[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 153 (2007), Part 5]
[House]
[Pages 6476-6479]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                  PROSECUTION OF BORDER PATROL AGENTS

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the Speaker's announced policy of 
January 18, 2007, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Poe) is recognized for 
60 minutes.
  Mr. POE. Madam Speaker, this afternoon I want to discuss criminal 
cases, three criminal cases that have occurred in these United States. 
All three of these criminal cases have to do with law enforcement 
officers that were prosecuted by the Federal Government for alleged 
crimes that they committed on the southern border with Mexico. And I 
want to discuss the facts of each of these cases so that we have a 
clear understanding on what has occurred on the border and the border 
war with Mexico, and how our Federal Government is so relentless in 
prosecuting the border protectors and not prosecuting those who come 
across the border illegally.
  The first case has to do with the Border Patrol by the name of David 
Sipe. David Sipe patrolled the Texas/Mexico border down in what is 
called the McAllen area. Pinedas, Texas, is exactly where it occurred. 
That is on the tip of Texas, on the Gulf of Mexico that borders Mexico.
  In April of 2000, he was on patrol, as he did for many years, as a 
Border Patrol agent. And a sensor goes off on the border. What that 
means is that people are coming across the border without permission, 
illegals, if we can use that phrase.
  David Sipe goes to the area where the sensor goes off and he sees 12 
to 15 illegals coming across the border. Agent Sipe orders them to 
stop.
  Now, first of all, Madam Speaker, we have one patrolman and 15 
illegals. It takes quite a law enforcement officer to have the courage 
to stop that many people coming into the United States. But he did so 
because that was his responsibility.
  Three of those illegals, however, ignored Agent Sipe and ran into a 
brushy area there on the Texas/Mexico border. He caught those three 
individuals. And one of those individuals who was illegally in the 
country, a Jose Guevara, attacked Border Agent Sipe. And according to 
Border Agent Sipe, Guevara was going for the agent's weapon while he 
was being attacked by this illegal.
  So Agent Sipe pulled out a flashlight. It is not just a little 
flashlight that we normally get over at Wal-Mart. It is one of those 
long flashlights, and he hit Guevara in the head defending himself. And 
the wound on Guevara's head required about five stitches later.

                              {time}  1645

  Now, instead of prosecuting Guevara for assaulting the border agent, 
instead of prosecuting Guevara for being in the country illegally, our 
U.S. Federal Government swoops on the scene and charges Agent Sipe with 
using excessive force in the arrest of this illegal.
  The government then gave Guevara, the illegal, and two other illegals 
what I call ``get out of jail free'' cards. In other words, their 
crime, illegally coming to the United States, their crime in my opinion 
of assaulting a border agent, was forgiven with some kind of backroom 
deal with the promise of those individuals to testify against Agent 
Sipe in Federal Court for using excessive force against these 
individuals.
  But that is not all your Federal Government did for these illegals. 
Giving them get out of jail free cards also gave them Social Security 
cards, witness fees, and permits allowing them travel back and forth 
across the border to Mexico without any type of intervention, and 
further gave them living expenses or money, and, finally, gave them 
free government phones to use while they were waiting to testify 
against Sipe. So this is the deal they got to testify against the 
border agent.
  Now, it has been my experience as a judge in Texas for over 22 years, 
trying only criminal cases, only serious felony cases, that when the 
prosecution starts making deals with witnesses or law violators and 
giving them some benefit for testimony, they usually get the testimony 
that the government wants.
  And so what happened in this case? The agent was tried, he was 
convicted, and the three illegals who got immunity testified against 
him. He was convicted in the year 2006. During the trial, the Mexican 
Government was involved in this case, pursuing and demanding 
prosecution of Agent Sipe.
  Now, let's talk about the rest of the story. He is convicted and his 
case is on appeal. But it turns out, while his case is on appeal, he 
files a motion for a new trial with the trial judge, telling the trial 
judge that at his own trial the jury should have heard about the deal 
made to the illegals. You see, the jury was never told about this 
backroom deal made with these witnesses. The Federal judge agreed and 
ordered a new trial.
  During these hearings, the U.S. Attorney's Office of course never 
told the defense that they had given the illegals money or U.S. 
documents or immunity or green cards or Social Security or cell phones. 
See, the government never told the defense that during the trial, and 
they didn't know this deal was made with these illegals, and it is 
found out after the trial. And once this is found out, brought to the 
attention of the Federal judge, the defense saying the jury should have 
known about this so they could hear and judge the credibility of these 
illegals, a new trial was

