[Congressional Record: February 26, 2008 (House)]
[Page H1065-H1072]
ADMINISTRATION NOT COOPERATING WITH CONGRESS
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. Madam Speaker, I come to the floor tonight with a
heavy heart. The nature of the allegations I make speaks poorly of this
administration. In my heart of hearts, I have always wanted this
administration to succeed, but the issue at hand is of such magnitude
that the American people need to know what is being done and what
precedents are being set.
In my tenure as a senior member of the House Foreign Affairs
Committee, both as chairman and ranking member of an investigative
subcommittee, I have witnessed firsthand behavior by the Bush
administration which I find deeply troubling.
The disdain and uncooperative nature that this administration has
shown toward Congress, including Republican Members, is so egregious
that I can no longer assume that it is simply bureaucratic incompetence
or isolated mistakes. Rather, I have come to the sad conclusion that
this administration has intentionally obstructed Congress' rightful and
constitutional duties.
Tonight I will discuss some serious examples of this administration's
contemptuous disregard for the authority delegated to Congress by the
Constitution. This bad attitude has consistently manifested itself in a
sophomoric resentment toward Congress' constitutional role as an equal
branch of government. The result has been an executive branch too
insecure to let Congress do its job, an executive branch that sees
Congress, even when Republicans held the majority, as a rival and a
spoiler, rather than as elected representatives of the American people
playing a rightful role in establishing policy for our great country.
Unfortunately, when the President of the United States rejects the
legitimacy of congressional prerogatives, there are serious
consequences. Tonight, I will provide examples of how this
administration for the past 7 years has undercut congressional
investigators, has lied to Members of Congress, and has forged ahead
with secret deals in spite of efforts and pleas by Congress to be
informed, if not involved.
In the last Congress, I was chairman of the Oversight and
Investigations Subcommittee of the House Foreign Affairs Committee. In
that capacity, I learned that in the time immediately leading up to the
bombing of the Federal Building in Oklahoma City, convicted Oklahoma
City bomber and murderer Terry Nichols had been in Cebu City in the
Philippines. His stay in Cebu City coincided with another visitor to
that city, al Qaeda's terrorist leader Ramsey Yousef. Interestingly,
both Nichols and Yousef used similar bombs and methods just 2 years
apart to blow up two American targets. Yousef was the mastermind of the
first attack on the World Trade Center in 1993. Nichols was a
coconspirator in the bombing of the Oklahoma City Federal Building in
1995.
By the way, I would like to acknowledge that today happens to be the
15-year anniversary of that first devastating attack on the World Trade
Center.
These individuals, one American and one Arab, were responsible for
planning two of the most lethal terrorist attacks on our countrymen in
our history. We are to believe that by coincidence they ended up in an
off-the-beaten-track city in the Southern Philippines? One doesn't have
to be a conspiracy nut to understand that this coincidence is certainly
worth looking into.
I started an official congressional investigation sanctioned by Henry
Hyde, then the chairman of the International Relations Committee, to
see whether Terry Nichols or his accomplice, Timothy McVeigh, had
foreign help in their murderous terrorist bombing of the Alfred Murrah
Building in Oklahoma City.
In light of the fact that Terry Nichols and Ramsey Yousef were both
in Cebu City at the same time prior to hauntingly similar terrorist
attacks, it was no stretch for a congressional investigative committee
to be looking into this matter. However, the Bush administration felt
quite differently. To those I had to deal with, it was ``case closed,
don't bother us.'' They had looked into the matter, and Congress should
simply and blindly accept their conclusion that there was no Nichols-
Yousef connection. ``Don't bother us.'' This was at times bureaucratic
laziness, and at other times it was clearly based on a disdain for
congressional investigations and authority.
During my investigation, I secured Ramsey Yousef's cell phone
records. The records were part of the phone calls that he made when he
was in that New York City area in the months just prior to the bombing
of the World Trade Center in 1993.
The phone records show that Ramsey Yousef made at least two phone
calls to a row house in Queens, New York.
[[Page H1066]]
That row house was occupied by the cousin of Terry Nichols' Filipina
wife. Let me repeat that. The terrorist bomber of the first World Trade
Center attack, the nephew of al Qaeda 9/11 mastermind Khalid Sheikh
Mohammad, made phone calls to the same row house that was occupied by
Terry Nichols' cousins-in-law just 2 months before he exploded the bomb
in the garage of the World Trade Center 15 years ago. Another
coincidence?
I gave this information to the Department of Justice and since that
time have repeatedly sought their help in investigating this matter.
Time after time, my requests have gone unanswered or have just been
flatly denied.
I also asked the Department of Justice on numerous occasions to help
me investigate the name Samir Khahil. This name is on a list of
unindicted co-conspirators of the 1993 World Trade Center bombing,
again in connection with Ramsey Yousef.
It also is the name, by the way, of an Iraqi man in Oklahoma City who
at the time of the Oklahoma City bombing employed an Arab immigrant who
fits the description originally made by numerous witnesses as to John
Doe II.
