[Congressional Record Volume 153, Number 47 (Monday, March 19, 2007)]
[House]
[Pages H2662-H2669]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
OUR SOUTHERN BORDER
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the Speaker's announced policy of
January 18, 2007, the gentleman from California (Mr. Rohrabacher) is
recognized for 60 minutes.
Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Speaker, today I discuss a black mark on this
administration. And while I realize this is the fourth anniversary, and
I have enjoyed the comments of colleagues, comments with which I may
have some disagreement, I would like to discuss another issue. Because
no matter what we do in Iraq, one way or the other, whether we succeed
there or not, if our southern borders are not secure, if the southern
borders are open to an invasion of illegal immigrants and open to an
invasion of our country by terrorists and others who would do us harm
and drug dealers and drug cartels, America is in great jeopardy. So no
matter what is happening overseas, and I would grant you that the
President may have made some mistakes and he may well have been well
motivated, but his motives in determining the policy of what is
happening at our southern borders is not what is in question. It is his
actions. And what we have today is a dangerous threat to the safety of
our people, the security of our country at our southern border.
[[Page H2663]]
{time} 2215
Today I discuss a black mark on this administration in terms of the
security of our country, a vile crime which has been committed against
two law enforcement officers whose job it has been to protect our
families and our communities by keeping control of America's borders.
The 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 made their rounds that day 2 years ago, they checked on a
tripped sensor near the border. Agent Compean discovered footprints and
drag marks, the usual indication of a drug load being smuggled across
the river. He spotted a vehicle, then radioed in the description and
followed the suspect. The suspect realized that he had been spotted and
turned around to rush back towards Mexico. Agent Ramos then observed
the van driving at a very high rate of speed, and, after the driver
ignored commands to pull over, Ramos gave chase.
By the way, according to the prosecuting attorney, pursuing a fleeing
suspect without a supervisor's permission is against the Border Patrol
policy. Now, get this. We are being told that just pursuing someone who
has come across the border in a vehicle, without permission of a
supervisor, is an illegal act, is against the rules for our Border
Patrol agents. Whoever made that rule up? I wonder if the drug
smugglers and the terrorists know about that rule?
The drug smuggler, then, in this particular instance, abandoned his
vehicle and fled towards Mexico on foot, but he was intercepted by one
of the agents, Agent Compean. Once again, ignoring several commands by
Agent Compean to stop, a physical altercation ensued, with Compean
ending up in the ditch.
Seeing his opportunity, the smuggler ran toward the border. According
to Agent Compean's sworn statement, while running, the suspect turned
and pointed something shiny with his left hand. Believing that his life
was in danger, Agent Compean opens fire. Now, how long do you have to
determine whether that is a gun in the man's hand as he runs away and
aims something at you?
Hearing the gunshots, Agent Ramos came to the aid of his fellow
officer. He, too, shouted for the smuggler to stop, but instead of
obeying his command, the illegal drug smuggler once again turned and
ran and, as he was running, again turned and pointed something shiny at
Ramos, who at that moment shot his weapon once.
After disappearing into the banks of the Rio Grande, the smuggler
reappeared on the Mexican side where he jumped into a waiting van,
which was waiting for him. Obviously, an organized situation.
Unbeknownst to Officers Ramos and Compean, a bullet hit the illegal
drug smuggler in the left buttocks. Other agents, including two
supervisors, were nearby and could not see what was going on, but we
have every reason to understand they heard the shots because they were
that close.
When the abandoned van was examined, 743 pounds of marijuana were
found. The payload was seized, and one would think that congratulations
were in order. After all, Ramos and Compean were heroes, weren't they?
They had been responsible for taking off the street $1 million worth of
drugs bound for our communities. Good job, fellas, right? No. Wrong.
Agents Ramos and Compean, not the illegal drug smuggler, are at this
moment languishing in Federal prison, serving 11- to 12-year sentences,
and, in fact, they are in solitary confinement.
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 who willingly risked their lives protecting us for 5 and 10
years. For their families, this is a hellish and destructive nightmare.
They are losing everything.
And just today the Compean family was sent a letter signed by
Attorney General Johnny Sutton, who prosecuted their loved one, their
husband, asking for them to pay court costs of $2,800 while their
husband has been sent away to prison and their family is being
condemned to destitution, losing their health insurance, and then they
get a letter asking for them to pay the court costs. I would offer this
up for the Record.
U.S. Department of Justice,
U.S. Attorney's Office,
San Antonio, TX, March 14, 2007.
Re $2,800.00 and penalties and costs; Court No. EP05CR856(2);
Judgment Date: October 23, 2006, USAO #2007Z00182/001
Jose Alonso Compean,
El Paso, TX.
Dear Mr. Compean: On the date listed above, you were
ordered to pay the Court. The Financial Litigation Unit of
the United States Attorney's Office is in charge of
collecting your criminal debt. With the following exceptions,
the amount you owe is due now and will be delinquent after 30
days. Delinquency may result in certain penalties being added
to the debt pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Sec. 3612. Your cashier's
check or money order, payable to the Clerk, U.S. District
Court, should be mailed to the United States Clerk's Office,
U.S. Courthouse, 511 E. San Antonio St., Room 350, El Paso,
Texas 79901. Please note that personal checks are not
accepted.
The exceptions to immediate payment in full are as follows:
The terms of your judgment provide otherwise, or
You have made an agreement with the Court or your probation
officer, or
You have entered into a satisfactory repayment agreement
with this office, or
You are presently incarcerated.
If you are presently incarcerated, you may begin paying on
your debt through the Inmate Financial Responsibility
Program. Regardless of the foregoing exceptions to immediate
payment in full, please be advised that the United States may
enforce the judgment for the full amount as provided by law.
If you have paid the debt in full, then please disregard
this notice and notify the United States Attorney's Office
immediately by returning a copy of this letter with a copy of
the receipt(s).
Sincerely,
Johnny Sutton,
United States Attorney.