[[Page 6477]]

ordered. And sure enough, he was tried again, the second jury hearing 
all the truth, the second jury hearing the evidence that the 
prosecution suppressed in the first trial, and the second jury found 
Agent Sipe not guilty of any wrongdoing in January of this year.
  So the facts of this case: Federal Government prosecutes the border 
agent for using force; the Federal Government hides evidence in the 
trial; they are caught hiding evidence; a new trial is ordered; the new 
trial occurs. The jury hears about the deals made with the illegals, 
and the second jury finds the agent not guilty, and properly so. Agent 
Sipe is trying to get his job back as a border agent, but of course our 
Federal Government is fighting that situation as well.
  It makes you wonder, Madam Speaker, why our Federal Government is so 
relentless in prosecuting border agents, especially in a case like this 
where the person was found not guilty. And why must our Federal 
Government withhold and hide evidence that is favorable to the defense 
in a criminal case? Is it just so they can have convictions of border 
agents? It makes one wonder, does it not, Madam Speaker?
  The second case involves one that most Americans have heard about, 
two border agents once again on the Texas/Mexico border. Their names 
are Ramos and Compean. Both of these individuals I have met. I have met 
their families. They are wonderful people. And both of them, all they 
ever wanted to be was a law officer protecting the U.S. border from 
people illegally coming into the United States.
  So while these two individuals are on patrol as border agents on the 
southern border with Mexico, Agent Ramos responded to a call for backup 
from Agent Compean along the Texas/Mexico border. He had noticed a 
suspicious van coming into the United States, Texas, if we will, and it 
looked funny. And based upon his experience as a border agent, a van 
coming across the river at this desolate area only means one thing to 
most people: that means it is a drug dealer bringing in drugs.
  In the van was an individual by the name of Aldrete-Davila. He was a 
drug smuggler. And when he comes across the river, he notices the 
border agents see him. He tries to turn the van around and head back to 
Mexico. He abandons the van, takes off running. He gets in a scuffle 
with one of the border agents right there in the Rio Grande riverbed. 
He runs on back across the Rio Grande river. Shots are fired by both 
border agents. And Davila, as he is going into Mexico, is shot in I 
believe the left cheek and the bullet coming out the right cheek. Of 
course, no one at the scene neither, Ramos or Compean, the border 
agents, knew that they had hit this individual because he disappears. 
He already had somebody waiting for him on the Mexican side to pick him 
up and take him back into Mexico someplace.
  They go to the van, and in the van, sure enough, 800 pounds of 
marijuana. Now, that doesn't mean much to most of us; but if we give 
you a money figure, it will be relevant. The marijuana in the van was 
worth approximately $1 million. And it is recovered. And then the 
border agents, after other border agents appear on the scene, are 
eventually charged with using excessive force against the drug dealer.
  How did this all occur, since no one even knew the drug dealer was 
hurt? Well, it turns out, once again, our Federal Government gets 
involved in this case, goes to Mexico, finds the drug smuggler Aldrete, 
brings him back to the United States, takes him to a hospital in El 
Paso, Texas, and pays for his recovery and his surgery. Paid for it, 
that means American taxpayers paid for his surgery and paid for his 
treatment. And while there, he decided he is going to sue the Federal 
Government, that means us, the taxpayers, for $5 million for being shot 
by two border agents.
  Now, it is true, Ramos and Compean probably did not follow 
appropriate policy in the way they handled the reporting of this 
incident, and so they were suspended. They are tried, but they are not 
tried for violating Border Patrol policy. They are tried for using 
