[Congressional Record Volume 154, Number 36 (Tuesday, March 4, 2008)]
[House]
[Pages H1212-H1218]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




         ADMINISTRATION'S DISREGARD FOR CONGRESSIONAL AUTHORITY

  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, tonight I will discuss some serious 
examples of how this administration's contemptuous disregard for the 
authority delegated to Congress by the Constitution has impacted on how 
we do business here in Washington. This bad attitude has consistently 
manifested itself in a sophomoric resentment of Congress' 
constitutional role as an equal branch of government.
  Ironically, Congress has proven itself far more willing to cooperate 
than what Ronald Reagan found during the Cold War. The executive 
branch, however, seems too insecure to let Congress do its job, as the 
executive branch sees Congress basically, even with a Republican-
controlled majority, as a rival. And they see us as a spoiler rather 
than as elected representatives of the American people playing a 
rightful role in establishing policy for our great country. So, 
unfortunately, we see that in this President of the United States.
  But let me add that I have worked in the White House before. I worked 
in the White House at a time when Democrats controlled both Houses of 
Congress. And I have witnessed times when Congress itself, yes, has 
sought to undermine foreign policy initiatives of Presidents who are 
watching out for America's national security interests in a tumultuous 
time. That is not what I'm referring to and will be referring to 
tonight. But I mention this only to note that, yes, while I am 
condemning our President tonight, I recognize that in the past, many 
liberal left Democrats have been obstructionist in their relationship 
with the White House as today that I see the White House is being 
obstructionist to Congress.
  Many congressional Democrats, especially those on the far liberal 
left of the party, fought President Reagan every step of the way as he 
maneuvered to thwart Soviet expansionism during the waning days of the 
Cold War. Whether it was building a missile defense system, which now, 
I might add, protects us from rogue states such as Iran, Korea and 
China, or whether it was supporting resistance movements against Soviet 
puppet regimes in Afghanistan and Nicaragua, many congressional 
Democrats not only voted against the policy, which of course is their 
prerogative, but went far beyond that in an attempt to actually 
undercut and undermine the implementation of President Reagan's Cold 
War strategy. Liberal left Democrats in the U.S. Congress, for example, 
visited Nicaragua to encourage that Soviet ally regime to hold firm 
against Ronald Reagan's pressure to democratize.
  Even as the Soviets poured billions of dollars of military equipment 
into Nicaragua, Congress, at a very crucial moment, restricted aid to 
the resistance fighters who were struggling to pressure the 
Sandanistas, to what? To have democratic elections.
  In order to save Central America from a hostile takeover, Reagan had 
to overcome Soviet support for these rogue regimes, like the 
Sandinistas and different insurgencies that were supported by Cuba and 
the Soviet puppets in Central America, but the President also had to 
overcome congressional undermining of this stand that he had taken.
  In the end, of course, Congress, after 1 year of eliminating all aid 
to the freedom fighters, or he would say the ``democratic resistance'' 
in Nicaragua, after 1 year, which drew, threw the entire Reagan 
strategy into a chaotic

[[Page H1213]]

state, Congress restored U.S. financial aid to the Nicaraguan 
resistance. All of this was in keeping with the fact that the liberal 
left of the Democratic Party at that time was trying their best not to 
cooperate with Ronald Reagan but to undermine what he was trying to do.
  Finally, after Congress, by the way, restored money to the democratic 
resistance, the Sandanistas agreed and relented to a democratic 
election. And when it was held, the Sandanistas were trounced at the 
polls and thrown out of power for about 10 or 15 years, which of course 
must have surprised the liberal left Members of the U.S. Congress who 
had repeatedly dumped their vitriol on President Reagan as if he was 
supporting a terrorist group that was trying to implement a policy in 
Nicaragua that would lead not to democracy but to control of their 
government.
  Well, don't let anyone tell you that bipartisanship won the Cold War. 
It did not. And from my point of view, and I saw it very firsthand, 
there was a lack of cooperation, an unwillingness to cooperate on the 
part of many liberal left Members of this body during the Cold War. And 
that's history. That's a long time ago. And it was not a shining moment 
for many congressional Democrats. And it is certainly not a great 
example, as many people say, of cooperation and bipartisanship during 
the Cold War.
  Reagan's personal influence, however, enabled Congress and the 
executive branch to function even though there was a certain number of 
people here who were intent on obstructionism. Reagan respected 
disagreement, even if it was done in such a disruptive way. He 
respected the separation and the balance of powers at the heart of our 
Federal Government's structure and consulted often with Congress and 
had very significant changes of views with Members of Congress, even 
those liberal leftists who were trying to obstruct his policy. That 
same spirit from the top is, unfortunately, not evident in this 
administration.
  The Cold War is history, yes, but currently, radical Islam has 
declared war on us. It is a threat that should strengthen our 
willingness to pull together and cooperate. Yet, the disdain and 
uncooperative nature of this administration towards Congress, including 
Republican Members, is so egregious that I can no longer assume that it 
is simply bureaucratic incompetence or some isolated mistake; rather, I 
have come to the sad conclusion that this administration is 
intentionally obstructing Congress' rightful and constitutional duties.
  Tonight I will discuss some serious examples of this administration's 
contemptuous disregard for authority that was delegated to Congress by 
the Constitution. This bad attitude has consistently manifested itself 
in a sophomoric resentment toward Congress' constitutional role as an 
equal branch of government.
  Ironically, Congress has proven itself far more willing to cooperate 
than what Ronald Reagan found in the Cold War. The executive branch, 
however, seems too insecure to let Congress do its job, and it is an 
executive branch that sees Congress, even when the Republicans held the 
majority, as a rival and a spoiler rather than as elected 
representatives of the American people, people who are playing a 
rightful role in establishing a policy for our great country.
  Unfortunately, when the President of the United States rejects the 
legitimacy of congressional prerogatives, there are serious 
consequences. Tonight I will provide examples of how this 
administration, for the past 7 years, has undercut congressional 
investigations, had lied to Members of Congress, and has forged ahead 
with secret deals in spite of efforts and pleas by Congress to be 
informed, if not involved.
  In the last Congress, I was chairman of the Oversight and 
Investigation Subcommittee of the House Foreign Affairs Committee. In 
that capacity, I learned that in the time immediately leading up to the 
bombing of the Federal building in Oklahoma City, convicted Oklahoma 
City bomber and murderer Terry Nichols had been in Cebu City in the 
Philippines. His stay in Cebu City coincided with another visitor, al 
Qaeda's terrorist leader Ramsey Yousef. Well, interestingly, both 
Nichols and Yousef used similar bombs and methods just 2 years apart to 
blow up two American targets. Yousef was the mastermind of the first 
attack on the World Trade Center in 1993. Fifteen years ago, 1993, the 
World Trade Center blew up. That was Ramsey Yousef who organized that 
attack.