To add insult to injury, a letter from U.S. Attorney Johnny Sutton's
office was sent on March 14 to the families, as I say, of both of these
officers. And I have it right here, and let me read that to you, which
I have just submitted for the Record.
Final Litigation Unit of the United State's Attorney's Office is in
charge of collecting your criminal debt. The amount you owe is due now
and will be delinquent after 30 days. Delinquency may result in certain
penalties being added. Please be advised that the United States may
enforce the judgment for the full amount as provided by law.
This is to a family of a law enforcement officer now who is
languishing away in solitary confinement, and the family is being
destroyed. Talk about cruelty.
The Compean family has already lost their home, and they have no
health insurance, and now they receive a letter like this from the U.S.
attorney.
I hope the American people are understanding the horror story that we
are putting these two Border Patrol agents through. And our President
knows about this. His protege, the U.S. attorney, knows about this, and
I will tell you that, yes, Attorney General Gonzales knows about this.
So how come the agents were prosecuted and not the drug smuggler? Why
is it that the Border Patrol agents have been treated so ruthlessly and
without mercy by the U.S. attorney and by the Justice Department, and,
yes, by the President of the United States?
The whole rotten episode has turned justice on its head. The book was
thrown at heroes who protect us, while the drug smuggler got immunity.
According to U.S. Attorney Johnny Sutton, who was a longtime Bush
appointee and protege, a friend of the President, Ramos and Compean are
not heroes. In fact, he considers the 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 a mandatory minimum sentence of 10 years, and a
civil rights violation. Sutton claims he had no choice but to prosecute
the two Border Patrol agents because, according to Sutton, they broke
the law. And when they violated procedures for discharging their
weapons, they discharged their weapons at a fleeing suspect. That was
not permitted.
The procedures were not followed, and that is true. They didn't know
absolutely for sure he didn't have a gun. They thought he did. But
where do we have rules saying that a Border Patrol
[[Page H2664]]
agent has to be shot and wounded before he can use his weapon?
Sutton could have granted immunity to law enforcement officers and
thrown the book at the drug smuggler. That is what would have made
sense. After all, these two law enforcement officers had a perfect,
clean record. The drug smuggler was a drug smuggler.
But, instead, Johnny Sutton, our U.S. attorney, protege of the
President, chose to side with the drug smuggler, and threw the book at
the Border Patrol agents. This was totally discretionary on the part of
Johnny Sutton, who continues to say he had no choice but to bring
charges against the Border Patrol agents. No, he could have given the
immunity for a lack of procedure to the Border Patrol agents and thrown
the book at the drug dealer. This was an indefensible decision, and now
Sutton lies to us with the suggestion that he didn't have a choice to
prosecute.
So how does this incident then mushroom into this matter of the
ultimate and utter destruction of the lives of these two Border Patrol
agents and their families? After the incident, the drug smuggler, also
known as Aldrete-Davila, contacted Rene Sanchez, a childhood friend,
for advice. Why did he call Rene Sanchez? Because Sanchez is a current
Border Patrol agent in Arizona. Now, instead of turning in this drug
smuggler, even though he was a friend, an old, longtime friend, he
didn't turn in the drug smuggler. He went to the authorities, and this
law enforcement officer, who was sworn to uphold the laws of the United
States, chose to intervene on the behalf of his childhood friend who
was smuggling drugs, a mule for the drug cartel. He was also called as
a character witness, this same man, on the drug smuggler's behalf
during the trial in which he described how the drug smuggler actually
was a very fine and decent man.
Well, Mr. Sanchez contacted the Department of Homeland Security, who,
in turn, decided to open an investigation into the conduct of Ramos and
Compean. What? A drug smuggler with 750 pounds of narcotics is thwarted
from making his delivery and then complains he was shot at, and our
government decides to investigate the law enforcement officers?
Something is really wrong with this picture.
Mr. Sutton had every chance to focus his enormous prosecutorial
powers on the drug dealer. He chose to target the enforcement officers
because maybe they weren't following procedure. He chose to turn a
possible procedural violation by the Border Patrol agents 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 Special Agent Christopher Sanchez,
which is no relation to the other fellow, into Mexico, and this fellow
offered the drug smuggler immunity, an immunity deal in exchange for
his testimony against the Border Patrol agents. The smuggler was then
brought back into the United States, given free medical care for his
injuries, all at taxpayer expense.
One wonders at the outcome and what would have happened if Mr. Sutton
would have spent one-tenth the effort trying to find this criminal and
trying to demand his extradition and punishment for smuggling narcotics
into our country, rather than focusing on our law enforcement officers
who are there to protect us and trying to find a way to bring them
down.
The drug smuggler was portrayed by this U.S. attorney as the victim.
He was portrayed that to the jury and to the public as the victim
because the drug smuggler swears he wasn't armed, and, of course, the
U.S. attorney took the word of the drug smuggler rather than the law
enforcement agents that he wasn't armed. Sure, a drug smuggler has $1
million worth of drugs and he is not armed.
The jury is told that Davila was just trying to raise money to buy
medicine for his sick mother, and he had never smuggled drugs before.
So the U.S. attorney made that claim to the jury and painted the worst
possible picture of Ramos and Compean.
Then our government takes the word of this nefarious drug-dealing
character over two law enforcement officers, again portraying that to
the jury as what they believed to be the case.
In short, the initial decision to prosecute the two Border Patrol
agents instead of the drug smuggler was indefensible. And then our U.S.
attorney moved forward with a vigor to beat these two men down, perhaps
just to protect a wrong decision.
Well, Mr. Sutton's only defense of this wrong decision is to cover up
the horrendous decision. And how did he do that? He has to demonize the
two Border Patrol agents and has to make sure they get the maximum
penalty.
But this doesn't meet the smell test. Anyone who comes close to this
case knows it stinks. According to the Department of Homeland Security
Office of Inspector General's report, which includes Agent Compean's
sworn statement that he repeatedly stated that he believed that the
drug smuggler had a weapon, and that he felt threatened, the Border
Patrol training allows for the use of deadly force when an agent fears
imminent bodily injury or death. The two officers said that under oath.