excessive force in firing their weapon at this drug dealer as he is 
fleeing back to Mexico. Part of the reason that they were prosecuted 
was because, like in the first case with Sipe, the Mexican Government 
in its self-righteous arrogance demanded prosecution of these two 
border agents, and that is exactly what happened.
  They were prosecuted. They were tried in Federal Government court. It 
took forever for us in Congress to receive the trial transcript of that 
trial. And they were sentenced to 11 and 12 years in the Federal 
penitentiary for alleged civil rights violations
  Now, the Federal Government, the prosecutors, in this case made 
another deal, a backroom deal with the drug smuggler. They forgave him 
of his sins of bringing in $1 million worth of drugs if he would 
testify against the border agents in this trial. And he did what was 
expected of him: he testified just exactly the way the Federal 
Government wanted him to testify in this case.
  But now there is more to the story. It turns out that the drug 
dealer, while waiting to testify after picking up the first case, 
getting immunity from being prosecuted, and before the trial it seems 
as though that our little friendly drug dealer from Mexico brings in 
another 750 pounds of marijuana. And the Federal Government knew about 
this case, the DEA investigated the case, they made a report. I have 
that report; I have seen the report. That case is simple to be made. In 
other words, it could be a simple prosecution. A third-year law student 
could prosecute that case.
  But the Federal Government doesn't prosecute the drug dealer on the 
second case. They just ignore the second case. He is never charged; he 
is never arrested. Nothing ever happens in the second case. And more 
importantly, the jury never heard about the second case and the second 
deal that our Federal Government implicitly made for the drug dealer.
  Now, why is that important? First of all, it is withholding evidence 
from the jury. And as we discussed, it is basic American law that the 
prosecution may not withhold evidence favorable to the defense. They 
may not withhold it on purpose, they may not withhold it because of 
their negligence, and they may not withhold it because of their 
incompetence. If you withhold evidence from the jury that is beneficial 
to the defense, normally the defense is entitled to a new trial.
  Also in the trial the drug dealer was made out to be, by the 
prosecution, as he testified, just a mule and that he was bringing 
drugs in the United States to get a little money to help his poor sick 
mama down there in Mexico. Well, we understand of course that wasn't 
the truth. He was more than a mule. He brought over at least two 
different times drugs into the United States. It kind of puts him up on 
the ladder a little bit, each time the drugs, around $1 million of 
drugs, going into our streets and our highways and byways. And the 
prosecution ignored the second case, and the jury should have heard 
about the second case to judge the credibility of the witness. And what 
do I mean by judge the credibility of the witness?
  You see, when the witness comes in and testifies, the jury needs to 
know what deal the prosecution made with the witness to get him to 
testify because, as I mentioned earlier, you usually get the testimony 
you want when you make a deal with some criminal. And in this case, the 
prosecution obviously got the testimony they wanted because Ramos and 
Compean were convicted.
  And so the question is, why did our Federal Government in this case 
choose not to prosecute the drug dealer?
  Assume, if you will, that the border agents violated some policy. 
They probably should have been suspended, given some days off for not 
filling out the forms correctly or reporting it correctly. But here, on 
the other hand, you have got a drug smuggler bringing in $1 million 
worth of drugs.
  Now, why did our Federal Government choose to prosecute border agents 
and not prosecute drug smugglers? We don't know the answer to that 
question. We may never know the answer to

