January 14, 2009 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE H317 

tired, they are exhausted. They recognize that they can’t be a sustainable 

country with this kind of circle, this 

kind of ring, this kind of enemy surrounding them. So the idea that somehow the Israelis are trigger happy and 

looking for a fight could not be any 

more wrong. 

So there are some things for all of us 

to do. One of the things to do, as we 

look at this through the lens, the western lens of why can’t we just solve this 

problem, well, you know what? These 

are difficult problems, but they are 

solvable. They are solvable when the 

weapons are put down, when the rockets are put down. They are solvable 

when a child in Sderot doesn’t have to 

have a blue room where they run to 

where they have 15 seconds, as Congresswoman MALONEY said, to get to 

safety. 

We can’t have a city like the one 

that has been referred to a few times 

here. Let me put this up one final time. 

b 2145 

Sderot is this little town here, right 

by Gaza, that has had hundreds of missiles fall upon them day after day. We 

can’t expect anyone to live like that. 

What we can do as United States citizens is say, listen; one, we are going to 

start talking with our wallets. We are 

not going to allow any aid to go to 

Gaza until they change their government there. We can’t support a military terrorist organization. 

We have to say that we want better 

accountability here too. We want better accountability from Fattah. 

We have to demand that Egypt, in exchange for getting billions of dollars in 

aid from us, the very least they can do 

is make sure the tunnels are stopped so 

if and when there is a cease-fire, and, 

God willing, it is soon, weapons don’t 

come. 

And we have to finally face the reality about places like Saudi Arabia 

and Syria. They are not our allies. 

Nothing could be further from the 

truth. Although we all know it about 

Syria, we need to recognize it about 

Saudi Arabia. 

Finally, let me just say this. One of 

the ways we say God bless America is 

joining with the Israelis when they say 

Am Yisrael Chai—the people of Israel 

live. 

f 

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 

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 


smartinez on PROD1PC64 with HOUSE
H318 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE January 14, 2009 

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.’’ 

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. 

b 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 


smartinez on PROD1PC64 with HOUSE
January 14, 2009 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE H319 

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 AldreteDavila 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 91⁄2 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 hyperaggressive prosecution that they make 

decisions to put their life at risk, rather than to pull their service weapon 

and defend themselves? How could that 

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. 


smartinez on PROD1PC64 with HOUSE
H320 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE January 14, 2009 

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 91⁄2

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 81⁄3 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. 

b 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. 

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. 


smartinez on PROD1PC64 with HOUSE
January 14, 2009 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE H321 

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 

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. 

f 

SPECIAL ORDERS GRANTED 

By unanimous consent, permission to 

address the House, following the legislative program and any special orders 

heretofore entered, was granted to: 

(The following Members (at the request of Mrs. MALONEY) to revise and 

extend their remarks and include extraneous material:) 

Mr. CUMMINGS, for 5 minutes, today. 

Mr. ENGEL, for 5 minutes, today. 

Ms. WOOLSEY, for 5 minutes, today. 

Mr. DEFAZIO, for 5 minutes, today. 

Mr. SHERMAN, for 5 minutes, today. 

(The following Members (at the request of Mr. POE of Texas) to revise and 

extend their remarks and include extraneous material:) 

Mr. POE of Texas, for 5 minutes, January 21. 

Mr. JONES, for 5 minutes, January 21. 

Mr. WOLF, for 5 minutes, today and 

January 15. 

Mr. BOOZMAN, for 5 minutes, today. 

Mr. CAMPBELL, for 5 minutes, January 15. 

Ms. FOXX, for 5 minutes, today. 

(The following Member (at her request) to revise and extend her remarks and include extraneous material:) 

Ms. KAPTUR

f 

, for 5 minutes, today. 

SENATE BILL REFERRED 

A bill of the Senate of the following 

title was taken from the Speaker’s 

table and, under the rule, referred as 

follows: 

S. 60. An act to prohibit the sale and counterfeiting of President inaugural tickets, to 

the Committee on the Judiciary. 

f 

ADJOURNMENT 

Mr. KING of Iowa. Mr. Speaker, I 

move that the House do now adjourn. 

The motion was agreed to; accordingly (at 10 o’clock and 28 minutes 

p.m.), the House adjourned until tomorrow, Thursday, January 15, 2009, at 

10 a.m. 

f 

EXECUTIVE COMMUNICATIONS, 

ETC. 

Under clause 8 of rule XII, executive 

communications were taken from the 

Speaker’s table and referred as follows: 

77. A letter from the Director, Regulatory 

Review Group, Department of Agriculture, 

transmitting the Department’s final rule — 

Farm Program Payment Limitation and 

Payment Eligibility for 2009 and Subsequent 

Crop, Program, or Fiscal Years (RIN: 0560- 

AH85) received January 7, 2009, pursuant to 5 

U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on Agriculture. 

78. A letter from the Congressional Review 

Coordinator, Department of Agriculture, 

transmitting the Department’s final rule — 

Viral Hemorrhagic Septicemia; Interstate 

Movement and Import Restrictions on Certain Live Fish [Docket No. APHIS-2007-0038] 

(RIN: 0579-AC74) received January 7, 2009, 

pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on Agriculture. 

79. A letter from the Congressional Review 

Coordinator, Department of Agriculture, 

transmitting the Department’s final rule — 

Change in Disease Status of Surrey County, 

England, Because of Foot-and-Mouth Disease 

[Docket No. APHIS-2007-0124] received January 12, 2009, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); 

to the Committee on Agriculture. 

80. A letter from the Acting Under Secretary, Department of Defense, transmitting 

notification of an Antideficiency Act violation, Army case number 08-05, pursuant to 31 

U.S.C. 1517(b); to the Committee on Appropriations. 

81. A letter from the Under Secretary for 

Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics, Department of Defense, transmitting a review 


smartinez on PROD1PC64 with HOUSE