled toward Mexico on foot
but was intercepted by Agent Compean. Once again, ignoring several
commands by Agent Compean to stop, a physical altercation ensued with
Compean ending up in a ditch.
While seeing his opportunity, the smuggler then ran toward the
border, which was nearby. According to Agent Compean's sworn testimony,
while running, the suspect turned and pointed with something shiny in
his left hand. Believing his life was in danger, Agent Compean opened
fire. Hearing gunshots, Agent Ramos came to his side, and he, too,
shouted for the smuggler to stop.
{time} 1915
But instead of obeying his command, the illegal drug smuggler once
again turned as he ran and again pointed something shiny at the
officers. Ramos, believing it to be a weapon, fired one shot. After
disappearing into the banks of the Rio Grande, the smuggler reappeared
on the Mexican side where he jumped into a waiting van. Unbeknownst to
the officers, Ramos's bullet may have hit the illegal drug smuggler in
the left buttocks.
Minutes after the shooting, seven other agents were on the scene,
including two supervisors. When the abandoned van was examined, 743
pounds of marijuana were found. The payload was seized, and one would
think congratulations would have been in order. Agent Ramos and Compean
are heroes, right? They are responsible for taking off the streets $1
million worth of drugs bound for our communities. Good job fellows,
right? Wrong.
At this moment Agents Ramos and Compean, not the illegal drug
smuggler, are languishing in a Federal prison serving 11- and 12-year
sentences. This is the worst miscarriage of justice that I have seen in
my 25 years of public service. It is a nightmare for the two Border
Patrol agents and their families, these Border Patrol agents who
willingly risk their lives protecting us for 5 and 10 years.
The whole rotten episode turned justice on its head. The book was
thrown at our heroes who protect us, while the drug smugglers got
immunity. According to the U.S. attorney, Johnny Sutton, a Bush
appointee and a longtime friend of the President, Ramos and Compean are
not heroes. In fact, he considers those two officers to be criminals,
charging them with assault with serious bodily injury, assault with a
deadly weapon, discharge of a firearm while committing a crime of
violence, which carries, of course, a minimum mandatory sentence of 10
years, and a civil rights violation.
Sutton claims that he had no choice but to prosecute the two Border
Patrol agents because, according to Sutton, they broke the law when
they violated these procedures concerning the discharge of their
weapons at this fleeing suspect.
No. Even if procedures were not followed, Sutton could have granted
immunity to the law enforcement officers and thrown the book at the
drug smuggler. That was his choice. He chose the side of the drug
smuggler and threw the book at the Border Patrol agents. This was an
indefensible decision, and now Sutton lies to us and to the American
people, suggesting that he did not have a choice, that he had to
prosecute.
Well, the facts don't back him up. And what happened after this man
got away? After the incident the drug smuggler contacted Renee Sanchez,
a childhood friend for advice.
Now, why did she contact Renee Sanchez? Because Renee Sanchez happens
to be a current Border Patrol agent in Arizona. And instead of turning
in this drug smuggler, turning the drug smuggler over to the
authorities for prosecution, this law enforcement officer, Agent
Sanchez, he is sworn to uphold the laws of the United States, but he
chose to personally intervene on behalf of his childhood friend who was
a known mule for the drug cartels.
He was also called as a character witness on the drug smuggler's
behalf during the trial. Mr. Sanchez contacted the Department of
Homeland Security, who in turn decided to open an investigation into
the conduct of Ramos and Compean. What? What? You have got a drug
smuggler with 750 pounds of narcotics who is being thwarted from making
his delivery, and that he complains that he was shot at, and our
Government decides to investigate the law enforcement officers.
Mr. Sutton had every chance to focus his enormous prosecutorial
powers on the drug dealer, but he chose to target the law enforcement
officers. He chose to turn a procedural violation into a criminal act
rather than prosecuting a career drug smuggler.