[[Page 6478]]

that question. But we do know the Mexican Government in this case as 
well was involved in relentlessly wanting these two border agents 
prosecuted. They are both now in Federal penitentiary serving their 11- 
and 12-year sentences. One of them, shortly after he went into custody, 
was beat up by people in the local prison because of the fact that he 
was a Border Patrol agent and arrested many drug dealers in the past.
  And let me give you a little more information on this particular 
case. When this all came to public light about these two border agents, 
myself and other Members of Congress wanted to know the facts because 
the trial transcript had not been produced yet.
  So we met with members of the Office of Inspector General to try to 
get a briefing, if you will, on what happened down there on the border; 
and during that briefing we were told certain things that did not 
occur. We were told that Ramos and Compean had decided that day they 
were going to shoot a Mexican national. At the trial, there is no 
evidence that that ever occurred or any statement was ever made. Is 
that misleading Members of Congress, misleading the American public?
  We were also told that Ramos and Compean did not think the drug 
dealer had a gun. Not so. During the trial, both agents testified they 
had thought the drug dealer had a gun, thus the way the angle of the 
bullet went through one buttocks and came out the other side as if 
somebody is pointing a weapon at you. That was a falsehood as well.
  It makes us wonder as elected officials why our Federal Government is 
not candid with Members of Congress about the truth of this particular 
case. So in this particular matter, the jury didn't hear about the 
second case. And now they are both in prison while their case is on 
appeal. And, hopefully, the appellate courts will review the entire 
matter, reverse the case, order a new trial, and let the jury hear all 
the truth in the second trial, like the jury did in the David Sipe 
case.
  Now the third criminal case, which is even more recent than Agents 
Ramos and Compean. It also occurs in Texas, it also occurs near the 
Texas/Mexico border. It occurs in a place called Edwards County, Texas. 
Probably most Americans haven't been there. Edwards County is about the 
size of Delaware, and on any given day there are three deputy sheriffs 
on patrol. That is all.

