[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 155 (2009), Part 1]
[House]
[Pages 809-814]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




  REQUESTING A PARDON OR COMMUTATION OF SENTENCE FOR JOSE COMPEAN AND 
                             IGNACIO RAMOS

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Altmire). Under the Speaker's announced 
policy of January 6, 2009, the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. King) is 
recognized for 60 minutes.
  Mr. KING of Iowa. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I again thank the gentleman 
from New York for yielding a moment of his time to me.
  I change the subject at this point, Mr. Speaker. I asked for this 
time before this great deliberative body and this honor and privilege 
to address you on this subject matter, speaking to you, Mr. Speaker, 
and understanding that there are eyes and ears across this country, 
particularly in the White House tonight, who are in the business of 
cleaning out their desks, going through their files, packaging up many 
in the archives, some going I presume into the trash or the shredder, 
and making room for a new administration that comes in.
  During this period of time, every 4 years, we will see the President 
of the United States, the commander-in-chief, the conductor of our 
foreign policy and the chief law enforcement officer of the United 
States among other things, all wrapped up into the package of President 
George W. Bush, following in the footsteps of his predecessors before 
him and contemplating the right and the power and the authority that he 
has to pardon those who have been convicted of a crime or to commute 
their sentences, those who have been convicted of a crime.
  If we look back through history, there have been some long lists of 
people who were pardoned or had their sentences commuted, and sometimes 
it has been controversial. I won't dredge up some of those 
controversial pardons, but I will raise the issue that a President has 
this authority. Sometimes he exercises the authority of the pardon or 
the commutation out of compassion. Sometimes it is out of a sense of 
misapplied justice. Sometimes it is just out of a sense of mercy that 
is coupled with compassion.
  But the case that I raise tonight, Mr. Speaker, is the case of 
Ignacio Ramos and Jose Compean, who are Border Patrol officers, I 
should say at this point former Border Patrol officers, who were 
involved in an incident down near the Mexican border that had to do 
with the interdiction of a drug smuggler from Mexico.
  This drug smuggler was an individual by the last name of Aldrete-
Davila who was intercepted by agents Ramos and Compean. This was on 
February 17, 2005, near Fabens, Texas, where they interdicted Osbaldo 
Aldrete-Davila, who was suspected of smuggling drugs into the United 
States. It was later found that the van that they chased that Aldrete-
Davila abandoned and ran across the countryside contained 743 pounds of 
marijuana worth approximately $1 million.
  Well, this incident as it unfolded showed that one of the agents 
chased the drug smuggler, Aldrete-Davila, and

[[Page 810]]