As part of their investigation, the Department of Homeland Security
Office of Inspector General sent a special agent to Mexico to offer the
drug smuggler immunity in exchange for testimony against the Border
Patrol officers. The smuggler was then brought back to the United
States and given free medical care at all taxpayers' expense.
Now, one has to wonder if Mr. Sutton, our U.S. attorney, would have
even spent one-tenth of that effort trying to find this criminal
himself and track him down in Mexico so that he could be extradited and
punished for smuggling narcotics into our country. No. No effort was
made to do that. Instead, an expensive Herculean effort
[[Page H1337]]
was made to try to get the Border Patrol agents.
Now the drug smuggler is being portrayed as a victim because he
swears he was not armed. Our government takes the word of this
nefarious character over two law enforcement officers. In short, the
initial decision to prosecute the two Border Patrol agents instead of
the drug smuggler was indefensible. Period.
Sutton's only defense, to cover up this horrendous decision, has been
to lie and to demonize the two Border Patrol agents. Well, it just does
not jive.
According to that investigative report, Agent Compean's sworn
statement, in his sworn statements he repeatedly stated he believed the
drug smuggler had a weapon and felt threatened. The Border Patrol
training manuals allow for this type of deadly force to be used when an
agent fears imminent bodily injury or death. Both of the officers say
they saw this drug smuggler turn and point what they believed to be a
weapon in their direction while he was running away. The wound created
by the bullet corroborates their version of the events.
So we have the prosecutor, even with the direction of the trajectory
of the bullet as indicated by the wound, but the prosecutor is ignoring
the fact that it backs up the Compean and Ramos position.
During the trial an Army doctor, a prosecution witness I might add,
testified that the drug smuggler's body was bladed away from the bullet
that struck him. That is consistent with the motion of a left-handed
person running away while pointing backwards, causing his body to
twist.
Once again, this corroborated Ramos's and Compean's belief that the
smuggler had a weapon. And that was a reasonable belief considering the
smuggler was transporting over $1 million of drugs that day. And I am
sure, of course, drug dealers with $1 million worth of drugs are not
armed.
Now, it is important to understand that only three individuals were
eyewitnesses to the crucial events of that day, the two accused Border
Patrol agents and a self-admitted drug smuggler. Those are the only two
people who saw what happened. The other Border Patrol agents who
responded to the scene testified under immunity, and quite often
contradicting themselves; however, the most important thing when
thinking about their testimony is their view of the events was
completely obscured by a levee at the road, which is about 12 feet
higher than the road on which they stood, and about 8 feet higher from
the spot on the other side of the levee where Ramos and Compean stood
and where they fired their pistols.
So let me make it very clear what I just said. None of the other
agents could possibly have seen what transpired between Ramos and
Compean and this drug smuggler, even if they climbed on top of their
vehicles. It was physically impossible for them to see. Yet these
agents were threatened with prosecution if they did not testify against
Ramos and Compean. They agreed to testify. If they agreed, they would
be granted immunity. It begs the question why these agents need to be
granted immunity if they were not involved in the incident, and this
whole thing calls into question what effect that this threat that was
held over their head had on the truthfulness of their testimony.
The U.S. attorney's version of what happened that day relies almost
exclusively on the testimony of the drug smuggler. Despite the fact
that there were seven other agents, including two supervisors on scene
within minutes, no report of the shooting was ever filed, even though
the Border Patrol regulations require the supervisors to file the
report.
Agents are only required to orally notify their supervisors, and
Ramos and Compean justifiably believed that their supervisors were
totally aware that there was a shooting. They were within about 50 feet
or 100 feet of what was going on. So, as a matter of fact, the agents,
those agents are prohibited from actually filing a written report, as
in INS firearms policy, section 12B, 1G states: Ensure that supervisory
personnel or investigative officers are aware that employees involved
in a shooting incident shall not be required or allowed to submit a
written statement of the circumstances surrounding the incident. All
written statements regarding the incident shall be prepared by the
local investigative officers and shall be based on an interview of the
employee. That is what their regulations state.