                              {time}  2015

  Two years later Terry Nichols was a co-conspirator in the bombing of 
the Oklahoma City Federal Building. These two individuals, one an 
American, one an Arab, were responsible for planning two of the most 
lethal terrorist attacks in our country's history. We are to believe, 
however, that by coincidence they both ended up in an off-the-beaten-
track city in the southern Philippines. Well, one doesn't have to be a 
conspiracy nut to understand that this coincidence is worth looking 
into.
  The perfunctory investigation into this matter was not comprehensive. 
And, yes, there was a small investigation into this, but it left many 
questions unanswered. So I started a congressional inquiry to look at 
that investigation and to look into the issue myself. This inquiry was 
sanctioned by Henry Hyde, chairman of the International Relations 
Committee, and its purpose was to see whether Terry Nichols or his 
accomplice Timothy McVeigh had foreign help with their murderous 
bombing attack on the Alfred Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City 
in 1995. Again, in light of the fact that Terry Nichols and Ramzi 
Yousef were both in Cebu City, some off-the-beaten-track city in the 
Philippines, and they were there at the same time and they had both 
committed hauntingly similar terrorist attacks, it was no stretch for a 
congressional investigative committee to look into the matter.
  However, the Bush administration felt quite differently. To those I 
had to deal with, it was case closed, don't bother us, the matter has 
been looked into, and Congress should simply and blindly accept the 
conclusions that there was no Nichols-Ramzi Yousef connection. ``Don't 
bother us'' was the attitude I confronted. This at times was 
bureaucratic laziness. At other times it was clearly based on a disdain 
for congressional investigations and authority.
  During my investigation, I secured Ramzi Yousef's cell phone records. 
The cell phone calls he made were documented. These were calls that he 
made in New York City, in that area, just months before he bombed the 
World Trade Center. The phone records clearly show that Yousef had made 
at least two phone calls to a row house in Queens, New York, basically 
at a time leading up to the bombing. Significant to my inquiry, that 
row house that Yousef, the bomber of the World Trade Center, was 
calling was occupied by the cousin of Terry Nichols' Filipino wife. Let 
me repeat that: the terrorist bomber of the first World Trade Center 
attack, the nephew of al Qaeda's 9/11 mastermind, Khalid Sheik 
Mohammed, made phone calls to the same row house that was occupied by 
Terry Nichols' cousin-in-law just 2 months before Ramzi Yousef exploded 
his bomb in the garage of the World Trade Center. What another 
coincidence. Just another coincidence.
  I gave this information to the Department of Justice that had never 
been thoroughly investigated, and since that time I have repeatedly 
sought their help to investigate this matter. Time after time my 
requests have gone unanswered or flatly denied.
  I also asked the Department of Justice on numerous occasions to help 
me investigate the name Samir Khalil. Now, this name is on the list, 
Samir Khalil, of unindicted co-conspirators in the 1993 bombing of the 
World Trade Center. I found that name. That name was there. A lot of 
people had overlooked that name. Why is it important? Because that is 
also the name of an Iraqi man in Oklahoma City who, at the time of the 
Oklahoma City bombing, employed an immigrant who was ID'd by many 
witnesses as a possible accomplice to the bombing. He was a look-alike. 
He may have been the person. He may have been John Doe II. He looked 
like what everybody described as John Doe II. That man's employer was 
Samir Khalil, and that same name happens to be on a list of unindicted 
co-conspirators for the World Trade Center bombing.

[[Page H1214]]