the other agent cut across to try to cut him off, presumably to cut him 
off before he could get into across the border into Mexico. It was 
Ramos who chased him. Ramos chased him and Compean attempted to 
interdict him.
  In any case, there was an altercation that took place. Both agents 
discharged their weapons. The discharge from Agent Ramos' weapon was 
stipulated to be the bullet that hit the drug smuggler. And, as the 
situation unfolded, there was a confrontation with Aldrete-Davila and 
Agent Compean that ended in multiple discharges of Agent Compean's 
weapon. None of those rounds hit the drug smuggler. He disengaged 
himself from Compean and ran. As he turned and looked back, Ramos came 
onto the scene, Agent Ramos came onto the scene and discharged his 
weapon, as I recall, once.
  There was no sign by either agent, any observation that any of those 
shots actually hit the drug smuggler. That wasn't known until some time 
later. A family connection, a relation of another agent with the 
relation of the drug smuggler, passed that information along, in which 
case there was an investigation that began.
  Agents Ramos and Compean admitted that they didn't deliver the 
complete, full written report for the incident that took place. 
Recognizing that, the crime that they were charged with originally was 
a lesser crime than the crime that was brought against them.
  But, in any case, after this situation unfolded and Ramos and Compean 
were arrested and charged, then as agents of the Border Patrol arrested 
and charged for the incident, around the incident were failure to file 
a complete, honest and truthful report. There were other agents and 
supervisors that were purportedly on the scene. It wasn't that the 
incident was necessarily covered up, but it wasn't appropriately 
reported.
  After the original charges, the lesser charges were filed, the 
government drastically increased the charges by securing a superseding 
indictment pursuant to 18 USC 924, which is a statute that outlaws the 
discharge of a firearm in the commission of a crime of violence. This 
charge, 18 USC 924, carries with it a 10-year mandatory minimum 
sentence.
  So they were subsequently convicted of discharge of a firearm in the 
commission of a crime, a statute that was never envisioned to apply to 
a law enforcement officer who is lawfully carrying a weapon, in fact 
required to carry a weapon, and who perhaps discharged that weapon in a 
lawful fashion in carrying out their duty. That is a question that I 
think the court probably answered in the negative.
  But, in any case, this statute, 18 USC 924, the discharge of a 
firearm in the commission of a crime of violence, was the Federal 
charge that was brought as a superseding indictment, and it was a heavy 
charge that was laid on Agents Ramos and Compean, and the conviction 
that followed from that resulted in the mandatory sentencing that came 
about which turned out to be 11 years and 1 day for Agent Ramos and 12 
years for Agent Compean.
  Now, Mr. Speaker, and I implore your attention to this and I pray 
that the attention of the President is focused on this argument, and 
that is not that Agents Ramos and Compean are innocent of the charges 
that have been brought against them by the active U.S. Attorney Johnny 
Sutton; not that there shouldn't be some charges brought to provide a 
deterrent and perhaps a restraint, although I have some reservations 
about that within me. I am not making that argument, Mr. Speaker.
  I will make the argument that these officers have been incarcerated 
almost continually since this investigation began, and the sentences 
that have been brought forth on Agents Ramos and Compean are 
unreasonable. They are outrageous. It is out of balance with the crime 
itself. It serves no public purpose to keep these agents in a Federal 
penitentiary any longer. They have spent significant time in solitary 
confinement because they need to be protected from the other inmates 
within the Federal prisons they are in.
  I looked into that, to ask the question could we make the case that 
it is cruel and unusual punishment for someone to go into solitary 
confinement and have to face potentially more than a decade in a 
Federal penitentiary in solitary confinement. I couldn't make that 
constitutional argument, Mr. Speaker. As much as I would like to make 
the argument in the case of Ramos and Compean, I can't make that 
constitutional argument.
  I could make the argument that we could move legislation in this 
Congress to grant them a new trial in perhaps a different district that 
might give them a better opportunity for justice that is more 
appropriate to the acts that they are charged with and convicted of.
  Mr. Speaker, I will now constrain my arguments to this: The 
prosecution has gone forward in a hyper-aggressive fashion and 
concluded with convictions and sentences that reflect the 
aggressiveness of the prosecution on this case. I believe that these 
officers have served an appropriate punishment.
  I think that we have passed Thanksgiving, Mr. Speaker. In reference 
to the President's consideration, we have passed Thanksgiving. I recall 
watching on television as the Thanksgiving turkey was put up on the 
chopping block. And like happens every year right before Thanksgiving, 
the President of the United States comes down, looks over that nice, 
tasty-looking turkey and passes a sentence over the turkey which is a 
pardon for that turkey. He doesn't end up on anybody's Thanksgiving 
table, at least not real soon. I don't have any idea where they put 
these retired turkeys.
  But as I watched that, I thought about Agents Ramos and Compean. What 
about the comparable merit? What did the turkey do to deserve the 
pardon, Mr. Speaker? So that question began to roll around in my mind 
about the dichotomy of pardoning the turkey, but leaving Agents Ramos 
and Compean in Federal penitentiaries. One of them I understand is 
still in solitary confinement.
  So, Mr. Speaker, I began to look and reflect across what is the 
practice and what are some of the crimes that have been pardoned. One 
could look at previous Presidents, but I believe in this case it is 
appropriate to look at the pardons and commutations of President Bush, 
who is marking his last days in a long career here, and I have great 
respect for his service to America and personal affection for the 
President of the United States.
  I looked at the list of the pardons and the commutations, Mr. 
Speaker, and to date, and this is as of the 14th of January, President 
George W. Bush has granted a total, by this record at least, of 171 
pardons and eight commutations.
  Mr. Speaker, what is the nature of these pardons and commutations? 
What moved the heart of the President of the United States? What raised 
the issues up to a level high enough that his Pardons Counsel would 
make a recommendation to the President to pardon these individuals, 
171? Now, I probably I don't think that the President had a 2-hour 
meeting analyzing each one of these cases. I suspect that his staff is 
doing the analysis and making recommendations to the President.
  I know what an echo chamber is, Mr. Speaker. I have a little sense of 
what happens when you have a circle of people around you and they take 
a position and their ego is tied to their policy and their position, so 
if something comes along that threatens to change the policy, it also 
is a threat to their ego. They tend to get their backs up and then they 
filter out the information that might reverse their position because 
their ego can't fall with their position.
  That is a big mistake that is made often in public life. I see it 
made by Members of Congress, and I am not immune from it myself. But 
getting one's ego wrapped up with the issue is something that happens 
with staff as well.
  So if that information is not getting through to the President, Mr. 
Speaker, this is an opportunity for it to matriculate into the 
conscience of a President who ran for office the first time in the year 
2000 as, about the first statement was, a ``compassionate 
conservative.'' This is the President who immortalized the phrase 
``compassionate conservative.''