Both officers testified they saw Aldrete-Davila turn and point what
they believed to be a weapon at them while he was running away.
The wound created by the bullet in this man corroborates the agents'
version of events. 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 while pointing backwards,
causing the body to twist, once again corroborating Ramos' and
Compean's belief that the smuggler had a weapon in his hand.
Later, the drug dealer's family, and this is really important; later
the drug dealer's family verified to a news reporter that he always
carried a gun and that he had been making deliveries of drugs for a
long time.
{time} 2230
That, of course, never made it into the trial or to the jury.
It is important to understand that only three individuals were
eyewitnesses to the crucial events of that day: the two accused border
agents and a self-admitted drug smuggler. The other Border Patrol
agents who responded to the scene and perhaps heard some of the shots
testified under immunity and contradicted themselves several times on
the witness stand. And why did that happen? What was the problem there?
Most importantly, when we are looking at this, we know that their
view of events was completely obscured. They did not see what was going
on, these other agents, the supervisors, because there was a 12-foot-
high berm on the edge of a levee right across from an access road where
all this was happening. None of the other agents could have seen what
transpired on the other side of this berm. Well, they heard the shots;
yet these agents, these same agents, two of them at least who were the
supervisors of Ramos and Compean, were threatened that if they didn't
testify against Ramos and Compean, they would be prosecuted themselves.
Is this intimidation?
The fact is these two supervisors didn't make a report on the
incident. They didn't ask Ramos and Compean about the incident. It
wasn't Ramos and Compean who falsified a report. They were never asked
by their supervisors because no one wanted to fill out 5 hours' worth
of paperwork. And then in comes the U.S. attorney making this a
criminal offense.
Well, it begs the question of why the two supervisors needed immunity
before they could testify. Why is it that they needed immunity? If they
weren't involved in the incident, why were they offered immunity? Well,
they were given immunity by Johnny Sutton because he was threatening
them. He was threatening, you either do this, or you are the one who is
going to be prosecuted for not filing a report on this shooting
incident. This calls into question what effect this all 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. We are talking about
what happened firsthand. The other people were across and didn't see
it. They heard noises. According to the Department of Homeland Security
investigation, the supervisors heard or knew about the shooting. That
is in the report of the Department of Homeland Security investigation.
[[Page H2665]]
So the supervisors heard or knew about the shooting; yet they did not
ask Ramos and Compean about it because why? Because they were trying to
cover something up? No. Because they didn't want to do 5 hours' worth
of paperwork on their own time. And Johnny Sutton, our U.S. attorney,
turned that into a felony, attacking our law enforcement officers and
letting the drug dealer go, focusing on our law enforcement officers,
trying to find anything he can do to get them and bring them down and
anything he can do to protect the drug dealer.
Well, it was their duty, meaning the supervisors who were threatened
by Sutton, to change their testimony. It was their duty, not the field
agents', to write a report about this incident. That is probably what
he used to hang over their head: You were the ones who were supposed to
write the report. If you didn't, they must have kept this information
from you.
It was never brought up even though they were right there. As a
matter of fact, the agents that we are talking about, Ramos and
Compean, and all agents that are on the border there, are prohibited by
Border Patrol policy from filing a written report on a shooting. INS
firearms policy section 12(b), 1(g) 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.'' So
Ramos and Compean were not permitted to file a written report, and the
supervisors didn't file it, and so Johnny Sutton went after the
supervisors and threatened them in order to get them to testify against
Ramos and Compean. After all, why then would he have to grant them
immunity otherwise?
``All written statements regarding the incident,'' a shooting
incident, ``shall be prepared by the local investigating officers and
shall be based upon an interview of the employees.''
So here you have Ramos and Compean prohibited from writing their own
report. Yet Johnny Sutton continues to claim that the officers filed a
false report to cover up their crime; not to cover up that they were
not following the right procedures, but to cover up a crime. The
supervisors knew about the shooting. They didn't ask Ramos and Compean
what had happened, because once they did, it would have required 5
hours of additional paperwork. And because the guy got away, they
didn't know that he had been wounded. They just assumed that the
incident was closed.
So now because people who were just trying not to have to do 5 hours'
worth of paperwork, officers who risk their lives for us every day are
being brought down and their lives destroyed because of that, and the
drug dealers go free.
By no means did anyone's action raise to the level of criminality.
What might be considered unauthorized discharge of a weapon, because,
let us face it, Ramos and Compean, again, couldn't prove absolutely
that they knew the drug dealer had a weapon, and, of course, if he did
and they were wrong, they would be shot, and they would be dead, well,
they can't prove it absolutely; so that has been turned into attempted
murder by the U.S. attorney.
Again, the agents thought the drug smuggler was pointing something at
them. Their story has never changed. They testified to this in court.
The drug smuggler had just been in a physical altercation with one of
the officers. Of course, the U.S. attorney believed the drug dealer,
who swears that Compean just fell down. He believes the drug dealer
when he said, ``I didn't have a gun.'' You have to believe the drug
dealer because he was the only one on the scene and he got away,
although his family has told reporters that he always carried a gun.
And it does make sense that someone who carries a million dollars'
worth of drugs would be armed.
So even though the Department of Homeland Security Office of
Investigation determined that all seven officers on the scene knew
about or had heard about the shooting, the U.S. attorney granted those
officers immunity, which, now, why did he have to do that if they were
just going to tell the truth? To testify against Ramos and Compean.
There must have been a threat there: If you don't testify this way,
well, I am not going to grant you immunity, which means I can charge
you with a crime. So, remember, it is the supervisors' job, not the
agents', Ramos and Compean, to fill out the written report.