  Well, let's look at this for a moment. Numerous witnesses at the 
scene of the Oklahoma City bombing and the truck rental company that 
provided the truck for the bombing described an accomplice they say had 
accompanied bomber Tim McVeigh. An FBI sketch was made, and this 
unknown suspect was labeled ``John Doe II.'' You remember John Doe II. 
John Doe I was, of course, Timothy McVeigh. These witnesses described a 
man who, as I say, looked very much like this employee of another Arab 
immigrant, Samir Khalil.
  I have repeatedly asked the Department of Justice to tell me if the 
Samir Khalil on the unindicted co-conspirators list of the 1993 World 
Trade Center bombing is the same Samir Khalil who employed this man who 
was originally identified as John Doe II by a number of witnesses. The 
Justice Department's answer: it would be far too burdensome for us to 
try to find out if this is the same man.
  Further, we asked for help in finding the Arab immigrant, the John 
Doe II look-alike, who was employed by Samir Khalil. The guy who may 
well have been in the bombing of the Oklahoma City bombing. We traced 
this man to Boston, but we had no support and no cooperation in finding 
this very possible terrorist or at least a terrorist suspect.
  By the way, we now know that this same man who worked for Samir 
Khalil, the same guy who looked like John Doe II, once he went to 
Boston, and this has not been proven yet but it is possible and it may 
well be true that he was working at Boston's Logan Airport on 9/11 of 
2001, the day that a plane took off from that airport and was hijacked 
and then crashed into the World Trade Center. I guess another weird 
coincidence to the Oklahoma City bombing.
  If we don't want conspiracy theories to run wild, these types of 
things should be investigated. Instead, no follow-throughs, no 
interest, case is closed, don't bother us.
  Both Samir Khalil and his Iraqi employee now reside at this moment in 
the United States. And now let's not forget that there were eye-
witnesses who described an accomplice at Tim McVeigh's side at the time 
of the bombing and when he rented the truck that carried the bomb to 
the Federal building there in Oklahoma City. These are witnesses who 
saw somebody, and the FBI after a very short time simply declared John 
Doe II to be nonexistent. He never existed, and thus that means that no 
more investigation would be necessary even if a congressional 
investigator comes up with names that seem to match the Oklahoma City 
bombing and a list of unindicted co-conspirators for the first World 
Trade Center attack. No, that is not worthy of investigating even then 
because that would be too burdensome.

  Well, if it is true, of course, and it's not being investigated, that 
means there are two terrorists. If this happens to be true, and we 
don't know it's not true because the Justice Department refuses to 
investigate and to help in our investigation, that means there are two 
terrorists out there who may still be active and, in fact, may have 
been active later on in other terrorist actions.
  That is just a small taste of the deplorable lack of cooperation for 
a legitimate congressional investigation. And this, by and large, was a 
time when Republicans controlled the House. And it was no fluke, this 
lack of cooperation. I didn't happen to snag an uncooperative Federal 
employee. No, this was the level of noncooperation Congress now has 
learned to expect.
  And, yes, let me acknowledge that Departments and agencies have 
limited resources. So maybe they have other uses, better uses, for 
their time of their investigators. I understand that. I can hear that. 
I can listen with a sympathetic ear. They probably want to use the time 
of their investigators to follow up on their own leads and their own 
cases rather than following up on leads provided by Members of 
Congress.
  Well, I could buy that excuse except for the fact that there has been 
a total lack of cooperation that goes way beyond just not using their 
resources, committing scarce resources. Even when it costs no time and 
no resources, the administration has stonewalled my every effort to 
look into these so-called ``coincidences.''
  For the past year, for example, I have repeatedly requested an 
interview with imprisoned terrorist Ramzi Yousef. This would have taken 
no time. It would have required no new resources to be committed from 
the executive branch, or it wouldn't use the time of any Federal 
employee. This request was well within my committee jurisdiction and 
didn't cost the executive branch any time or effort or money. And as 
ranking member of an investigative subcommittee on the House Foreign 
Affairs Committee, I certainly had the right and, yes, my committee has 
the jurisdiction to make such inquiries and to look into such issues.
  This request that I made just to interview Ramzi Yousef, who is in 
prison, this request has been supported by the chairman of the 
investigative subcommittee on which I serve, that is, the chairman of 
the investigative subcommittee of the Foreign Affairs Committee, Mr. 
Delahunt; the chairman of the Judiciary Committee; the chairman of the 
Intelligence Committee. All of them are backing this request. This is a 
bipartisan request that Dana Rohrabacher, who has been looking into 
this issue, who has an official investigation, who is part of an 
official investigative subcommittee, is being denied a simple request 
to interview a Federal prisoner.
  Such attention by Congress should be welcomed by the administration. 
The legislative branch should be able to help bring new information to 
light. We can actually, if we look into these things, lay to rest some 
conspiracy theories that have no validity. We can help inform the 
public.
  Nevertheless, the Department of Justice, consistent with its 
treatment of congressional inquiries mainly during the tenure of this 
President, has dismissed our request, this valid request. It has 
treated the request with what I can only describe as contempt and 
condescension. The point is, unfortunately, that this rejectionist 
attitude is typical of this administration, not just for Democrats but 
for Republicans alike.
  So why should this administration obstruct congressional inquiries 
such as this? Remember, Ramzi Yousef was the mastermind of several 
devastating terrorist plots against America. He led the first murderous 
attacks on the World Trade Center in 1993. And after fleeing to the 
Philippines after that explosion, he and two other terrorists plotted 
to kill thousands of Americans by blowing up 12 commercial airliners 
over the Pacific. This was known as the Bojinka Plot. It was within 2 
weeks of being executed when it was discovered and thwarted by the 
Philippine police.
  Now, interestingly, the terrorist operation that we're talking about, 
the Bojinka Plot, the blowing up of these airliners, was to take place 
about the same time as the Oklahoma City Federal Building was to be 
bombed. Perhaps it was to be happening on the same day, but we don't 
know, of course, because we're stonewalled and blocked from looking 
into this. Perhaps we should know if the Bojinka Plot was originally 
scheduled to happen on the same day that the Federal building was blown 
up in Oklahoma City.
  In fact, when Philippine police arrested Ramzi Yousef's right-hand 
man at the makeshift bomb factory in the Philippines, Yousef fled the 
Philippines immediately, left the country. But he wasn't the only one 
to flee the country once that bomb-making factory had been captured by 
the Philippine police. The very next morning after it was learned that 
that bomb factory had been broken into and people had been arrested 
there by the Philippine police, Terry Nichols, who was down in Cebu 
City in the southern Philippines, cut short his scheduled visit to the 
Philippines and took the first available flight out of the country. 
This after just a day or two after he had extended his passport with 
the explanation that he wanted to stay a few more weeks in the 
Philippines.