                              {time}  1700

  And one of those deputy sheriffs is a person by the name of Gilmer 
Hernandez. Gilmer Hernandez was on routine patrol by himself. Of 
course, they don't have enough manpower to put two people in a patrol 
car. And in the middle of the night, he is in the small town of Rock 
Springs, Texas, and he notices a truck, a Suburban, runs a red light. 
Deputy Hernandez pulls over the vehicle. He approaches the vehicle, and 
he notices a bunch of people are laying down on the floorboard of this 
vehicle. As he approaches the vehicle, according to Deputy Hernandez, 
the driver takes off, swerves around, and tries to hit and run over 
Deputy Hernandez. So what does he do? Well, he pulls out his pistol and 
he starts shooting. And what is he shooting at? The tires. Just like in 
the movies, I guess. Deputy Hernandez not only shot at the tires, he 
hit them, and he blew out at least one, maybe two tires. The vehicle 
stops. Seven or eight illegals jump out and take off running.
  Deputy Hernandez calls the sheriff, tells him exactly what happened, 
what he did. The sheriff arrives on the scene. The sheriff calls for an 
independent review or investigation of this entire thing since a 
shooting was involved, and in come the Texas Rangers.
  Many people aren't too familiar with the Texas Rangers, but they are, 
in my opinion, as fine a law enforcement agency as there is anywhere in 
the world. They work independently of everybody. The Texas Rangers 
investigate this case, and they find that Deputy Hernandez acted 
properly throughout the entire matter.
  Now, one thing I must mention is that while he was firing his weapon 
at the vehicle, one of the bullets ricocheted and hit a passenger in 
the lip, causing minor injuries, and that passenger stayed in the 
vehicle when the others fled.
  But then here comes the Mexican Consulate with another demand letter 
to our Federal Government demanding prosecution of Gilmer Hernandez for 
firing his weapon, even to protect himself.
  And then the Federal Government, our Federal Government, even though 
an investigation had already been done by local law enforcement, like 
the cavalry they show up to save the day, and Gilmer Hernandez is 
prosecuted for unlawfully discharging his firearm even though, in my 
opinion and the opinion of the other law enforcement agencies, he did 
exactly what he was supposed to do.
  Now, Gilmer Hernandez was tried and he was convicted. And on Monday 
he is going to be sentenced by a Federal court for firing his weapon.
  Let me tell you a little bit about Gilmer Hernandez. He is a deputy 
sheriff. He is 25. He is married and has a child. And patrolling the 
West Texas sands between Mexico and Texas earns him $21,000 a year. He 
has always wanted to be a lawman. He is proud of his service. And now 
he is in jail for enforcing the law.
  So what do we know about the illegals in this case? Remember they are 
illegally in the country just like the drug dealer was illegally in the 
country, just like the other three individuals in the Sipe case were 
illegally in the country. Well, our Federal Government doesn't deport 
them back to Mexico. Our Federal Government makes a deal with these 
illegals and gives those seven or eight illegals green cards so they 
can stay in the United States and testify against Deputy Hernandez.
  So it is interesting that these three cases are so similar. It is 
interesting how our Federal Government has such zeal to prosecute 
border protectors. And why does our Federal Government immediately take 
the side of the person that is illegally in the country whether they 
are an illegal or whether they are a drug dealer or whether somebody 
assaulted one of our Border Patrol agents? I don't know the answer to 
that question, but they do. And what has the effect of that been on our 
border protectors? What effect do you think it is on our border 
protectors? Border Patrol agents and deputy sheriffs that patrol the 
southern border with Mexico, when in doubt, they back off. Why? Because 
if they do their job and protect the border as we expect them to do, 
the Federal Government doesn't back them up. The Federal Government 
backs up the illegals that come into this country. All the while we 
have got the Mexican government back here demanding prosecution of our 
border protectors.
  It is very disturbing to see this trend. And, Madam Speaker, as I 
mentioned before, I was a judge in Texas for 22 years. I heard about 
25,000 felony cases, everything from stealing to killing. And I heard 
every kind of defense, every kind of story, and every kind of 
accusation against individuals. And before that I was a prosecutor in 
Houston, Texas, for 8 years. And I don't have any sympathy for 
criminals. I don't care if they are what we consider regular criminals 
or peace officers that violate the law. I even prosecuted five Houston 
police officers one time for beating up an individual of Hispanic 
descent and throwing him in one of our bayous where he later drowned. I 
have no sympathy for criminals whether they wear the badge or don't 
wear the badge. But looking at these three cases makes me wonder why 
our government is making the choices that it is making. I guess as long 
as we will continue to pursue these three matters, we may find the 
answer.
  Now, many Members of Congress on both sides of the aisle have asked 
the President to pardon Ramos and Compean. That is the President's 
decision. He hasn't said one way or the other what he is going to do. 
He has the authority under the Constitution to pardon people. That is 
his authority, and whatever choice he makes, I respect that choice.
  But we are also asking for there to be congressional investigations 
into this

[[Page 6479]]