[[Page 811]]

  I look at this list of pardons and commutations, and it is clear that 
the compassion is there. There is also conservatism there. It is about 
half of the pardons that have been issued by the previous Presidents 
going back from President Clinton and President Reagan. If you compare 
the previous two-term Presidents, it is about half of the number. But 
it is still a respectable number, 171 pardons. I am not saying that I 
would have more or less mercy. But as I look through this list, what 
types of people and what kinds of crimes are pardoned? It is an 
interesting review, Mr. Speaker. I have highlighted a few.
  Food stamp fraud. Food stamp fraud, not of great consequence in the 
grand scheme of things. Not a violent crime, perhaps didn't shoot 
anyone.
  Bootlegging. It is interesting that bootleggers would be pardoned. 
The President's compassion found a bootlegger and pulled him out of the 
Federal prison and released him into society, pardoned, ready to start 
life fresh again and renewed again. Redeemed, Mr. Speaker, to use a 
Christian term.
  Here is one, and I will not use the names. It serves no purpose to do 
so. They deserve their peace in their pardon. But here is a pardon that 
took place for drunken disorderly, for communicating a threat, 
disrespect to a superior commissioned officer, assault, damage to 
government property, resisting apprehension and failure to obey an 
order. All of that wrapped up in one individual, Mr. Speaker, who 
received a pardon.
  I will go through that again. Failure to obey an order, drunken 
disorderly, communicating a threat, and that means threatening someone, 
disrespect to a superior commissioned officer, assault, a violent 
crime, assault, damage to government property and resisting 
apprehension and arrest.