So this leads to the logical conclusion that these witnesses were
intimidated into testifying. Our U.S. Attorney's Office intimidated
witnesses. They were threatened and then given immunity if they went
along. If this incident would have been kept in perspective, this whole
shooting incident, and, yes, if the weapons were discharged without
justification, and, still, when you think someone is aiming a gun at
you, that is justification, but at the very worst, if all supervisors
and agents were failing to report a shooting, that may or may not have
been consistent with the regulations governing the discharge of
weapons. Maybe that was a violation of procedure, that those
supervisors, along with those two Border Patrol agents, should have
worked those extra 5 hours and filed that report. And do you know what
would have happened? They would have been disciplined, and that would
have been the end of it. The penalty for not reporting a shooting is a
5-day suspension.
This was an issue of procedural violation maybe, not criminality, and
there is a serious question about the viability of those mandated
procedures that we are talking about that you have got to really keep
your gun holstered even when you are going up against drug dealers and
you are going up against terrorists.
Of course, we have an insane border policy which has resulted in an
open border in which terrorists and drug dealers think they can just
come across the border, and this was even before Ramos and Compean, and
we have had an invasion of millions of illegal immigrants across the
southern border, and that border policy now is destroying the lives of
the only people who are there trying to defend us.
Over 90 Members of Congress have expressed concern, if not outrage,
at the many troubling aspects of this case. Our repeated attempts for
Presidential intervention have gone ignored or rebuffed. Our pleas to
keep the officers out on bond pending appeal fell on deaf ears.
Instead, the President dug in his heels and sent Tony Snow out to
chastise our efforts to save Ramos and Compean by suggesting, in the
President's words, take a closer look at the facts in the case since
these men were convicted by a jury.
Johnny Sutton went on public airwaves and lied to the public to
discredit the agents. How many times have we heard they shot an unarmed
man in the back as he was running away? He wasn't shot in the back. He
was shot in the side, in the buttocks, as he was aiming something at
the officers. He wasn't just a man. He was a drug smuggler. He wasn't
someone who happened across the border.
It has been discovered that the Homeland Security Department lied to
Congress and then covered up their lies because this was all part of
the effort by this administration to demonize the two law enforcement
officers, to cover up their horrendous mistake and decision in
prosecuting them in the first place, but, of course, also trying to
keep the lid on the fact that there is a disaster happening in American
security to our southern border. And this case, of course, brings
attention to the failure of this administration to protect our national
security and leaving us totally vulnerable at our southern border.
So even today the Department of Homeland Security released an
official statement by IG Skinner, and this statement, which I will also
add for the Record, is filled with misinformation and inaccuracies
about the facts of this case.
Statement of Richard L. Skinner, Inspector General, Department of
Homeland Security Regarding the Investigation of Former Border Patrol
Agents Ignacio Ramos and Jose Compean
Remarks by certain Members of Congress as reported in the
media have stated that members of my staff lied to Congress.
At a hearing before the House Oversight and Government Reform
Committee on February 8, 2007, I stated, in part, the
following:
The decision to prosecute former Border Patrol Agents
Ignacio Ramos and Jose Compean was made by the Department of
Justice, not by my Office. My Office conducted the
investigation in coordination with the United States
Attorneys' Office.
[[Page H2666]]
I stand by the work of my Office. Our investigators did an
outstanding job and I fully support their work.
At no time did any member of my staff lie to Congress about
the investigation of Mr. Ramos and Mr. Compean or any other
matter. My staff has acted honestly and in good faith.
In a closed Members' briefing on September 26, 2006, my
staff reported that Mr. Compean had said that he and Mr.
Ramos had stated that they ``wanted to shoot a Mexican.'' My
staff reported this statement to me, and then reported it to
Representative Michael McCaul and other Members and their
staff during the closed briefing. Representative McCaul was
then serving as Chair of the Subcommittee on Investigations
of the House Homeland Security Committee. At the time my
staff made that statement, they believed it to be true,
although we later learned it was inaccurate. In fact, Mr.
Compean had stated in a sworn statement that ``my intent was
to kill the alien. . .and I think Nacho [Ramos] was also
trying to kill the alien.'' The alien Mr. Compean and Mr.
Ramos attempted to kill, Mr. Olsvaldo Aldrete-Davila, had
come from Mexico and escaped back into Mexico.
The statement that Mr. Ramos and Mr. Compean supposedly
``wanted to shoot a Mexican'' never was reported in any
document by my office or by the Department of Justice, and
was not introduced at the trial of Mr. Ramos and Mr. Compean,
which had been completed on March 8, 2006, six months prior
to the briefing. That statement also was not reported by my
office to anyone other than then Chairman McCaul and the
other Members and their staff in attendance at the closed
briefing.
The briefing my office provided to then Chairman McCaul and
the other Members was initiated at his request in his
capacity as Chair of the Subcommittee on Investigations.
Mr. McCaul and the other Members understood that the
information my office was providing was not public, and was
not to be made public--it was For Official Use Only for the
Committee's use in discharging its official business.
At the time my staff tried to accommodate then Chairman
McCaul by providing an oral briefing, we did not have the
benefit of a trial transcript or even a written report of
investigation. Consequently, my staff made some misstatements
during the briefing, but nothing that affected the
investigation, the trial, the convictions or the sentencings
of Mr. Ramos and Mr. Compean.
The only reason the statement that Mr. Ramos and Mr.
Compean allegedly said they ``wanted to shoot a Mexican'' has
become public is because the terms under which my office
briefed the Members have not been honored. Others have
publicized that inaccurate information and reported it to the
media. That information was not used at trial nor in the
sentencing of Mr. Compean or Mr. Ramos.
The evidence that was introduced at trial proved that Mr.
Compean and Mr. Ramos attempted to shoot Mr. Aldrete-Davila
in the back while he was unarmed and running away from them.
Evidence introduced at trial proved that when Mr. Compean
and Mr. Ramos attempted to shoot Mr. Aldrete-Davila in the
back, they did not know that he had been attempting to
smuggle marijuana into this country.
Evidence introduced at trial proved that when Mr. Compean
and Mr. Ramos attempted to shoot Mr. Aldrete-Davila in the
back, they did not even know that he was in this country
illegally.