Yet U.S. Attorney Johnny Sutton continues to claim that the officers
filed a false report to cover up their crime. They are not even
permitted to file a report, much less a false report. And they were not
asked by their supervisors who heard the shots.
So the supervisors decided not to ask questions about it, probably
because had they then officially known about the incident, they would
have had to fill out about 5 hours' worth of paperwork. This is about
bureaucratic requirements of the people at the border. If one shot is
fired, on their own time they end up having to work about 5 hours.
Because it looked like the incident was over, all of them, including
the supervisors, decided to just close the book. Was that a good
decision? Well, probably not, considering that you have an out-of-
control prosecutor trying to find something to prosecute our defenders
about.
By no means did their actions rise to the level of criminality, what
might be considered an unauthorized discharge of their weapons,
because, of course, they could not absolutely prove they knew that the
drug dealer had a weapon. Well, if they could not absolutely prove it,
then according to the U.S. Attorney, they are guilty of attempted
murder.
Again, let me note, the agents thought the drug dealer was aiming
something at them. He had just been in a physical altercation with one
of the officers. Of course, when it came to the details about that, our
U.S. attorney believed the drug dealer, who swears that Compean, for
example, in the altercation just fell down.
You know, you would be surprised how many police officers just fall
down in the middle of trying to enforce the law when dealing with
professional criminals like the ones that Compean and Ramos were
dealing with. Just fell down. Yeah.
You believe that, but you do not believe these guys with an
unblemished record of 5 and 10 years of protecting the American people.
So even though this investigation determined that all seven officers on
the scene knew about or heard the shooting, the U.S. attorney granted
those officers immunity even though it was their job to report the
incident.
But of course they did not think it was an incident, they thought it
was closed, the guns went off. They did not want to spend 5 hours
filling out paperwork. Well, guess what? It was their job to do it.
Actually one of them was actually promoted after all of this.
But the U.S. attorney decided to prosecute the Border Patrol agents,
and in doing so, he had to intimidate these supervisors by saying that
he was going to charge them and giving them immunity unless they went
along with this legal lynching of Ramos and Compean.
{time} 1930
If this incident would have been kept in perspective, all seven
supervisors and agents who were failing to report a shooting that may
or may not have been consistent with regulations governing the
discharge of weapons, but just keep this all in perspective, they might
have deserved a disciplinary action, maybe a week without pay or some
mark on their record; that would have been the end of it. But the
penalty for not reporting a shooting is a 5-day suspension. That is the
maximum penalty. This was an issue of a procedural violation, not
criminality, and there is a serious question about the viability of
those procedures which are mandated by the policy. This, of course,
flows directly from the insane border policy, and it led directly to
this unconscionable situation.
Over 78 Members of Congress have expressed concern, if not outrage,
at the troubling aspects of this case. Our repeated attempts for
Presidential intervention or even to communicate with the President
have been ignored. Our pleas to keep the officers out of jail on bond
pending their appeal have been denied. The President could have just
had the prosecutor go to the judge and say, please, let these guys stay
out at least until their appeal. No, no. It was
[[Page H1338]]
the opposite. They insisted on the maximum. They wanted their pound of
flesh. The maximum penalty, the maximum message to other Border Patrol
agents: Don't you dare ever to even think about firing your weapon at
the border.
Instead, the President, after we appealed to try to get him to look
at this, the President dug in his heels, sent Tony Snow out to chastise
us, you know. We were trying to save Ramos and Compean, and then we
were told by Tony Snow to take a closer look at the facts.
Well, we have taken a closer look at the facts. We also know what
happened. There has been a publicity campaign that has been put out to
destroy and demonize Ramos and Compean even as they languish in prison,
because the Federal prosecutor knows he is the one who made the
mistake. He made the initial decision to grant immunity to the drug
dealer, rather than for a procedural mistake by the Border Patrol
agents. He made that decision. It is a horrendous decision, and he is
trying to cover it up and destroying the lives of these two Border
Patrol agents in the process. That is what he has to do. So he has gone
on the air waves and lied to the public to discredit these agents.