                              {time}  2030

  Yousef has been a Federal prisoner for over a decade. He is a 
prisoner with a unique understanding of al Qaeda terrorist structure. 
He is the nephew of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, the mastermind of 9/11.
  In 2006, when I was chairman of the Oversight Investigation 
Subcommittee,

[[Page H1215]]

2006, I was investigating Yousef's moments and activities not only in 
the United States, but also in the Philippines. I even traveled to the 
Philippines to question the authorities who had captured Yousef's 
roommate and coconspirator in the Bojinka plot. In spite of the fact I 
was looking into Yousef's terrorist activities, and in spite of the 
fact that I had obtained new information about Yousef's phone calls and 
some of the people he was associating with while he was in the United 
States prior to the bombing of the World Trade Center, the first 
bombing, the Department of Justice still dismissed this effort, just 
dismisses it. More than that, they are obstructing a legitimate 
congressional investigation by refusing to permit this elected Member 
of Congress, who is a ranking member of a congressional investigative 
committee, to interview a Federal prisoner. They refuse access to 
Yousef, claiming there is an ``ongoing investigation''. I have been 
told by people in the Justice Department, people who had worked for the 
Justice Department in high levels, that this is nothing more than a 
vehicle, without any justification, for turning down any requests made 
by a Member of Congress.
  The arrogance of this ongoing investigation answer has to be 
understood. As I say, I was told by a high level Justice Department 
official that this was just the standard tactic to dismiss a Member of 
Congress, even though there was no validity and there was no even 
looking into whether or not there really was an investigation. It was 
without substance; a phrase that is used simply to turn down Members of 
Congress and to shut the door on inquiry.
  Let me note, an ongoing investigation. They expect us to believe 
that? This prisoner has been in jail for over ten years. More likely 
what we have here is an ongoing coverup. Not an ongoing investigation, 
an ongoing coverup. It is outrageous and, unfortunately, it is not 
atypical of this administration.
  By accepting this behavior, or perhaps, more accurately, acquiescing 
to it, we Republicans are permitting this administration to set a 
terrible precedent. Doesn't Congress have the right to talk to Federal 
prisoners? Is that the rules of engagement that we want to lay down and 
accept for our government? That is apparently what the Bush 
administration is trying to establish as the executive branch's 
rightful authority to deny congressional investigators access to 
Federal prisoners.
  What happens when a Democrat President engages in such stonewalling 
and obstructionism of congressional oversight? My fellow Republicans 
need to take this very seriously. This is an issue that goes way beyond 
Republicans and Democrats. This is a matter of the legitimate 
congressional oversight authority and whether or not we are going to 
permit this administration to basically undermine an important element 
of our right of oversight, and that is to go to Federal prisoners and 
to interview them ourselves to try to find information about what is 
going on in the Federal Government.
  Again, the attitude in its treatment of a legitimate request by a 
congressional oversight committee is not an aberration. It is not 
nonrepresentative of the way this administration has exercised its 
authority. It is actually representative of the way they have handled 
themselves.
  This request was first made and denied when Republicans controlled 
Congress, and I was then the chairman of the Investigative 
Subcommittee. The Congress now has a Democrat majority. In my position 
as ranking member of the International Organizations Human Rights and 
Oversight Subcommittee of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, I have 
seen this time and again.
  Our current subcommittee chairman, now that the Democrats have taken 
control of the House, is Congressman Bill Delahunt from Massachusetts. 
He read in the paper that our President is negotiating a secret 
agreement with the Iraqi Prime Minister that will govern the future 
relationship of our countries. Let me say that again. The chairman of 
the Oversight Subcommittee of the House Foreign Affairs Committee is 
getting his information about a hugely important bilateral security 
agreement from the newspaper.
  So, Chairman Delahunt rightfully decided to conduct a hearing and 
find out as much as he could about the agreement and invited the 
administration to testify before Congress. How did the administration 
respond? They ignored the request. So the hearing was held with private 
witnesses. Yes, the public has a right and an obligation to fully 
understand what commitments are being made by our President in our 
name. But the President and this administration did not feel compelled 
to come and tell us anything about those agreements.
  In a democratic society, policy is made after having open dialog. 
This administration has had to have been dragged, kicking and 
screaming, into open dialog because this President was elected 
President. George Bush was elected President. Perhaps he thinks he was 
elected king.
  In another attempt last month, our subcommittee held another hearing 
on this Iraqi security agreement and again we invited an administration 
witness to come to the panel, and the response was silent. The 
subcommittee held another, a third hearing on the topic, and again the 
subcommittee invited a Member of Congress to tell us what is going on 
in these negotiations about an agreement, status of forces agreement, 
and other agreements, with the government of Iraq, which may or may not 
commit us to future military involvement in that country. Even our full 
committee chairman wrote letters asking the administration to 
participate, and all the requests to this administration by our 
committee were ignored, except in one instance Chairman Delahunt's 
subcommittee was told by a White House staffer, and this went to one of 
the committee staffers that were looking into this, that the 
administration was unwilling to participate because, ``There's nothing 
to talk about because we haven't put pen to paper.'' Haven't put pen to 
paper on this security agreement.
  When confronted with the fact that the New York Times had written a 
story saying that a 17-page agreement was being passed around, that 17-
page, and I might say, first draft of the agreement was being passed 
around, this same White House staffer backtracked and quibbled. This, 
Madam Speaker, is unacceptable. It's dishonest, and it is typical.
  For an update, the stonewalling prevailed until a few weeks ago when 
Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, a person who I dearly admire, 
testified at a hearing of the full International Relations Committee. 
When asked, she pledged, now she was asked directly by Chairman 
Delahunt, she pledged that in the future, witnesses dealing with the 
Iraqi agreement would be forthcoming.
  Well, today our subcommittee held another hearing, and at long last, 
at long last, the administration sent two witnesses, one from the State 
Department and one from the Defense Department, to come and talk to us 
about the ongoing negotiations and the ongoing development of different 
plans, the status of forces agreements and such dealing with Iraq, 
agreements that might bind us in some way to future ties with Iraq, and 
we had a long and positive discussion. That should have happened a long 
time ago. But we had to force the administration, after months, after 
months, to have an open discussion of this issue. And it took 
Condoleezza Rice herself to overcome the bad attitude that was 
preventing that. So, thus, we have to assume that that bad attitude was 
coming from someone higher up than Condoleezza Rice.

