[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 153 (2007), Part 5]
[House]
[Pages 6690-6697]
[From the U.S. 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.

                              {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

[[Page 6691]]

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 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

[[Page 6692]]

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.
  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

[[Page 6693]]

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.
       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

[[Page 6694]]

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 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

[[Page 6695]]

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. 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.''

[[Page 6696]]

  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.
  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

[[Page 6697]]

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.

                          ____________________