                              {time}  2200

  All of those things, wrapped up, and all of those pardoned. Life 
begins anew. This individual is redeemed by the President's pardon.
  Violent acts, a long list of egregious violent acts willfully, 
whether it was under the influence of alcohol or not, it says drunk and 
disorderly, but we're still responsible for our actions.
  I'm not objecting to the pardon, Mr. Speaker. I'm pointing out that 
here are some crimes that would fit within a category that I think 
would qualify Agents Ramos and Compean for a pardon.
  And I move on down the line. Another individual, pardoned for arson, 
burning down a structure of some type. And I look through a series of 
these, possession of marijuana with intent to distribute, conspiracy to 
deliver LSD.
  Here's one, an interesting pardon, property damage by use of 
explosive and destruction of an energy facility. In plain English, that 
means blowing up some utility, presumably, so using explosive to 
destroy an energy facility. I don't know if that was a coal-fired 
generation plant, a nuclear plant, or maybe an ethanol plant in Iowa, 
Mr. Speaker. But that's violent, when you set up explosives and blow up 
a utility. Pardoned.
  Again, Mr. Speaker, I'm not arguing that this individual that 
perpetrated this crime and was convicted and sentenced to a Federal 
penitentiary isn't deserving of the pardon. They may well be.
  The President's compassion and conservatism reached out to the 
arsonist, reached out to the drug smugglers, reached out to the violent 
drunk and disorderly soldier that was sentenced for a whole series of 
acts and crimes. Drugs, drug smuggling.
  Here's a pardon, bank robbery by use of a dangerous weapon. So would 
that be armed robbery of a bank? I'd say so. Pardoned. Pardoned, Mr. 
Speaker. The compassionate conservative reached out and pardoned the 
armed bank robber hasn't yet found the compassion to pardon Ramos and 
Compean. Pardoned the turkey, but not Ramos and Compean.
  Possession of cocaine, narcotics enterprise, methamphetamines. You 
notice the drugs coming back over and over again. Cocaine. Here's one, 
unlawful transfer of a firearm. Pardoned. Possessing an unregistered 
still, probably an associate of the bootlegger, pardoned. In fact, we 
register our stills in Iowa, then we denature the alcohol that we make. 
That is ethanol. So those folks are in compliance with the first 
gallon, I know.
  Here's another pardon for conspiracy to possess and distribute 
ephedrine hydrochloride, illegal drug, marijuana, marijuana, cocaine, 
marijuana, cocaine, the list of drugs goes on, and the exception comes 
down.
  Here's just one that jumps to my mind. Conspiracy to import 
marijuana. Well, Mr. Speaker, that happens to be exactly what drug 
smuggling Aldrete-Davila was doing when Agents Ramos and Compean 
encountered him near the Mexican border on that fateful day of February 
17, 2005 with 743 pounds of marijuana. Conspiracy to import marijuana, 
drug smuggler, pardoned, many drug smugglers pardoned on this list of 
171 pardons and 8 commutations. In fact, 27 are pardoned from drugs out 
of this list.
  Aldrete-Davila, smuggling drugs, conspiracy to import marijuana, in 
fact, importing marijuana. And, in fact, he has been convicted 
subsequent to the trial of Ramos and Compean, where he received a grant 
of immunity in order to cooperate in the prosecution of Ramos and 
Compean. And the activities of the drug smuggler, Aldrete-Davila, were 
not divulged to the jury by agreement between the U.S. Attorney Johnny 
Sutton and the judge.
  Again, I'm not taking an issue with the decision made by the judge or 
the recommendation made by U.S. Attorney Johnny Sutton; simply that the 
veracity of the star witness against Agents Ramos and Compean could not 
have been appropriately evaluated. The government had information about 
the activities of this drug smuggler that would have affected, I 
believe, the judgment of the truthfulness of the star witness for the 
government who was using his grant of immunity in order to get a pass 
to smuggle more drugs into the United States even while the trial was 
taking place. And after the trial, after the convictions, after the 
incarcerations of Ramos and Compean, after that, on one of the 
following loads of illegal drugs, that then, the drug smuggler, 
Aldrete-Davila, was interdicted by other agents and brought to trial 
and brought to justice and sentenced to 9\1/2\ years in a Federal 
penitentiary. It just happens to be less time than either Agents Ramos 
and Compean, even though he's a serial drug smuggler.
  And I could give you anecdotal evidence about his propensity for 
carrying a firearm. That's not a legal argument. It's anecdotal. But I 
would point out that Agents Ramos and Compean each testified in 
slightly different language, that one said that he thought he saw a 
gun; the other one said he saw something shiny. In any case, when 
you're in an altercation, when dust is flying into your eyes, when 
things are hot and heavy, when you've been in a chase of a van, and 
that van is abandoned, and the drug smuggler is running across the 
countryside and he turns and you see something shiny, or think you see 
something shiny or you see a gun or you think you see a gun, when your 
life's on the line, these agents are trained officers. I hope they're 
not trained to hold their fire when somebody points a gun at them. But 
we have officers now that are second-guessing these decisions.
  We had an officer in the Southwest, I think it was California a 
little over a year ago who was laying out a strip to stop a vehicle to 
puncture the tires of a vehicle and was run over by an illegal that 
they were trying to interdict. And I have to wonder, would he have 
turned and used his firearm if it hadn't been for Ramos and Compean 
being in a Federal penitentiary? Did that slow down his reaction time? 
Did it change his judgment? Does it change the training?
  Do agents that are out in the field, the hard chargers, those that 
are up there on foot in the mountains, doing their job to defend our 
border, are they so intimidated by this type of hyper-aggressive 
prosecution that they make decisions to put their life at risk, rather 
than to pull their service weapon and defend themselves? How could that