  Sadly, this administration's antipathy to the constitutional 
responsibilities of the legislative branch of government does not stop 
and end with the efforts of my Subcommittee on Investigations. In 
October of last year, 22 Members, 22 colleagues and I wrote a letter to 
the Acting Attorney General regarding former National Security Advisor 
Sandy Berger. In 2005, Sandy Berger pled guilty to mishandling and 
destruction of classified documents. He admitted to unlawfully removing 
and subsequently destroying classified documents from the National 
Archives. These documents dealt with the failure of our intelligence 
agencies during the Clinton administration to prevent the horrendous 
attacks of 9/11.
  As part of his plea deal, Mr. Berger agreed to take a lie detector 
test, which was to be given by the Department of Justice. This would 
verify

[[Page H1216]]

what documents had been stolen by Mr. Berger. We are still waiting, 
Madam Speaker, for that lie detector test to be administered. We need 
to know what documents this man took from the Archives. It is important 
for us to know who is responsible for 9/11, what mistakes were being 
made, and what is being kept from the American people. As a senior 
member of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, I was and still am 
rightfully concerned that this lie detector test has not been given and 
we haven't verified what documents have been stolen.
  Well, on October 10, I and, as I said, 22 of my colleagues sent a 
letter to the DOJ, the Department of Justice. We received a letter back 
on October 22. It acknowledged the DOJ's receipt of our inquiry, and it 
was signed with an illegible signature so we weren't able to find out 
who the heck was answering us. And we were given a tracking number so 
we could track further correspondence.
  Well, in spite of the fact that we were treated with this insulting 
computer-generated response, as well as a tracking number, what we have 
here is an official inquiry by 23 Members of Congress, and we had hoped 
that in time our request would at least be answered by a responsible 
party at Justice. Well, we got our wish. On January 24, 2008, 94 days 
later, we received a response, a dismissive short letter that explained 
that the Department of Justice saw no reason to polygraph test Sandy 
Berger. No reason whatsoever.
  Madam Speaker, I have been a Member of Congress now for over 19 
years, and I have never seen such a pattern of blatant disregard and 
outright disdain for Members of Congress. If Sandy Berger is not to be 
polygraphed to verify what documents he stole from the Archives, we 
need to know why such verification is not being done. We don't need to 
be dismissed with short letters and form letters. Twenty-three Members 
of Congress made a request, a legitimate request, and this 
administration thumbed its nose at these Members of Congress, and thus 
was thumbing its nose at congressional oversight and our congressional 
prerogatives as elected representatives of the people. This 
administration wouldn't even give a respectable answer to a rightful 
inquiry of Members of Congress.
  Of course, on the other hand, the President thinks he has a right to 
make demands on us. In his State of the Union address, Mr. Bush 
demanded that Members of Congress must act on certain issues, we must 
do as he wishes, we must pass legislation that is necessary. Yes, we 
must do things; yet, when 23 Members of Congress, most of his own 
party, write to his Justice Department a serious letter of inquiry 
about a national security issue or we make a request to see a Federal 
prisoner, we get a computer-generated letter, or just a disdainful, 
contemptuous turndown.
  By the way, one of the responses I received, obviously looking into 
this, all of them, not just one but all of them were basically, one was 
an old letter, a copy of an old letter that had been sent to another 
Congressman. This bad attitude that I am detailing is pervasive.
  The handling of a proposed totalization agreement with Mexico is yet 
another example of the type of bad attitude and secrecy of this 
administration. The totalization agreements with Mexico have to be 
looked at very closely. Totalization agreements in and of themselves 
can serve a useful function. Large corporations in both the United 
States and elsewhere, in Europe, for example, assign personnel to work 
overseas, and during these years when these employees are overseas, 
they are double taxed. They pay both Social Security and the equivalent 
tax in their native countries.
  So allowing the Social Security Administration and foreign agencies 
to give credit to one another towards their retirement systems makes 
sense when it involves a limited number of persons working legally and 
temporarily in another country.