At no time did Mr. Compean and Mr. Ramos warn their fellow
Border Patrol Agents that they believed Mr. Aldrete-Davila
might be armed. Consequently, other Border Patrol agents
walked around in the open where they were exposed, rather
than taking cover or other precautions.
After shooting Mr. Aldrete-Davila in the buttocks, Mr.
Compean and Mr. Ramos made no attempt to arrest him, thus
allowing him to escape back into Mexico. Rather than try to
arrest Mr. Aldrete-Davila, Mr. Compean picked up the spent
shell casings and threw them away and instructed another
agent to do the same. Neither Mr. Compean nor Mr. Ramos
reported the shooting incident to their supervisor, though
required to do so.
In conclusion, I am deeply disturbed that these allegations
have been made regarding the integrity of my staff I
reiterate my staff acted honestly and in good faith at all
times.
And let me note, despite the administration's repeated claims that
Ramos and Compean were convicted by a jury of their peers, it is
important to note that the jury didn't hear so many of the facts that
were important for them to come to the truth in this issue.
Finally, after 11 months, the completed trial transcripts of their
trial were made available. So for 11 months we haven't even been able
to see the transcript of this trial. And here we have the Department of
Homeland Security telling us that when they were giving a briefing to
Members of Congress, one of the Members of Congress who is the chairman
of an oversight subcommittee, that they had made misstatements, and
then this document itself is filled with misstatements. One wonders
about the sincerity and the professionalism of the people in this
administration in this very volatile issue dealing with border control.
Something is amiss. Something is causing the system to go askew.
Federal District Judge Kathleen Cordone, another Bush appointee, I
might add, would not permit critically important aspects of this case
to be introduced during the trial. She did this at the request of the
prosecution. For example, she would not allow any reference to
describing the dangerous conditions of the border. Essentially the jury
was supposed to imagine that the shooting took place in a completely
sterile environment where the likelihood of Border Patrol agents
confronting armed drug smugglers was not a plausible scenario.
Well, that is absurd. And a recent headline in the Washington Times
is a perfect example. It states: ``Officers Outgunned on the Border.''
The reporter describes in great detail the unprecedented surge in
violence along our borders fueled by heavily armed illegal gangs who
patrol those areas in order to protect their criminal enterprises; yet
this judge didn't think it was important for the jury to find out that
these Border Patrol agents were working in extreme danger every day.
And thus when they thought they saw him turning around and aiming
something at them, would that be justified?
It might not be justified if you are in downtown USA in some very
peaceful town someplace around the country, or at some school or church
or maybe even in a courtroom, but when you are on the border, and you
are off on your own, and you are confronting this type of challenge,
yes, if someone is pointing something at you, and you realize he has
just escaped, that he has been in an altercation with one of the
officers, and then later, of course, we find out that he was a drug
dealer, yes, there was every reason for them to be concerned that he
might have a weapon and shoot them.
{time} 2245
In fact, his family, again has told a reporter, he was armed many
times when he went out, and he was someone who had done this many times
before, drug smuggling, that is. So perhaps the most troubling omission
from the trial, again, was about the drug smuggler himself.
Already under immunity for smuggling $1 million worth of drugs into
the country on that day of the shooting, Davila was involved with a
second drug smuggling incident in the months later after the first
incidents. In October of 2005, he again was part of another drug
smuggling incident. According to sensitive DEA documents obtained by my
office, the government's star witness against Ramos and Campeon was
ID'd as the driver of a van filled with another 750 pounds of marijuana
seized during a joint DEA-Border Patrol operation on October 23, 2005.
This was only 6 months after he had been intercepted by Ramos and
Campeon.
So instead of doing the right thing and throwing the case out because
their star witness has proven to be an awful, dreadful human being, a
professional drug dealer, instead of throwing the case out, no, the
U.S. Attorney chose to ignore this information; not only ignore it, but
to pressure everyone in the trial to make sure that this information
that their primary witness, the guy who they are portraying as a man
who had never done this before, and was simply raising money for
medicine for his mother, that the information he was involved in yet
another drug operation was never disclosed. The U.S. Attorney did
everything he could to make sure that was not disclosed to the jury or
the public.
Johnny Sutton has lied to the American people about this. Every time
he was asked questions about it, he would give an answer that sounded
like he was saying no, there was no second incident. But if you examine
the words, that is not what he was saying. He was, as unscrupulous
lawyers often do, saying one thing, but making people think that he was
saying something else. He was lying without actually having to be
technically lying.
So, what happened? We have their prime witness now involved in
another drug deal operation, and the U.S. Attorney pressures the judge
to not permit anything about the second incident to become known to the
jury. They
[[Page H2667]]
said ``Mr. Davila is not on trial.'' The prosecutor then insisted that
the defense could not even question Davila about a second incident.
Unfortunately, the judge went along with the prosecution in this case
and then ruled that just because the star witness had been arrested
again for drug dealing, that that was not relevant to this case. A gag
order was placed on anyone involved in the case so no information open
the second drug smuggling incident could ever reach the jury.
So the jury wasn't allowed to hear that the drug dealer's commission
of a second offense while he was waiting for that trial had taken
place. We are talking about the credibility of the primary witness
against Ramos and Campeon.
His credibility is not relevant? The jury shouldn't know that this is
not just a man who is raising money for the medicine for his mother,
that that is not who he is. Who he really is is a professional drug
cartel mule who did this often and was arrested again after he had been
given immunity by our government, and a pass, I might add, to go in and
out of our country?
The jury also never heard that Christopher Sanchez, the Department of
Homeland Security investigator who took Davila, took him and the
removed bullet fragment, which had been removed from him, this
Department of Homeland Security investigator took him to his personal
residence for a night after he was released from an American hospital
which got this bullet fragment out and the bullet fragment was in his
possession. So we have a negligent action that broke the chain of
custody for this vital piece of evidence.