[[Page 812]]

not be the case, Mr. Speaker? Human nature is that way.
  So we miss opportunities to recruit good agents, and good agents that 
are there aren't as good as they might be because of the intimidation 
effect of hyperaggressive prosecution.
  And I know, Mr. Speaker, that U.S. Attorney Johnny Sutton would like 
to have an opportunity to rebut some of the things that I have said. 
But I'll point out that U.S. Attorney Johnny Sutton has had a lot of 
opportunities to preempt some of the things that I have said. And 
without regard to his sense of justice of the conviction itself, I can 
read, Mr. Speaker, for you into the record some quotes from the U.S. 
Attorney Johnny Sutton on what he has to say about the punishment of 
Ramos, Agents Ramos and Compean.
  This is on Glen Beck's program, May 18, 2007. ``It becomes a debate 
about punishment'' is a quote of Johnny Sutton. Continue to quote. ``I 
have a lot of sympathy for those who say, look, punishment is too high. 
You know, 10 years. I agree, punishment in this case is extremely 
high.'' Johnny Sutton, May 18, 2007.
  A couple of months later, July 17, 2007, testifying before the Senate 
Judiciary Committee, U.S. Attorney Johnny Sutton said, and I quote, 
``But I've conceded that the punishment in this case, that's a lot of 
time. Some say it's just too much. And I have some sympathy for that.'' 
That's the Congressional Record, testimony under oath, before the 
Senate Judiciary Committee July 17, 2007.
  And on the same day, July 17, 2007, on Lou Dobbs' program. Now I 
recognize that we have a U.S. Attorney that has a lot of national media 
exposure here. There is a reason for it, because the Nation's turned 
their focus on this case of Agents Ramos and Compean and the injustice 
of the mandatory sentence that they are serving. And on Lou Dobbs' 
program on that day, I'll quote again, U.S. Attorney Johnny Sutton. 
``The only issue really is punishment. That's what sticks in people's 
craw. It's lot of time, and I've said that. I've said that often.'' 
That's on Lou Dobbs.
  And it's clear that he's said that at least a couple of times that 
I've read to you here. He's said it probably many times which he's 
testified to.
  I'd move along. Still July 17, 2007. It must have been a big media 
day. Johnny Sutton, on Hannity & Colmes program, quote. ``I agree 
with,'' and the reference is to Senator Feinstein. ``I agree with that 
it is a harsh sentence.'' Johnny Sutton.
  Moving on then to October 12, 2007, and this is a quote that's in the 
Midland Reporter Telegram, Midland, Texas, I presume. Addressing the 
annual Court Day Observance Luncheon of the Permian Basin Legal 
Secretaries Association. I've never been invited to that, Mr. Speaker. 
Quote, Johnny Sutton there. Quote. Well, this is a reference to him.
  Sutton said he disagreed with the 11- and 12-year terms the Border 
Agents received. And that's reported, that's a quote and reported out 
of the paper, but not a direct quote from Johnny Sutton.
  And one more quote from Johnny Sutton. ``The only question I think a 
legitimate question is is the punishment too harsh. I have always said 
the punishment in this case was harsh.'' November 14, 2008.
  So, Mr. Speaker, I'll submit that, without regard to guilt or 
innocence, without regard to the sentence that's before them today, 
except to the extent that it is an over-application of a statute that 
was never intended for this purpose, we recognize, I think, as a 
Nation, a Nation with a conscience, a compassionate Nation, maybe not 
perhaps such as conservative a Nation as I would like to see, but a 
compassionate Nation, Mr. Speaker, we recognize that this crime that 
has been alleged, indicted, prosecuted and sentenced, even if all of 
those steps along the line are true, the sentence itself is unjust. 
It's disproportionate to the crime that their conviction has resulted 
as a result of.
  I ask, Mr. Speaker, that we, as a body, recognize this, call upon the 
President of the United States to pardon Agents Ramos and Compean. Do 
so with the compassion of a compassionate conservative that is 
demonstrated, I think, clearly in these 8 years in leading this Nation 
safely through the very dangerous waters that we have been in.
  And to recognize that drug smuggler Aldrete-Davila was sentenced to 
9\1/2\ years. That's less time than either Agents Ramos and Compean 
received. And to give some comparisons to the sentencing that takes 
place, to get a sense of what would be an appropriate sentence or one 
that society accepts as punishment for a crime such as this, there are 
a list of things that I point out. In cases of sexual abuse, the 
average sentence was 8\1/3\ years. Not too much in my view, Mr. 
Speaker.
  For manslaughter, that's killing someone, that's resulting in the 
death of an individual, not a bullet through the buttocks of a drug 
smuggler who may have been aiming a weapon at these agents, but killing 
someone, guilty of manslaughter, they serve an average of just less 
than 4 years, Mr. Speaker.
  For assault, it's less than 3 years. The President pardoned at least 
one who had committed assault.
  And for cases involving firearms, the average sentence was 3 years.
  So let's just, Mr. Speaker, look at this and suggest that no one was 
killed, no one was sexually abused. But if there was an assault there, 
because of the discharge of the firearm, that took place in the heat of 
the battle, I might add, but if it had been even without that, if it 
was an assault, that'd be less than 3 years. If it included a firearm 
it would still, the cases involving firearms, the average sentence was 
still 3 years.