We found out today, for example, that the Department of Homeland
Security lied to Congress trying to cover up for their lies to
Congress. What happened is five Members of Congress were briefed. We
will hear about this later on tonight from another Member of Congress.
They were told that Compean had claimed he was going to go out and
shoot a Mexican. Now, here is Compean, Jose Compean, right? These are
two Mexican American, proud Hispanics, and they were going to go out
and shoot a Mexican. And this is from five or six areas that were just
total lies given to Members of Congress looking into this. And then
they were questioned, when the Department of Homeland Security
investigators were questioned, they said, oh, yes, we have all of this
proved in various reports. And so they asked for them, those reports.
And today it was just determined that for 4 months the Department of
Homeland Security has been lying to Members of Congress because those
reports never existed. There was nothing to substantiate the charges,
the horrendous charges that were made against Compean and Ramos.
Well, what we hear now is, well, you have got to just forget it
because the jury has spoken. That is what Mr. Sutton and the prosecutor
want to say. That is the end of it. That is the last word.
Well, let's look at what the jury knew about and whether or not this
was a fair trial. The drug dealer we are talking about, in between the
time he was shot and all of this was going on, and Ramos and Compean
are waiting to be tried, he was caught again, this time with 1,000
pounds of marijuana that he was trying to smuggle into our country. But
that information was kept from the jury. That information never made it
to the jury.
Now, was that important for the jury to know? The prosecution told
the judge that this would in some way jeopardize other prosecutions or
investigations, so the jury was kept from that information. And, in
fact, that information has been expunged from the record, so we can't
get that information. But we know it happened. And they play word games
with us to say, well, he really wasn't arrested. He was apprehended.
No, this man was caught again with 1,000 pounds of drugs. Do you think
the jury should have known that? Would that have been something
important for the jury to know when they are deciding on the lives of
these two brave Americans? Well, it is something that the jury never
knew.
The jury also never knew that the drug dealer, after the bullet
fragment was removed from his body, he was taken by an investigator,
and the bullet was taken by the investigator and spent the night at the
home of this agent.
Well, let me tell you something. You don't take evidence and break
the chain of custody of evidence. He took the bullet into his home, and
he took this witness into his home. Any lawyer will tell you that this
is the type of sloppiness that taints the evidence and disqualifies a
prosecution.
It is also significant to mention that of those 12 jurors, three of
them later submitted sworn affidavits alleging that they had been
misled by the jury foreman into believing that, if the majority of
people wanted to vote guilty, they had to also vote guilty, that a hung
jury was not going to be allowed by the judge. They felt pressured to
vote guilty, and they have since signed affidavits and made statements
that they would have changed their vote. They believed these men to be
innocent, and some of them actually broke down in tears when they heard
that they could have actually saved these men had they stuck to their
guns. But they were told that the judge, these are not lawyers, these
are simple people; they were told they had to go along with the
majority.
And when the judge heard this, and the judge heard that there was
evidence, he knew that this evidence had been kept from the jury, he,
even after knowing this, denied the request that the two agents be
permitted to stay out on bond until their appeal was made.
Well, let's look at this. There is no doubt that Johnny Sutton had a
choice. This U.S. attorney decided to prosecute the good guys and gave
immunity to the bad guys when he could have done it the other way
around. But he chose not to. And now he is engaged in this propaganda
campaign against these two men.
Well, the prosecution's only witness of course, the major witness
testified that, of course, this drug smuggler was hit in the buttocks,
not from the back. And even with that, we hear the U.S. attorney
claiming that the essence of this case is these corrupt agents shot an
unarmed man in the back. That is what he says.
Well, of course, this was not an unarmed man. You know, we are not
talking about a nun or some tourist who happened to stray across the
border. This was a professional drug smuggler who works for a drug
cartel, a delivery man to deliver vile drugs into our communities to
corrupt our children and destroy the lives of our families. These
Border Patrol agents were up against this man, not just a man, a
criminal of this level. And of course, they didn't, as I just said,
they didn't shoot him in the back. One bullet, we think, maybe from the
gun of one of these officers, actually shot him in the buttocks, but
the medical officer said that he was turned around. So it was like he
had something that he was pointing with his hand, which could well have
been a gun. So it wasn't in the back. It was in the buttocks, and it
confirms what the law enforcement officers were saying.