What we are talking about here is something that any lawyer can tell
you is the type of sloppiness that taints evidence and disqualifies it
from being used by the prosecution. That wasn't permitted to be told to
the jury.
What is going on? Our Border Patrol agents make one possible
procedural mistake in the field in an instantaneous reaction to a man
who might be shooting at them, and the book is thrown at them. ``You
make any mistake and we are going to squash you like a bug.'' But when
they make a mistake about breaking the chain of evidence and actually
taking a witness putting them in a prosecutor's home, totally violating
procedures and tainting the prosecutorial case, well, those mistakes in
procedure are just ignored. They are just ignored.
Why is it that the two heroes who are protecting us with their bodies
every day of their life have the book thrown at them, and if they can
possibly turn a mistake into a felony, they are destroyed; but the U.S.
Attorney's Office, if they make a mistake, or the Department of
Homeland Security, which now admits that they made misstatements to a
group of Congressmen investigating this issue, and then I might add for
4 months covered up the fact they had made those misstatements, why is
it all forgotten and forgiven on one side, but yet our defenders have
to have the book thrown at them? Why is the government bending over
backwards to accommodate and protect a professional drug mule?
Our government went to Mexico, sought out the drug smuggler, granted
him immunity, issued a border crossing card and provided him free
healthcare, all at America's expense, and now the fellow thinks he is
going to sue the U.S. Government for $5 million.
Perhaps most perplexing is the fact that three of the 12 jurors in
the trial of Ramos and Campeon later submitted sworn affidavits
alleging that they had been misled by the jury foreman into believing
that if the majority of jurors voted for a conviction, they had to go
along and vote guilty, even though they thought the defendants were
innocent.
That is right. These are unsophisticated jurors, not very well
educated people, but regular human beings; intelligent, but not
educated in the ways of the law. They were told by the foreman of the
jury that hung juries would not be allowed. The three jurors said, and
they have signed written affidavits, that they felt pressured to vote
guilty. One of them said, ``Had we had the option of a hung jury, I
truly believe the outcome may have been different.''
Another juror said, ``I think I might not have changed my vote to
guilty had I known that a hung jury was an option. I did not think the
defendants were guilty of the assaults or the civil rights
violations.''
The judge, again at the urging of the prosecutor, denied a request
that the two agents that we are talking about, Ramos and Campeon, be
permitted to remain free on bond until the appeal could be heard.
Common criminals are permitted to stay out on bond until their appeal
is heard, but not these two Border Patrol agents.
I stand before you, Mr. Speaker. Here we are, and right now as we are
speaking Border Patrol agents Ignacio Ramos and Campeon are languishing
in solitary confinement in Federal prisons as a direct result of the
mean-spirited, ruthless prosecution that was brought upon them by our
Justice Department and with the backing of the President of the United
States.
Ramos and Campeon were ripped away from their families on January 17,
2007, and forced to begin serving their unjust 11 and 12 year prison
sentences all because our own Federal Government chose to take the word
of a drug smuggler and give him immunity and take his word over that of
two law enforcement officers and throw the book at them, even though
those two law enforcement officers had put their lives on the line to
protect the borders of the United States, protect our families and our
communities for 5 and 10 years, risking their lives for us.
I, along with a dozen other Members, signed on to a letter requesting
that the Justice Department release the officers on bond pending their
appeal. As I say, it is a courtesy often afforded common criminals.
And, yes, Ramos was severely beaten in prison, and thus we knew that
their lives were in danger for them to be in this prison and there was
a reason to let them be out on appeal. Yet the Justice Department chose
to ignore the pleas of Members of Congress and the pleas for mercy of
the families, and the agents were denied bond.
I might add that after a lengthy delay, I finally received a letter
from the Justice Department claiming to have no choice but to deny
bond. By the way, this was the Justice Department's letter to me. I
received it just today telling me why they couldn't give these two,
Ramos and Campeon, bond and let them out on bond while they are do
going through their appeal.
They really have to be very specific and they have to follow all the
rules. They have to be exactly right in what they are doing. Except, of
course, they address the letter to ``Congresswoman Rohrabacher.''
Congresswoman Rohrabacher. Well, if they can't get that right, why are
they playing with the lives of Ramos and Campeon? If they can't get
that right, why is it that if Ramos and Campeon make a little mistake
in their procedure, that they get the book thrown at them?
Also let me note this ``Congresswoman Rohrabacher'' letter to me from
the Justice Department is just another example of the contempt that
this administration has demonstrated time and again for congressional
oversight and congressional concerns.
This Attorney General, this President, has time and again, instead of
treating the legislative branch as something that deserves the respect
that we do deserve, as the presidency deserves, time and again we have
been shown contempt. We have had people in communicating to us, we put
questions in to the Attorney General and get calls back from people
four or five layers down. Here we are getting an answer back from
someone who doesn't even know that I am not a ``Congresswoman
Rohrabacher.'' Yes, that is contempt, and they will pay the price for
that contempt.
Our pleas as Members of Congress were not unfounded. Members warned
the administration that Ramos and Campeon faced imminent danger once
they entered the respective Federal correctional facilities. Not only
were they not properly protected, Agent Ramos was placed in a facility
known to be infiltrated by illegal Mexican gang members, and within 8
days of his arrival, Agent Ramos was savagely beaten by five of those
illegal Mexican gang members.
Instead of sending him to a minimum security prison or letting him be
out on bond, the administration decided to make an example of him. They
wouldn't even send him to a minimum security prison where he would be
safe.
[[Page H2668]]
Instead, the Justice Department chose to keep him at this dangerous
facility where he had already been beaten. And Agent Ramos, even as we
speak, has been in solitary confinement for 45 days and counting.
Solitary confinement. Locked in a cell 23 hours a day, telephone
privileges limited to one call of 15 minutes every 30 days, and no
interaction with other inmates. Mr. Campeon is suffering the same fate.
