[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 153 (2007), Part 14]
[House]
[Pages 19238-19239]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                           RAMOS/COMPEAN CASE

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a previous order of the House, the 
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Poe) is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. POE. Mr. Speaker, a long awaited Senate judiciary hearing on the 
prosecution of border agents Ramos and Compean occurred today. I was 
impressed with the Chair, Senator Diane Feinstein from California, and 
the questioning of Senator John Cornyn of Texas at the hearing.
  The hearing brought to light the overzealous, overreacting and 
overreaching prosecution of these two Border Patrol agents, Ramos and 
Compean. It also showed us and the American public the difficulty our 
border protectors have on the U.S.-Mexico border.
  Chief Aguilar of the Border Patrol said today that violence against 
border agents has increased. In just the first 4 days of last week, 11 
assaults occurred against border agents. Over 2,000 assaults have 
occurred in the last 2\1/2\ years, and 12 officers have been killed in 
the last few years.

[[Page 19239]]

  Not only is the border violent because of drug cartels, but violence 
occurs against these border agents. The border is not Disneyland, but 
the U.S. Attorney's Office showed they are living in Never Neverland by 
their relentless determination to see that these agents went to prison 
for 11 and 12 years a piece for just doing their job on the U.S.-Mexico 
border.
  Much was said today, but I want to concentrate on the U.S. 
Government's main witness, the drug dealer who appears to have been a 
bought-and-paid-for witness that received immunity from prosecution. He 
received a get-out-of-jail-free card, received free medical attention 
for his wounds at the taxpayers' expense, and blanket amnesty to cross 
and recross the Texas-Mexico border whenever he wished. All this so he 
would testify against the two border agents, Ramos and Compean.
  Mr. Speaker, as a former judge, it has been my experience that when 
prosecutors make deals with criminals in return for testimony, they 
usually get the testimony they want from the criminal, and the same is 
to be said in this case here.
  These agents were sent to prison because one of them shot a drug 
dealer bringing in $1 million worth of drugs into the United States. 
The agents probably violated some Homeland Security policies, and maybe 
they should have been sanctioned or even fired, but to let the drug 
dealer go free because the agents violated a policy was an error in 
judgment on the part of our own government.
  And the U.S. Attorney's Office had two choices, Mr. Speaker. They had 
the choice to prosecute a drug dealer bringing in $1 million worth of 
drugs, or they had the choice to prosecute two border agents that 
violated some policy, and our government chose poorly.
  Of course, the Mexican Government got involved in this case and wrote 
an arrogant letter demanding prosecution by our government. It seems to 
me this may be the basis for the prosecution.
  Let me tell you a little bit about this drug dealer. He received 
immunity from prosecution, but part of his deal was that he would 
cooperate with the U.S. Border Patrol and Federal prosecutors. The 
cooperation? Well, he never would tell who he was working for. He named 
no names of the drug cartels. He did not cooperate at all. And while he 
was waiting to testify in this case, he criss-crossed the Texas-Mexico 
border and brought in another load of drugs worth almost $1 million, 
and the Feds kept that from the jury.
  Why wasn't it important to know about this second case? Because the 
entire prosecution was based on the testimony of the government's star 
witness, and the jury had the right to know that this drug dealer 
brought in another load of drugs while waiting to testify. So to judge 
his credibility as a witness, the jury had the right to know that, and 
that evidence was kept out at the insistence of the U.S. prosecutors.
  The U.S. prosecutor made this drug dealer Aldrede to be some poor 
mule from Mexico that brought in a load of drugs for a little money for 
his sick mother down in Mexico, and that was not the case. He was an 
operative that moved back and forth across the Texas-Mexico border, and 
we know he brought in at least two loads of drugs just in a short 
period of time in this case.
  This second load of drugs should have been brought to the attention 
of the jury. The prosecutors never prosecuted this Aldrede for that. 
They even had a DEA report that recommended prosecution. I've seen that 
DEA report, and based on my experience, a third-year law student could 
have prosecuted that case even though the U.S. Attorney's Office says, 
oh, there's not enough evidence. The jury should have known about this 
so as to have judged the credibility of this star witness.
  So the government chose between border agents to be prosecuted doing 
their job or a drug dealer testifying and then bringing in drugs into 
the United States. Our government should be embarrassed about this 
case.
  And that's just the way it is.

                          ____________________