Now, let me say, remember this, this is really important. There is no
way to know that this drug dealer, whether he was armed or not. Mr.
Sutton chose to believe the drug dealer, but how do we know he wasn't
armed that day? The two agents claimed they said they saw something in
his hand. They have to take the word of the drug smuggler. Now, he has
been smuggling drugs since he was 14, and his family in an interview
said he always was armed. There is no question. He was a member of the
drug cartel.
But Mr. Sutton, our U.S. attorney, takes his word over the word of
our defenders. He has turned reality on its head. He has sided with a
drug smuggler over two men who risk their lives every day to protect
us, and now he must destroy them and vilify them in order to protect
this horrendous decision that he made to go with the bad guys rather
than the good guys.
There is no evidence, for example, that Mr. Sutton claims they were
corrupt. The Wall Street Journal printed an editorial saying these are
corrupt law enforcement officers. Corrupt. The Wall Street Journal
vilified these two men. Of course the Wall Street Journal, of course,
has a policy, an editorial policy of an open border policy. But now, to
back up their guy, their open borders guy, they vilify these officers
with a total falsehood. There has never been a charge of corruption
against either one of these two agents. They have never been charged
with corruption. They have, in fact, a totally clean work record.
And, yes, Ramos had some family problems a few years ago. And let's
make it clear what has happened. Another part of this vilification
campaign is that Mr. Sutton, even though he was not permitted to bring
this up in the
[[Page H1339]]
court because it is totally irrelevant, brought up a family problem
that Officer Ramos had many years ago. This is a despicable tactic on
the part of the U.S. attorney. Indefensible. Except it does illuminate
what this U.S. attorney is all about.
The family situation for Mr. Ramos was recognized as an aberration.
The fact is, Ramos has been recognized as a solid and respected
officer, and this is why he was nominated for Border Patrol agent of
the year.
And of course the U.S. attorney says, oh, well, that is not true. He
never became Border Patrol agent of the year. That is the type of
dishonest communication that calls into question his entire decision-
making process. No one has ever claimed he was Border Patrol agent of
the year. But he was nominated for that, and that means something.
So our U.S. attorney has found that he is just compelled to vilify
these people. So what is the real significance of this case? The U.S.
attorney's despicable prosecution of these border agents has put all of
our border agents on notice: Any use of force to protect America, to
secure our borders, if you do that, use any force, you will go to
prison and your life will be destroyed and you will be shown no mercy.
The consequences of the Ramos and Compean case extend far beyond the
destruction of these two men and their families. And yes, it is
horrible that these families are being driven into destitution. The
Compeans have lost their home. Their kids and the family, all their
family is shattered. They have no health insurance.
But what are the consequences for us? What does it mean for our
families? I will tell you what it means: It means that our southern
border is now open, not just to an invading army of illegal immigrants
but to drug dealers and to terrorists.
Let's ask ourselves this question: What if that van that they found
all the drugs in, what if it turned out to be a dirty bomb that they
discovered, a dirty bomb headed towards a major city that would have
destroyed the lives of hundreds of thousands if not millions of
Americans? Instead of 750 pounds of drugs, which is bad enough, what if
it was a dirty bomb? And what if the drug dealer turned out to be a
terrorist instead of a Mexican national?
Well, those two men would have been invited to the White House to be
congratulated. It is clear there is a larger and a hidden agenda at
play here. And Ramos and Compean simply are pawns who got in the way.
Johnny Sutton is a dishonest and overzealous prosecutor who has lied
to us about this case. And he is on the wrong side of the law by siding
with drug smugglers, letting them go free while he is prosecuting two
men for criminal activity when it may just well have been a procedural
matter.