The Bureau of Prisons uses the euphemism to describe their
incarceration as ``special housing for their own protection.'' Make no
mistake about it, they are in solitary confinement, a unit designed as
a punitive measure, not a protective measure. Ramos and Campeon, two
brave Border Patrol agents, are suffering a fate not even bestowed upon
murderers and drug dealers. This amounts to cruel and unusual
punishment, intentional cruel and unusual punishment.
These two agents could have been sent to a minimum security prison
where they would be safe. We actually asked the President, through back
channels, personally, just go to the judge and support the effort to
let them out on bond until the appeal is heard. The next day, it was
announced that no, the administration officially opposes any letting
them out on bond.
Well, basically, that was sending a message to everyone who patrols
our borders. He sent the message to every Border Patrol agent when he
said not only are you going to be prosecuted, but you will be
destroyed, you will be obliterated, you will be smashed like a bug if
you get in the way of what we want to happen down at the border.
President Bush has essentially dismantled our ability to control
America's southern border. Any agent who gets in the way will be
squashed, as I have said. So much for the President's compassion. So
much for his talk about Christian charity. Ramos and Campeon are
languishing in solitary confinement. They are being brutalized. There
is cruel and unusual punishment being dealt out to them because they
dared challenge the President.
{time} 2300
I don't want to hear anything more about compassion from a man who
lets that happen to our brave defenders, and then focuses us on a far-
away war while letting terrorists and drug dealers penetrate our
southern border.
Since January 17, when the propaganda machine and smear campaign
against Compean and Ramos was fully unleashed by the President, by Tony
Snow, and his protege, the U.S. Attorney Johnny Sutton, more questions
than answers have arisen. Both Tony Snow and Johnny Sutton smugly
lectured the American people and Members of Congress to ``take a closer
look at this case.'' And as the President said in his own words, ``Take
a sober look at this case.''
Well, Mr. Speaker, I have closely examined this case, and maybe it
would behoove the President to take some advice and to look at this
case honestly.
U.S. Attorney Johnny Sutton, who is probably briefing the President,
has his own personal life tied up in this. He is not an unbiased source
of information about this case, just as Attorney General Gonzales is
not. They have already advised the President in a horrendous way and
started him down the road to the situation where he is at today.
John Sutton prosecuted the good guys and gave immunity to the bad
guys. He could have done it the other way around, but he didn't. He
chose to prosecute the good guys and give immunity to the bad guys.
Sutton has continually engaged in a propaganda campaign aimed at
creating a prejudicial public view against Agents Ramos and Compean. He
has repeatedly stated that ``these corrupt agents shot an unarmed man
in the back.'' This is not true.
The prosecution's own witness, an Army surgeon, testified that the
bullet hit Adrete-Davila in the buttocks, not in the back. And, of
course, he was turned in a way that the bullet entered indicating he
was aiming something backwards. And, of course, this was not just a man
in the back. It was not a nun or some tourist who happened to stray
across the border. It was a professional drug smuggler who works for a
drug cartel, a mule, a deliveryman for drugs, bringing dangerous
substances into our neighborhoods in order to threaten our schools and
our children.
Remember, since the drug smuggler absconded into Mexico, there was no
way to know whether he was armed or not, yet Sutton chose to believe
the drug smuggler who said he was not armed, even those the smuggler's
own family members say he has been smuggling drugs since he was 14 and
was ``always armed.''
So there is no question that he was a member of a drug cartel, but
Johnny Sutton takes the drug smuggler's word over the law enforcement
agents', and he portrays the drug smuggler to the jury in a dishonest
way and keeps from them information that would expose the drug dealer
as a professional drug dealer and not as he was portrayed before the
jury.
Johnny Sutton turned the drug dealer in front of the jury into a
victim. He was just trying to raise money for medicine for his dear
mother and had never done drugs before. Sutton turned reality on its
head. He sided with the drug smuggler over two men who risk their lives
every day to protect us.
So now they must be destroyed to protect the mistake that was made
not only in prosecuting them, but the mistakes that are made in policy
down at the border that are putting our country at risk. These two
Border Patrol agents are being destroyed to protect Sutton's failure.
They are being destroyed to protect Gonzales' job, and they are being
destroyed to protect the President's legacy, because all of those are
at stake if the people learn the truth about what is happening on our
border, and what the Ramos-Compean prosecution is all about.
Sutton vilifies helpless Border Patrol agents like these guys who get
in the way every chance he gets. Just ask David Sipe, Gary Brugman and
Gilmer Hernandez, all law enforcement officers who have been prosecuted
by Johnny Sutton.
What we are talking about with Ramos and Compean is not only a sin
against these men, not only a message to all our Border Patrol agents,
but part of a pattern that is going on in which this administration is
trying to cower our protectors, our law enforcement officers, from
enforcing the law at our border, leaving us totally exposed.
The lies are evident. For example, Johnny Sutton continually refers
to Ramos and Compean as corrupt agents. Well, again, why is our U.S.
attorney out speaking on radio calling them corrupt agents? There
weren't any charges of corruption. In fact, I have looked through this,
there has never been a charge of corruption against either of these
men. Yet the U.S. attorney is out in the mass media saying they were
corrupt Border Patrol agents. They have never been charged with
corruption because they have a totally clean work record.
Yes, Ramos had some family problems years ago, not part of his job,
and Mr. Sutton, of course, has chosen to bring that personal matter up
in order to vilify Mr. Ramos. But in terms of that, everybody
understands you can have family problems. This had nothing to do with
his job. In fact, Ramos had been nominated for Border Patrol Agent of
the Year, and there is no corruption, yet Johnny Sutton lies and says
these corrupt Border Patrol agents.
Johnny Sutton, when asked whether there was a second incident, lies
and says something that makes it sound like there wasn't a second
incident. But in reality his words are just technically not a lie, but
what he is presenting is an untruth. That is what unscrupulous lawyers
do.
What is the real significance of this case? The U.S. Attorney's
despicable prosecution of these Border Patrol agents has put Border
Patrol agents on notice: Any use of force to protect America, to secure
our borders, and you will go to prison, and your life will be
destroyed.