                              {time}  2215

  These agents have been drug through this now since February 17, 2005. 
It's moving up on 3 years, and it's time, I believe, to commute the 
sentences of Ramos and Compean.
  These cases are profoundly disproportionate. Their families have 
suffered. Their lives have been ripped asunder. One of the families at 
least is living off of the charity of one of the churches in the area. 
I commend the church, and I give honor and prayer for the families that 
they might be able to emerge through this, perhaps, with grace and 
stronger than ever before.
  I would submit also that, of the sentences that were commuted by the 
Commander in Chief, there have been eight of those, and of those eight 
sentences that have been commuted, looking down through them from 2004 
until 2008, seven of eight of these cases were drug associated cases. 
They were commuted sentences. There were 27 cases of pardons for drug 
smugglers.
  It occurs to me rather ironically, Mr. Speaker, that had Agents Ramos 
and Compean been drug smugglers rather than Border Patrol officers, 
they would have been more likely to receive pardons or commutations 
than they are under this 18 U.S.C. 924. The legislative intent I did 
not address, and I would go back to the legislative intent of 18 U.S.C. 
924. It is the discharge of a firearm in the commission of a crime of 
violence.
  Let's go to the statements made by the chief sponsor of this 
legislation, who was Representative Richard Poff. This was passed in 
1968. He said the legislation was intended to ``persuade the man who is 
tempted to commit a Federal felony to leave his gun at home.'' He is 
the chief sponsor of the legislation, Mr. Speaker, Representative 
Richard Poff.
  Then there are other lawmakers. One would be Representative Thomas 
Meskill. He echoed the chief sponsor's statement, Richard Poff's 
statement, when he said, ``We are concerned with having the criminal 
leave his gun at home.''
  So I would submit, with 18 U.S.C. 924, the discharge of a firearm in 
the commission of a crime of violence, that the congressional intent 
was to encourage potential criminals, those who contemplated committing 
a crime, to be deterred from carrying a weapon and from using that 
weapon or from having it in their possession while they committed a 
crime. That doesn't work very well with law enforcement officers, Mr.