His claim of not being able to prosecute the drug smuggler is
ludicrous. Both his office and the investigation have no trouble in
tracking down the drug smuggler, yet he chose to turn a blind eye to
the drug smuggler's offenses. And according to the investigation, there
were lots of prints, sets of prints that he could have used on that
van. Plus we had agents Ramos and Compean who identified him as the guy
who jumped out of that van. They could have prosecuted the drug
smuggler. But they chose to prosecute our heroes, our defenders.
Well, did Ramos and Compean make mistakes? Well, maybe they did.
Should they have been punished and reprimanded for them? Maybe. Should
they have been charged with a crime? Absolutely not. And by doing so,
the Justice Department has demoralized our Nation's defenders. And what
does that mean to us? That means that our defenders cannot now count on
their government to support them even when they are up against a drug
smuggler who may very well be armed.
{time} 1945
What does that mean for the rest of us? That means we have absolutely
lost control of our border. Border agents are put in a situation on a
daily basis that they must make a split-second decision.
By the way, this is the first time Compean has ever used his weapon
in the 5 years of service. He is being portrayed as some trigger-happy
Border Patrol agent? Well, these agents don't have a second chance when
someone aims something at them. So this policy that you can't fire
until you are in the sights of a drug smuggler's gun is a death warrant
to our defenders. Ironically, Ramos and Compean thought that the drug
smuggler was aiming at them. Interestingly, as I say, Compean had never
fired his weapon before.
These are the facts. These are the facts that have enraged the
public, causing Americans to wonder what in God's name is their
government doing? What is their President thinking? How can our
President be so mean-spirited and arrogant not to hear the pleas from
so many of our citizens, even from Members of Congress, for some type
of mercy for Ramos and Compean, who had risked their lives to defend us
for so long?
Well, there is a hidden agenda here. That is what this is all about.
Very powerful economic interests in this country want cheap labor. They
want open borders. They want cheap labor from illegals to come here so
they can depress the wages of working Americans.
Well, the out-of-control flow of illegal immigrants is a nightmare to
regular Americans, not this one group of elitists. But the policymakers
here in Washington and their elite corporate interests are so arrogant
and so smug that they do not care about the suffering of the American
people. They don't care. These elites don't care that illegal
immigrants are shutting down the emergency rooms so if your children in
California have a car accident, they will die. They are overcrowding
our classrooms so our kids aren't getting the education they deserve.
They are driving down wages. And our criminal justice system is
breaking down in California. We have American citizens who are being
victimized. They are being murdered and raped and robbed by criminal
illegal immigrants every day. But these elitists don't care, and our
President doesn't seem to care.
The only heroes in this entire immigration mess, the only heroes are
the thin green line of the Border Patrol. And the elites now have
decided they have to brutally smash two of them in order to warn the
others not to get in the way of their open border policy.
The public has every right to be angry about this case, and I join
them in this outrage. Let me note that today I received 304,000
petitions that were signed by citizens of this country for the
President of the United States asking for pardon. As we know, Officer
Ramos was attacked last night or the night before. He was brutally
attacked in prison. And this should do nothing but ask for another
plea. This man's life is in danger. Compean's life was in danger. We
knew that. That is why they should have been out until their appeal is
heard.
We are pleading with the President. The American people are asking
the President to pay attention. Please pardon these men. Give them a
chance. If they are murdered in prison, the President will be held
accountable. The President is accountable of the fact that Ramos was
beaten up.
This case shows the insanity of this administration's border policy
and perhaps the hidden agenda of this border policy. No guest worker
program, no amnesty program is going to be feasible if we cannot
control our borders. If this country cannot stop an illegal alien drug
smuggler, this country has no border controls whatsoever.
And let me end my comments by this following statement: Our job is to
watch out for the interests of the people of the United States. The
people of the United States and many of these illegals who stream
across our border are wonderful people. The vast majority are wonderful
people. But we have to be concerned about the interests of our people
who are suffering because of this out-of-control illegal immigration
flow.