The consequences for Ramos and Compean in this case extend far beyond
the destruction of these two men and their families. Yes, it is
horrible that these families are being driven into destitution, and now
they add insult to injury, sending them a bill. The Compeans have lost
their home. There are three kids in that family, and they do not have
health insurance, and their lives are being shattered, and Johnny
Sutton sends them a bill to rub their nose in the fact that their
father is in prison in solitary confinement.
[[Page H2669]]
But what are the consequences of this to all of us? These families
are being destroyed, but there are more American lives at risk. Our
southern border is open not just to an invading army of illegal
immigrants, but, yes, to drug dealers like the ones like Ramos and
Compean confronted, and, yes, to terrorists.
What if it was found that that van that Davila was in turned out not
to possess a million dollars' worth of drugs, but instead it was a
dirty bomb in that van; and if that drug dealer wasn't a Mexican, but
instead turned out to be an Arab terrorist on the way to a target in
the United States? Well, these two men, instead of being in solitary
confinement, they would be invited to the White House and be
congratulated and be made heroes.
Now there is a bigger agenda here. There is a hidden agenda here at
play with the Ramos and Compean prosecution. The American people have a
right to know who gave the order to go ahead to prosecute Ramos and
Compean in the first place. I am sure Gonzales was in on it, and we
need to know that. We also need to know as this case progressed where
the President and Mr. Gonzales played a role in making decisions as to
where they would be imprisoned, and if they would get out on bail
during the time of appeal.
How did an incident that could have easily been resolved through an
administrative reprimand within the Border Patrol itself spiral into
charging them with attempted murder and a civil rights violation?
According to a memo dealing with a meeting between four members of the
Texas delegation and representatives of the Department of Homeland
Security investigating team, the Mexican Consulate contacted the U.S.
Attorney's Office on March 4, 2005, the same day this investigation
began.
It seems to fit a disturbing pattern with all of these other
prosecutions that the administration has moved forward with.
In the Gilmer Hernandez case, the Mexican Consulate sent 17 letters
to our government demanding prosecution. In the Gary Brugman case, the
Mexican consul sat in the courtroom during the trial, and Johnny Sutton
went so far as to thank him for his assistance in locating the illegals
Sutton used to testify against Brugman.
This stinks. We need to get to the bottom of this and find out if a
foreign government is having an undue influence on prosecutorial
decisions of our own law enforcement agencies and members. This subject
of whether there is some type of foreign involvement, meaning the
Mexican Government, in prosecutorial decisions here of our own law
enforcement officials, that is now going to be looked into by the
International Organizations, Human Rights and Oversight Subcommittee of
which I am the ranking member. Chairman Delahunt has stated that we
will be holding hearings into this subject. There will be hearings of
our oversight subcommittee to explore the pattern of questionable
foreign influence on our government's decisions to prosecute law
enforcement officers in the United States, especially those law
enforcement officers who are trying to stop drug dealers who are coming
in from Mexico, and stop the invasion of illegal immigrants who are
pouring into our country from Mexico.
{time} 2310
The Mexican government is having an undue influence on the decision
of our government prosecutors in order to make concessions to the
Mexican government. If our government is actually prosecuting people
who do not deserve to be prosecuted, the American people have a right
to know what political decisions are being made in coming forward with
these indefensible prosecutions.
Did Ramos and Campean make mistakes? Maybe. Should they have been
punished and reprimanded for them? Maybe. Should they have been charged
with a crime? Absolutely not. By doing so, the Justice Department has
demoralized our Nation's defenders on our southern border.
These are the facts. These are the facts that have engaged the
public, causing Americans to wonder what in God's name is going on with
our government, with our President. What is their President thinking?
How could our President be as mean-spirited and arrogant as to not hear
the pleas of so many citizens and to hear the pleas for mercy from the
families of Ramos and Campean.
Yes, there is a hidden agenda here. Powerful economic interests want
cheap labor. They want an open border. They want illegals who work
cheap and who will depress the wages of working Americans, but the out-
of-control flow of illegal immigrants is a nightmare at this moment for
the American people.
This administration and past administrations and policy-makers and
big corporate interests in Washington are so far out of touch and do
not understand the reality of what is going on with this issue, and
they do not care about the suffering of the American people. These
elites, they do not care that illegal immigrants are pulling down the
quality of our health care, shutting down emergency rooms. They do not
care that they are undermining the quality of education by overcrowding
our classrooms. They do not care that they are driving down the wages
of middle class working people. They do not care if our criminal
justice system is being stretched to the breaking point, that American
citizens are now being victimized and murder and raped and robbed by
criminal illegal aliens every day.
The only heroes in this entire system on which ordinary Americans
depend are those in the thin green line of the border patrol. The
elites have turned against our heroes, our defenders. They smashed two
of them to warn the others what will happen to any patriot who actually
is trying to protect our southern border and stop the criminal illegal
aliens from entering our country.
This case shows why a guest worker program or amnesty program is not
even remotely feasible until we can control our southern border. This
is a country that cannot or refuses not to stop these illegal aliens
that are pouring into our country. This country's policy has not
stopped this invasion of our country, and if we do not do this and we
do not support those who are protecting us in our southern border,
there will be a price to pay.
On 9/11 we suffered a huge loss when people flew airplanes into
buildings, but when it is fully understood, and I am sure the message
has gone out not just to our border patrol agents but to the drug
dealers and the terrorists throughout the world about what the
situation is on our southern border, we could end up with a catastrophe
in the making. We need to protect our southern border. We need to
protect it because that is the protection that we can give to our
communities, to our families.
Those border patrol agents, that thin green line of individuals who
risk their lives for us, they are our first and last line of defense
between chaos and mayhem and murder and the lives of our families.
I would ask that all of us make sure that we let everyone know, our
elected officials and the executive branch, the President as well as
Members of Congress, know how strongly we feel that Ramos and Campean
should be pardoned and that we should protect our southern border and
make sure the United States remains safe and secure.
____________________