                              {time}  2045

  So the concept is not itself alarming. However, this is not the case 
with illegal immigrants.
  We have 20 million people living and working illegally in the United 
States, with Mexicans by far making up the largest chunk of this 
illegal immigrant population. This is not a limited number of Swedes or 
Japanese executives who will work here for several years and then go 
home. We are talking about millions and millions of people who can make 
or break our Social Security system if this issue is not handled 
responsibly.
  Knowing the volatility of both the Social Security and illegal 
immigration issues, the totalization negotiations with Mexico have been 
kept strictly under wraps. Remember, these negotiations started in 
2002. That is when Republicans controlled Congress. One would think 
that a Republican administration would at the very least advise 
Congress, perhaps a status report, concerning such significant 
diplomatic efforts as the totalization negotiations with Mexico. Well, 
Congress did not know the details about this negotiation until it hit 
the press.
  Now, I just detailed for you a few moments ago how the President of 
the United States and this administration is keeping things from this 
Congress, tried its very best not to send witnesses to help discuss a 
grievance that is being made with the Government of Iraq. Well, that is 
not new. What I am telling you now is that it also manifested that very 
same lack of openness and secretiveness in these talks with Mexico over 
a totalization agreement.
  And it wasn't just secrecy. Worse, the press releases about the 
negotiations that were going on were misleading, and it appears that 
Congress was being misled as to exactly what it was the administration 
was agreeing to concerning Social Security benefits for Mexican 
nationals who are working illegally in the United States.
  This issue is of the utmost concern to my constituents, who are 
suffering from the uncontrolled flood of illegals pouring into our 
country. In California, our schools, our health care system, our 
criminal justice system all are at the breaking point. All we need is 
to attract millions more illegals into our country by giving them 
access to our Social Security system.
  I have in fact proposed legislation to ensure that no work done while 
someone is in this country illegally should count toward a Social 
Security benefit. That is not what President Bush believes, however. In 
the totalization agreement negotiations, the Bush administration agreed 
that illegal aliens from Mexico will be eligible for the same treatment 
under Social Security as U.S. citizens, without ever becoming a legal 
resident or citizen of our country.
  It took a long, drawn-out battle in the form of a Freedom of 
Information lawsuit to get the details of this agreement from this 
administration. Again, another example of secrecy, of deceit. Again, 
the administration was stonewalling and concealing information from the 
American people and from Congress, information Congress and the 
American people had a right to know.
  Please remember, the danger from this agreement has not passed. While 
due to public outrage it has been put on the back burner, our President 
at any time can still submit this agreement to Congress, and he just 
might do it, just to show us who is boss.
  Now, what I am describing is a pattern of arrogance and contempt that 
is especially true not just with Social Security, but with the broader 
issues related to illegal immigration and with issues dealing with 
Mexico. The tragic case of wrongly imprisoned Border Patrol agents 
Ignacio Ramos and Jose Compean exemplifies the worst aspects of this 
attitude and this problem, and it will forever leave a black mark on 
this administration.
  President Bush has himself made decisions that directly led to this 
ongoing travesty, which sees these two Border Patrol agents languishing 
in solitary confinement. They could have been sent to a minimum 
security prison, but the decision was made at the highest levels, no, 
that would mean they would be treated differently than other prisoners.
  Of course, they are law enforcement officers. At a medium security 
prison, their lives are in danger, but they are not permitted, and this 
was made probably in the White House, they couldn't go to a minimum 
security prison. They would have to it stay in a medium security 
prison. One of them was attacked, as was very predictable, and beaten 
half to death, and now they

[[Page H1217]]