United States, who is it? It is us, U.S. Who are we? We are Mexican
American people just like Ramos and Compean. We are Irish Americans. We
are black Americans. We are people who came here from every corner of
the world. And if we don't have a consideration for Americans over and
above what we care about people in other countries, then we will not
have an America that our Founding Fathers dreamed about. We are losing
our country. And if we lose control of the southern border, the
terrorists and the drug dealers and the
[[Page H1340]]
invading armies of illegals will make it so that within a short period
of time, maybe 10 years from now, maybe 20, we will have lost America.
The American people are crying out in a rage. The President should
listen. The President has to listen.
Mr. BILBRAY. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman from California.
And at this time, Mr. Speaker, I would like to yield to the gentleman
from the great State of North Carolina (Mr. Jones).
Mr. JONES of North Carolina. Mr. Bilbray, I want to thank you very
much for yielding. You will soon be the leading the Immigration Caucus
here in Washington, D.C., that is involved with many Members from both
parties and who are concerned about the future of this great Nation.
To my friend Mr. Rohrabacher, I want to thank him for his passionate
feelings tonight. The American people had to feel that.
I want to say to you, Mr. Bilbray and Mr. Rohrabacher, that we have
for the last 7 months, a large number of us, have been fighting for
these two border agents.
I am not going to try to repeat anything that has been said. I want
to be short in my time because of the limited time that is left
tonight. But I want to say that, as Mr. Rohrabacher articulated every
aspect of this case, there is nothing I could add to it except this: We
have written, at least myself alone, four letters to the President of
the United States going back to August 21 of 2006. We have a letter
today, which will be the fifth letter. Many of these letters by me
personally have been signed by at least 30 to 40 Members of Congress.
Mr. Rohrabacher had one back in December signed by 50 Members. And I
want to join him very briefly. Why will this administration not listen
to the truth?
And I am not going to try to articulate anything that has already
been said, but these men are heroes in this country. I don't know how
these Hispanic Americans, and that is what they are, a great part of
America, Hispanic Americans, Compean and Ramos, how their families
could believe in America tonight, with their loved ones who tried to
fight drug traffickers in this country. Their husbands tonight, Ramos
and Compean, are in the Federal prisons. And as was said by Mr.
Rohrabacher, Mr. Ramos last Saturday night was beaten up by Mexican
nationals.
I close my brief comments tonight by saying to the President of the
United States, please listen to the Members of Congress. But more
important than the Members of Congress, listen to the American people.
For the last 8 months they have been calling talk shows throughout this
great Nation and saying to the President of the United States please
pardon these men.
And when I heard Tony Snow answer the question a month ago and said
that this is nonsensical, Mr. Snow, wake up yourself. Awaken the
President to what has happened. These men deserve to be heroes, not to
be crucified by this government.
If we believe in justice, Mr. President, and I hope and believe that
you do believe in justice, then soon, in the next few days, you will
grant a pardon to these two men.
And with that, Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my friend for this brief
time. And that is all I needed was this brief time.
Mr. BILBRAY. I appreciate the gentleman from North Carolina.
And at this time I yield to the gentleman from the Volunteer State,
the great State of Tennessee, Chattanooga's favorite son, Congressman
Wamp.
Mr. WAMP. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman's yielding to me.
I came to the Capitol tonight to actually take the eighth-graders
from Silverdale Baptist Church on a Capitol tour here, which I am going
to do downstairs in a few minutes. But this is a very important issue
that really strikes to the heart of what our priorities are in this
country today.
My responsibilities here in Washington and in this Congress are, as
the ranking member of the Appropriations Committee, charged with
resourcing the legislative branch. We ask Capitol Police officers and
the Sergeant at Arms personnel to stand in harm's way on our behalf. I
have got to tell you all across the country we are asking men and women
of all ethnic backgrounds, all religions, all cultures who are proud to
be called Americans to stand in harm's way on behalf of our civilian
population and, in this case, our elected leadership in this country.