entire matter of the prosecution of these cases, especially in light of 
the fact that we now find out that the Office of Inspector General 
misled several Members of Congress, like myself, of what the facts were 
on the border between Mexico and Texas and in the Ramos and Compean 
case, because we just want to get to the bottom of it and find the 
truth in these matters and especially why our government makes the 
choices that it does.
  You know, Madam Speaker, last year and this year we are hearing a 
word tossed around. The word is ``amnesty.' I am personally opposed to 
granting amnesty to people who are illegally in the country, rewarding 
them for illegal conduct. But we hear about that amnesty all the time. 
But before we start talking about giving amnesty to 15 to 20 million 
people that are illegally in the country, why don't we just give 
amnesty to about three people, two border agents and a deputy sheriff 
that are behind bars that happen to be American citizens? Give them 
amnesty because, in my opinion, what they have done deserves either a 
pardon or some form of amnesty. And it appears to me that besides 
really telling our law enforcement officers to back off on protecting 
the borders, this sends a message to other people, and those are people 
who want to come into the United States illegally.
  Now, we hear all of that about people coming over here and looking 
for a better life and that sort of thing. That may be true with some 
people. But not everybody coming over here is looking for a better 
life. People like Aldrete are coming over here to make a little money 
selling dope, over a million dollars worth of it in two cases. And 
failure to protect the border encourages those people to come across 
the border illegally as well.
  And then there is that other group we haven't even talked about, 
those people that we still use the phrase of terrorists. But since the 
border is unprotected, it is much easier to just come right into the 
United States that way instead of fly into Reagan International Airport 
right down the street. So when we have lawlessness on the border that 
breeds more lawlessness. And failure to protect the borders increases 
illegal activity. Failure to support law enforcement agents that are 
doing their legal job encourages illegal activity into the United 
States.
  I think all of this is telling us that, it appears to me, the Federal 
Government doesn't have the moral will to protect the borders. Why do I 
say that? Because this is the most powerful country that has ever 
existed but yet we cannot protect our borders. Why not? Because we 
don't have the moral will to do so. The United States defends the 
borders of other nations. We send our troops all over the world to 
defend the borders of other nations: Korea. We have got troops in Iraq, 
Afghanistan, Bosnia, all over the world. But yet we don't protect our 
own borders. Why not? Because maybe we don't have the moral will to do 
so. If we did, we could close the borders to any illegals coming into 
the United States.
  So our Federal Government needs to get on the right side of the 
border conflict, and that is the American side and what is best for the 
United States. Not what is best for illegals, not what is best for some 
foreign country, not what is best for drug dealers coming into the 
United States, but what is best for the United States. And our Federal 
Government needs to get on the right side of the border conflict.
  Madam Speaker, when I was a judge, I always wanted to make sure that 
in that particular case that justice occurred. To quote Willie Nelson, 
not that he was a great legal mind, but he made the comment that 
justice is the one thing we should always find. And that is true. 
Justice is the one thing we should always find. And, hopefully, if we 
bring more light to these law enforcement cases where law enforcement 
officers are prosecuted for doing their job, bring light to the 
American public that justice will prevail because I do believe in our 
system. I believe in our system of the trial court and the jury and the 
appellate courts, but I also believe in openness and that the 
prosecution cannot and should not ever hide evidence that is favorable 
to the defense. And down the road, hopefully, we will see justice 
occur, that these wrongs will be righted, that the innocent will be set 
free, and that the guilty will be prosecuted for their crimes against 
the United States and against law enforcement officers that protect our 
border day in and day out.
  Now, I have been down to the Texas-Mexico border seven or eight 
times. I have been to the California-Mexico border. I hope all Members 
of Congress, especially those that live in other parts of the country, 
go to the border to see what it is like. It is a volatile area of our 
country, and all you need to do is go down there and see it.
  When I was down at the Nuevo Laredo sector, where there is a high 
volume of crossings into the United States, both legal and illegal, I 
asked a former Texas Ranger, I said, What is it like down here? Give me 
your opinion.
  And he said, Well, Congressman Poe, after dark on the Texas-Mexico 
border, it gets western. It gets western.
  What he meant by that is it gets violent. It gets violent. Sheriff 
Rick Flores of Webb County, Texas, and Webb County is also on the 
Texas-Mexico border, stated not too long ago that it is not unusual to 
be down on the Texas border on the American side and get gunfire from 
the Mexican side coming across shooting at his deputies. Whom is that 
from? Drug cartels fighting over turf. It gets western.
  And the people we have asked that have sworn an oath to protect our 
border are the peace officers. They wear the badge. They are all that 
stands between us and the lawless. And we have the duty to make sure 
they have the equipment to do that job and fulfill that mission, and we 
have the duty to make sure that when they are in conflict and they have 
not committed any violation of the law that we totally support them and 
that we don't give in to the political pressures of other nations.
  Madam Speaker, I just want to say that's just the way it is.

                          ____________________