have been sent to solitary confinement, a punishment that usually goes 
to horrible criminals and to terrorists. Even the terrorists in 
Guantanamo aren't treated like this.
  But yet Ramos and Compean, two men with perfect records, whose crime 
was they discharged their weapon at a fleeing suspect who they had 
interdicted while trying to put $1 million worth of drugs in this 
country, and they didn't report it right, which should have meant a 
reprimand, instead, the book was thrown at them. And not only was the 
book thrown at them, once they were in prison, the administration 
decided they would not be able to go to minimum security prison, which 
has led directly to the fact that they are languishing in solitary 
confinement and have been in solitary confinement almost a year. This 
is a disgrace. It is a horrendous, horrendous disgrace.
  In this clearly questionable case, President Bush deliberately dug in 
his heels to protect his good friend and young protege, prosecutor U.S. 
Attorney Johnny Sutton. Rather than entertain the probability that a 
tangible injustice was in progress and to instruct the Justice 
Department and the Department of Homeland Security to cooperate so that 
Congress could get to the bottom of this nightmare, this President has 
thumbed his nose at congressional concerns and initiated a policy of 
obstruction and denial in our efforts to get to the bottom of the Ramos 
and Compean case.
  Let's note here that Members of Congress have pleaded with President 
Bush personally on this issue. We in the House even voted to take money 
for Ramos and Compean's imprisonment out of the DOJ budget. Not only 
will President Bush not entertain the possibility that an injustice is 
being done, his administration has obstructed congressional inquiries 
and lied, let me repeat that, has lied to Congress on this matter.
  Since the Ramos and Compean case was brought to my attention in 
September of 2006, I have written over a dozen letters to this 
administration requesting various documents regarding the harsh, harsh 
prosecution of Ramos and Compean. I have been joined by several Members 
of Congress in this effort, in fact, many Members of Congress. In fact, 
a majority of Members of Congress have expressed themselves in the 
Ramos and Compean case, expecting that this travesty would not be 
permitted to go on.
  Some of the Members who are most active have been Congressmen Poe, 
Culberson and McCaul. These three Members from Texas, in fact they are 
all former lawyers, prosecutors or judges themselves, attended a 
briefing about the Ramos and Compean prosecution conducted by the 
Department of Homeland Security Inspector General's Office on September 
26, 2006.
  At that briefing, serious questions were raised by these Members 
about the fundamental justification for the prosecution of Ramos and 
Compean. The President and his lapdog prosecutors would like us to 
believe that they had no discretion. But the actual charges being 
brought against Ramos and Compean were totally at the discretion of the 
prosecutors.
  What were the grounds for charging these men with crimes like 
attempted murder? Here is a drug dealer that they had just been in a 
physical altercation with who was escaping the scene of a crime, and 
they are charged with attempted murder for discharging their weapons at 
this fleeing suspect?
  Assault with a deadly weapon, the unlawful discharge of a firearm 
during a crime of violence and a civil rights violation. These charges 
have put Ramos and Compean in prison for a minimum of 11 years. These 
were the charges that were made, and the jury was not permitted to hear 
all of the evidence, and they were convicted.
  But what they were charged with was totally at the discretion of the 
prosecution. Did this fit the crime? Two men with a perfect record, two 
men who had an unblemished record. One of them, one of them, Officer 
Compean, it might have been Officer Ramos, but was up to be Border 
Patrol Agent of the Month. He was nominated for that the month that 
this incident took place.
  They had nothing on their record that showed any misuse of firearms. 
Yet they did not report the incident correctly. They had wounded a 
fleeing suspect, although they didn't know they had wounded him. And 
who was the suspect? He was someone who they had who was a drug dealer, 
an illegal alien drug dealer who was smuggling $1 million worth of 
drugs into our country and was now escaping the scene of his crime 
after assaulting a police officer who had intercepted him. This, again, 
was not someone who was out having a picnic; not some person they 
discharged their weapons and shot who was an illegal alien just trying 
to cross the border. This was a drug dealer who was trying to bring $1 
million worth of drugs into the country. And although these laws were 
never intended by Congress to be applied to law enforcement officers, 
who have to carry a gun and have to make split-second decisions, the 
gun law mandatory prison sentence was applied to these police officers, 
these law enforcement officers.
  So, remember, we send a message not only to all the Border Patrol 
agents, but to law enforcement all around the country, that if in the 
middle of an altercation they discharge their weapon because they think 
their life is in danger, they may end up in prison, maybe even in 
solitary confinement.
  Again, this is a travesty. The prosecutors knew that charging law 
enforcement officers in situations like this was not the intent of 
Congress, but they threw the book at the agents anyway. The charges 
made against Ramos and Compean, again, they require a 10-year mandatory 
imprisonment. Filing those charges was totally at the discretion of the 
prosecutors. They went ahead anyway.
  President Bush has supported these prosecutors and backed them up in 
this grotesquely wrong decision. He has backed them up even when they 
have crossed the line of both legality and propriety. Let me repeat 
that. President Bush has backed up his prosecutors even when they have 
crossed the line of legality and propriety.
  When Congressmen Poe, Culberson and McCaul in their official briefing 
asked why the most serious charges that could be leveled at the Border 
Patrol agents were initiated by the prosecutors and why the prosecutors 
took the word of the drug smuggler that he had no weapon, and by the 
way, the Border Patrol agents said that they thought he had a weapon, 
of course, the drug smuggler, who got away, claimed he didn't have a 
weapon, the prosecutors took the word of the drug smuggler.
  This was asked: Why would the prosecutors take the word of the drug 
smuggler over the word of two law enforcement officers? The Department 
of Homeland Security officials who were briefing the Congressmen said 
and proclaimed that this was a legitimate and righteous prosecution. 
These were, according to the Department of Homeland Security briefers, 
rogue cops. Remember, Ramos and Compean, clean records, and they are 
called rogue cops. In fact Johnny Sutton later went out and charged 
that they were corrupt cops. And as soon as he was, of course, brought 
to task, they said what corruption were they charged with, he had to 
backtrack on that, after he had already tried to smear these two guys 
in public.
  Yes, they were labeled as rogue cops. And the Congressmen being 
briefed were told that these guys had actually confessed. Ramos and 
Compean confessed that they knew the drug smuggler was unarmed and that 
the agents didn't feel threatened.
  Now, tell me, does that make sense? The agents are just going to say, 
Oh yeah, we shot at him, but we knew he didn't even have a gun and we 
didn't even feel threatened. Is that what the Department of Homeland 
Security was telling these three Members of Congress, all three of whom 
had been prosecutors or judges?
  Of course, the biggest lie of all came out at this point when the 
Department of Homeland Security briefers insisted that Ramos and 
Compean had told their fellow officers the day of the incident that 
they wanted to go out and shoot a Mexican. That charge raised eyebrows. 
Certainly, how could anyone believe that? Ignacio Ramos and Jose 
Compean are themselves Mexican Americans, married to Mexican American 
wives with Mexican American children. Sure, they just wanted to go out 
and intentionally shoot some Mexicans. Sure they did. This is what 
Members of Congress were told at an official briefing.

[[Page H1218]]