[[Page 813]]

Speaker. They are required to carry their weapons. They are required to 
train with their weapons. They are required to test out and to make 
sure that they can handle them confidently and efficiently. They are 
good shots in short order, Mr. Speaker.
  By the way, it is lawful for them to discharge their firearms, under 
appropriate circumstances, while they are on or off duty. I didn't 
raise the issue of whether these circumstances were appropriate or not. 
I simply raised the issue that it was in the heat of the battle.
  Mr. Speaker, compassionate conservatism must include compassion for 
those who are defending America's national security--those who are in 
uniform, those who put their lives on the line every day. It must not 
just understand only the fates of Agents Ramos and Compean. It must not 
only understand the effect it has had on their families or how it has 
turned them into destitute families. It must understand the effect of 
hyperprosecution upon the acts of the other agents all across the 
board--the thousands of Border Patrol agents whom we have, the law 
enforcement officers whom we have, the Federal officers whom we have 
who are, today, being restrained from aggressive utilization of the 
weapons that they are required to carry or who are being restrained 
from even the prudent utilization of the weapons they are required to 
carry and to test out on and to show proficiency with.
  They are always going to wonder: Will they be the next Agent Ramos? 
Will they be the next Compean? Could their families be living off the 
charity of others while they sit in solitary confinement while the 
President pardons the turkey--171 perpetrators of various crimes, from 
drugs, to arson, to assault, to armed bank robbery?
  There are eight cases that have been commuted. Of those eight cases, 
seven of them are drug smugglers, and one realizes that a drug smuggler 
has a better chance, at least statistically, of a pardon, or of a 
commutation more correctly, than does an officer who puts his life on 
the line for the safety and for the security of the United States of 
America.
  I would add that it's really not a wonder that it's hard to identify 
a sense of mission on our border control that we have. One of the 
reasons is that those who are carrying out this mission get a mixed 
message: Whose side is the government on? Do they really have the U.S. 
Attorney there to prosecute the drug smugglers?
  I was down on the border about 3 years ago. We were on the site when 
a drug smuggler was interdicted. He had somewhere over 200 pounds of 
marijuana under a false bed, under a false floor, in the pickup truck 
that he was driving. Well, that wasn't a prosecutable offense because 
they have too many of those who are hauling up to 250 pounds of 
marijuana.
  Because of the limitations of having enough judges and prosecutors 
who are able to adjudicate, the standard in that particular sector of 
the Border Patrol is, if it's less than 250 pounds of marijuana, you 
confiscate the marijuana, and you turn the guy loose and send him back 
to Mexico. That's the practice. That was the practice then. So, after 
that, they changed the level to 500 pounds because, again, the load on 
our courts and on our prosecution was too great.
  So I grew up in an environment with great respect and reverence for 
the rule of law, Mr. Speaker, where I couldn't envision someone with a 
half an ounce of marijuana avoiding a prosecution, because it was a 
violation of the law.
  We're dealing with a judicial system that doesn't have the resources 
to prosecute someone who smuggles in 250 pounds of marijuana and sets 
the standard there and then raises it to 500 pounds of marijuana so 
that someone with 499 pounds gets turned loose; although, they lose 
their drugs. They send them off on decoys while a full truckload of 
several thousand pounds goes past when our people are distracted with a 
smaller load.
  In an environment like that, there is the interdiction of a drug 
smuggler with 743 pounds of marijuana in a van. There is a struggle, an 
altercation. In the heat of the battle, weapons are discharged. One 
round does go through the buttocks of the drug smuggler. These agents 
did not have any way of knowing that the bullet actually struck the 
drug smuggler, not until well after the fact.
  That, I believe, Mr. Speaker, colored the way that they failed to 
completely report the entire incident that happened in that location. I 
believe that honorable people will see it differently if they believe 
someone has been shot in the altercation. I do not believe that Ramos 
and Compean believed that anyone had been shot, that the drug smuggler 
had received a bullet. I don't believe that at all. I suspect that they 