And you can't ask them to do that and then send the wrong signals by
not standing with them when they are doing their job. And I know that
people are entitled to due process, but this is one of those obvious
cases where the President needs to get involved and take decisive
action.
My district director in Chattanooga's son works for Border Patrol on
the southern border. It is a difficult job. These people are harassed.
Their lives are on the line all the time. It is a tough, nasty
business. It does not always go perfectly, but if we are ever going to
recruit new people to serve and to stand in the gap on behalf of our
country, we have to stand behind the people that do. I don't think we
have done that. I do not think due process has, frankly, been served
here. And I think the President should take action, and I was proud to
join on the letters asking the President to do this.
Thoughtful people from all across the country are saying what in the
world is going on? How could this happen? And I want that next
generation of Border Patrol agents to be recruited and know that their
country is not going to leave them hanging and leave them in Federal
prison for doing their job. It is dangerous. Our country needs to stand
behind them. And these are difficult days. Our generation is going to
be called to enormous sacrifice. We have got to make difficult
decisions on whether or not we are going to stick together, because if
we do not hang together, we will indeed hang separately.
Mr. BILBRAY. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the chance to be able to
present this issue before this body. I think that, as the Congressional
Immigration Caucus has pointed out, there is an issue here that
obviously the American people are interested in and we were able to
present tonight.
I just have to close with a few comments. One is the fact that the
White House has discussed that there are procedures they have to go
through. I think it is quite clear to anyone who reads the Constitution
that the White House, the President, does not have to go through any
procedure except to the decide either to pardon or not to pardon.
We hear a lot over the years of Executive privilege. Executive
privilege. And every White House since George Washington has loved to
discuss the concept of Executive privilege. But with that privilege
goes Executive responsibility. And the White House bears the
responsibility and the sole responsibility to issue pardons where there
has been a miscarriage of justice. And I think the consensus is among
many of us that this is exactly the kind of situation that the Founding
Fathers had in mind when they proposed that the Executive and only the
Executive would have this power, and this unencumbered power, separate
from other procedures, to be able to right a wrong when the justice
system has failed. I think that this is a chance that we can talk
about.
But the thing that concerns me, Mr. Speaker, as being a Member who
was born and raised on the border, I think that what has happened in
Texas with this case reflects the total lack of understanding of just
how out of control our borders are.
I hear people again and again in the Federal Government say that
there are not the resources down at the border to be able to enforce
the laws against drug smugglers, that there just isn't enough money and
manpower to be able to address the problem, that we must allow these
people to go free.
Well, Mr. Speaker, if there was enough money to go down into Mexico,
find a drug smuggler, negotiate a back-room deal with this drug
smuggler, bring the drug smuggler back, and give them amnesty not just
once but twice, if there were enough resources to cut this kind of deal
and make this kind of effort to make sure that two Border Patrol agents
get convicted, my God, aren't there enough resources to use the same
effort to go after the drug smugglers? And I really ask that we
consider that.
I would just like to say that tonight we were able to spend almost an
hour discussing an issue that is very near
[[Page H1341]]
and dear to those who are concerned about the fact that our borders are
out of control, that this incident happened in an area where Border
Patrol agents had a firefight with smugglers with automatic weapons a
few months ago, if you remember. And we wanted to remind the American
people how out of control and absurd the situation has become in a lot
of ways.
We hope, as the Congressional Immigration Caucus, Mr. Speaker, that
over the next few months that Wednesday night will be spent as a night
where those of us who are concerned about the illegal immigration issue
and the out-of-control border will spend an hour every Wednesday night
reporting to the American people of what is going on, on this most
critical issue that Democrats and Republicans both care about.
{time} 2000
If there was ever a situation and ever an issue where partisanship
should be put aside and being an American should be first, it is time
that we find a way to work together on the immigration issue. I call on
you and everyone that has the honor of working in this House of the
people to join together to address that. I invite you and every Member
of the House to join the Immigration Caucus, so that we can work
together for the good of all Americans.
____________________