                              {time}  2100

  It takes a lot of chutzpa to give that kind of lie to Members of 
Congress. Asking for proof, the three Congressmen being briefed were 
told the charges were documented in the reports of the investigative 
officers. The Department of Homeland Security promised to provide these 
reports as proof that Ramos and Compean actually intended to go out 
that day and kill a Mexican.
  The proof, of course, never came. The Congressmen kept asking. The 
calls weren't returned. It is called stonewalling. The DHS stonewalled 
for 5 months.
  Members asked for copies of the completed report of investigation, 
which should have backed up these alleged facts that were being told to 
the Members of Congress during their September 26 briefing. Months 
passed, and nothing from the Department of Homeland Security. After 
several letters and public pressure, the Department of Homeland 
Security finally releases a redacted version of the official report in 
February 2007. Surprise, surprise, the alleged confessions by Ramos and 
Compean were not to be found. The documentation for the charge that 
they had brazenly proclaimed their intent to kill a Mexican was not 
there. How could this be?
  The Department of Homeland Security officials had assured Members 
that it was a solid prosecution and they were guilty, that they wanted 
to shoot a Mexican. But these were flat out lies told to Members of 
Congress.
  During a DHS Subcommittee hearing on February 6, 2007, DHS Inspector 
General Richard Skinner was questioned by Congressman Culberson about 
this issue. Under oath, Mr. Skinner acknowledged the information given 
to the Texas Congressman was in fact false, but smugly justified this 
blatant and willful lying by calling it ``a mischaracterization, 
unfortunately repeated at the briefing.'' No, Mr. Skinner, it wasn't a 
mischaracterization. It was a lie, no matter how colorful the 
euphemism. Ollie North was prosecuted for far less an egregious act. 
Ollie had given some misinformation to congressional staffers who were 
not even part of an official briefing to Congress.
  To this day, absolutely nothing has been done about this crime, the 
crime of lying to Congress. Administration officials deliberately 
misled Members of Congress in order to discourage them from pursuing 
the Ramos and Compean case, and no one has been held accountable for 
it.
  U.S. Attorney Johnny Sutton himself was publicly labeling these two 
brave men who risked their lives for us as corrupt. Johnny Sutton lives 
behind a gated community. Johnny Sutton, who has no track record of 
experience and service to his country as these two men who put their 
lives on the line for us every day, yet Sutton dishonestly claimed them 
to be corrupt. He also felt compelled to expose one of the men who had 
a family altercation a few years before that had nothing to do with his 
job; yet Mr. Sutton had to expose that family altercation of one of 
these, Ramos and Compean, to the public.
  Well, Ramos and Compean is a case that stank from day one, and that 
stench is coming straight from the White House. The President, instead 
of looking into this matter, has dug in his heels, permitting his 
appointees to slander these two agents.
  I would suggest that what we see in Ramos and Compean and the other 
issues that I brought up tonight demonstrate a pattern that is 
unacceptable. The American people should understand the attitude that 
is going on here in Washington. We should look closely, and we should 
demand a higher standard from this administration.
  Even worse, the President has personally made decisions that have 
resulted in these two agents languishing in solitary confinement. 
Again, to say this is a mean-spirited vindictive prosecutor is to put 
it mildly. Importantly, President Bush is backing this malicious and 
unjustified prosecution to the hilt.
  This case demonstrates why hearings are an integral part of the 
checks and balances system. It is in this venue that the Executive 
Branch is held accountable for their actions, under oath. It was only 
when an Administration official was under oath that the lies about 
Ramos and Compean were admitted. But this Administration has decided to 
thumb its nose at that obligation to make its case under oath at a 
public hearing.
  Chairman William Delahunt graciously approved my request to hold 
hearings on the Ramos and Compean case. In doing so, an official 
Subcommittee investigation into the case in preparation for the hearing 
was authorized.
  During the course of this investigation, the resistance from the 
Departments of Justice, Homeland Security and State was consistent with 
the arrogance and obfuscation that flows through this Administration 
from the top down. Our hearing had to be postponed for months because 
of the Administration's refusal to provide requested documents or to 
send the necessary witnesses to testify before the Subcommittee, citing 
the Committee did not have proper jurisdiction. Therefore, U.S. 
Attorney Johnny Sutton, DHS Inspector General Richard Skinner or any of 
his investigators refused to appear. That decision was, clearly, made 
in the White House.
  Our government provided a flawed immunity agreement, free health 
care, and unconditional border crossing cards to an illegal alien 
criminal in exchange for testimony that sent border patrol agents Ramos 
and Compean to prison.
  Our government kept secrets from the jury that the drug dealer 
intercepted by Ramos and Compean had hauled another shipment of drugs 
across our border, this, while on a government issued border cross 
pass. Clearly, this is well within the jurisdiction of an oversight 
committee responsible for overseeing relations with other countries, 
including Mexico, including international drug smuggling. Clearly, the 
public has a right to know about these things. This Administration 
apparently believes there is no obligation to answer questions in 
public and under oath about actions and policies of the Administration. 
It's a travesty.
  How bad is it? In preparation for the Ramos and Compean hearing, we 
made request after request, countless phone calls and even a FOIA 
lawsuit by the watchdog group, Judicial Watch, and the Administration 
still refused to release copies of the border crossing cards issued to 
the drug smuggler in this case, claiming the smuggler is protected 
under the ``Privacy Act.'' I was instructed by the Justice Department 
to obtain a privacy waiver in order for that information to be 
released. A privacy waiver from an illegal alien criminal? This absurd 
contention is just another example of a condescending and dismissive 
attitude. Such obstructionism, however, is the rule, not the exception 
with this Administration.
  By the way, due only to a bureaucratic fluke we finally obtained 
those border crossing cards. Our repeated requests for documents were 
taken so nonchalantly that I actually received an official response 
letter from the Department of Justice, dated March 16, 2007, addressed 
to ``Congresswoman Rohrabacher.'' That was just one of several 
insulting form letters sent in response to Member letters regarding the 
Ramos and Compean case.
  Plea after plea from Members of Congress, for the President to 
intervene on behalf of Ramos and Compean by either pardoning or 
commuting their sentences, have been ignored. Last year, I personally 
reached out to the President to take the pressure and confrontation out 
of this issue. I suggested that the President direct the Justice 
Department to request that Ramos and Compean be permitted to remain 
free on bond, pending their appeal. Even common criminals get that kind 
of leeway. What was the response? A White House press release was 
issued the next day, proclaiming that the Administration opposed 
letting Ramos and Compean out pending appeal and that no special 
consideration would be granted to anyone, much less these two border 
patrol agents, sounds righteous--a position of not making any 
exceptions. Except, of course, for the fact that a short time later, 
White House aide Scooter Libby, had his sentence commuted by the 
President in a heartbeat. For the record, I believe it was proper to 
commute Scooter Libby's sentence. He got a raw deal. Unfortunately, 
this incident suggests that only the members of the President's clique 
gets such consideration. Of course, in the meantime, the President has 
pardoned or commuted the sentences of dozens of convicted criminals, 
including drug dealers.

  It is truly with a heavy heart Mr. Speaker, that I stand here 
reciting example after example of the maliciousness and condescending 
attitude exhibited by this Administration. It is a problem flowing from 
the top.
  When I hear my friends on the other side of the aisle accusing this 
Administration of stonewalling, of cover-ups, or of thwarting 
investigations, I sadly must concur with them. This White House 
exemplifies needless hostility, turf jealousy and obstructionism. The 
American people should know it, and should know that this charge comes 
not from a partisan Democrat, but from a lifetime conservative 
Republican.

                          ____________________