would have filed a complete report had they believed or even, I'll say, 
deeply suspected that they had hit the drug smuggler.
  There was no sign of which I know that there was any blood at the 
scene. The drug smuggler ran back to Mexico. All of his muscles seemed 
to work. He healed up. Apparently, they found the bullet, and matched 
it up to the gun of Agent Ramos'. Those are the facts as we know them.
  I'm not alone in calling for the pardon of Agents Ramos and Compean. 
There are many of us in Congress on both sides of the aisle who have 
stood with these officers and who have pointed out that the punishment 
is too severe and that they have paid their debt to society. Whatever 
was due is surely paid, Mr. Speaker.
  The compassion that I ask for out of the White House in these last 
days is the compassion that recognizes that the President has the 
power. The agents have served the time.
  When U.S. Attorney Johnny Sutton made the statement that, when asked, 
would he make a recommendation to the White House for a pardon, he said 
this: ``With regard to a pardon or a clemency, at some point, the 
Department of Justice will probably ask for my recommendation, and when 
that comes, we'll make one.'' That was May 18, 2007 on CNN.
  Mr. Speaker, I would point out that I read to you at least six quotes 
from U.S. Attorney Johnny Sutton. Each of those referenced the 
harshness of the sentence, and the word ``harsh'' he uses himself 
several times over. The punishment was too high. It was too much. I 
have sympathy for that. I've said it often. It's a harsh sentence.
  Johnny Sutton said he disagreed with the 11- to 12-year terms the 
border agents received. He said again, ``I've always said the 
punishment in this case was harsh.''
  Well, I'll follow that up with this response again:
  ``With regard to a pardon or a clemency, at some point, the 
Department of Justice will probably ask for my recommendation, and when 
that comes, we'll make one.''
  I'll submit that U.S. Attorney Johnny Sutton has made his 
recommendation. He has made it many times over the national media. I've 
quoted him six times. There are many other quotes that reference the 
same thing. The punishment was too harsh. The man who led the 
prosecution, who succeeded in his job of seeking a conviction, has also 
many times over announced that it's too harsh.
  We're not arguing. Those of us in this Congress and across this 
country are not arguing guilt or innocence, Mr. Speaker. We're arguing 
about a sentence that's too harsh. We're arguing that, for officers who 
have put their lives on the line and for officers who have no 
blemishes, that I know of, on their records that would be further 
strikes against them, this anomaly in their careers should not ruin 
their careers, their lives, their families. I believe that they are 
deserving of a pardon. There are those here who are asking now for a 
commutation of a sentence.
  Mr. Speaker, I don't ask for the commutation. I believe that their 
records should be swept clean. I believe that they have served a time 
and that leaving it on their records does not serve a purpose. I 
believe they are deserving and that a just President would look in the 
last days and find a way to provide justice for the highest profile 
cases that we have in America that cry out for the sympathy of the 
entire Nation and of the world and for the action on

[[Page 814]]

the part of our compassionate, conservative President.
  I have covered this territory. I would point out there are 171 
pardons by President Bush. There are eight commutations of sentences by 
President Bush. There are several days left in the Presidency. There 
likely will be other pardons and commutations and, perhaps, a whole 
rush of them that are queued up to go.
  Mr. Speaker, I pray that the pardon for Ramos and Compean is in that 
work stack that will be presented to the President for his signature 
between now and January 20 and that the counsel who is advising the 
President and the Department of Justice who have defended their 
prosecution so aggressively can understand clearly:
  They've made their point. They're successful in their prosecution and 
in their conviction and in their sentencing. So now the point needs to 
be made--the point made by U.S. Attorney Johnny Sutton that the 
sentences are too harsh. Eleven and twelve years is too long.
  In these last days, I ask only one thing of our Honorable Commander 
in Chief, and that is to find the compassion in his heart to pardon 
Agents Ramos and Compean.
  Mr. Speaker, I very much appreciate your indulgence and the honor to 
address you on the floor of the House of Representatives tonight.

                          ____________________