This Oklahoma-based Iraqi lied, meaning the John Doe II look-alike,
lied to the investigators about his whereabouts at the time of the
Oklahoma City bombing, yet there was little if any follow-up on this
John Doe II look-alike. In fact, the FBI simply declared that John Doe
II never existed. The existence of John Doe II, let it be remembered,
was based on a sketch and sketches derived from witnesses on the scene
of the Oklahoma City bombing and the truck rental company in which that
bomb was placed on a truck from that truck rental company. Those
witnesses described a man who, as I say, looked very much like Samir
Khahil's employee.
Now, I have repeatedly asked the Department of Justice to tell me if
the Samir Khahil on the unindicted coconspirators list of the 1993
World Trade Center bombing is the same Samir Khahil who employed a man
originally identified as John Doe II, the bomber, the number two bomber
in the Oklahoma City bombing. The Justice Department's answer: ``It
would be too burdensome to find out if it was the same man.''
Further, we asked help in finding the Arab immigrant who looked like
John Doe II and the man who was employed by Samir Khahil. We traced him
to Boston, but we have had no support or cooperation in finding this
very possible terrorist, or at least terrorist suspect. He may well
have been working at Boston's Logan Airport on 9/11/01, the day that a
plane took off from that airport and was hijacked and crashed into the
World Trade Center. Another weird coincidence to the Oklahoma City
bombing. Another coincidence, yes.
You don't have to be a conspiracy nut to believe that these things
should be investigated. Instead, there has been no follow-through, no
interest. The case is closed, forget it, both in terms of Samir Khahil
and his Iraqi employer and employee; and both of these people, of
course, reside in the United States right now.
That is just a small taste of the deplorable lack of cooperation for
a legitimate congressional investigation. And it was no fluke. I didn't
just happen to snag some uncooperative Federal employee. No, this is
the level of non-cooperation Congress has learned to expect from this
administration.
Yes, Departments and agencies do have limited resources, and I
understand that. I used to work in the executive branch. So, yes, there
may be some better uses for and some good uses for those limited
resources and better uses for their time and investigators, rather than
just following up on leads that are provided by Members of Congress.
{time} 1715
You can hear someone explaining that. But the lack of cooperation
that we have had goes far beyond the fact that they are not going to
give their limited resources or even use some of their investigators to
track down what most of us would consider a very worthwhile lead,
especially considering that the terrorist that we are asking to look
into currently resides in the United States and may well have had
something to do with the bombing of the World Trade Center and the
bombing of the Oklahoma City building there.
But, again, a lot of my requests don't require a lot of time and
effort on the part of the executive branch, and I still have been
stonewalled. For the past year, for example, I have repeatedly
requested to interview the imprisoned terrorist Ramzi Yousef. He is in
Colorado and in strict lockup. He has been there for 10 years.
This would have taken no time and no resources from any executive
branch or Federal employee. None. This request is well within my
committee's jurisdiction as ranking member of the Investigative
Subcommittee of the House Foreign Affairs Committee.
This request has been supported by the chairman of the Investigative
Subcommittee, the chairman of the full Foreign Affairs Committee, the
chairman of the Judiciary Committee, and the chairman of the
Intelligence Committee.
Such attention by Congress should be welcomed by this administration
and every administration. The legislative branch can help bring new
information to light and inform the public.
Nevertheless, the Department of Justice, consistent with its
treatment of congressional inquiries during the tenure of this
President, has dismissed this valid request. This request has been
treated with what can only be described as contempt and condescension.
The point is, unfortunately, that this rejectionist attitude is
typical. It is not that they don't have enough resources to help out,
to look into an easy matter to look into. It is just that they do not
want to cooperate with Congress, even when it's a Republican in
Congress, even when the Congress was controlled by a Republican
majority.
So, why would this administration obstruct congressional inquiries
such as this? Remember, Ramzi Yousef was the mastermind behind several
devastating terrorist attacks and plots against America. He led the
first murderous attack on the World Trade Center in 1993, as I say.
After fleeing to the Philippines, he and two other terrorists plotted
to kill thousands of Americans by blowing up 12 commercial airliners
over the Pacific at the same time. It was known as the Bojinka plot. It
was within 2 weeks of being executed when it was discovered and
thwarted by Philippine police.
Interestingly, the terrorist operation, the Bojinka plot, was to take
place about the same time as the Oklahoma City Federal building
bombing, perhaps on the same day. We don't know. Perhaps we should
know. Perhaps we should ask Ramzi Yousef about that.
Ramzi Yousef has been in Federal prison for over a decade. He is a
prisoner with a unique understanding of the al Qaeda terrorist
structure. He is the nephew of Khalid Sheik Mohammed, the mastermind of
the 9/11 attack on the World Trade Center.
In 2006, when I was the chairman of the House Oversight
Investigations Subcommittee on the Foreign Affairs Committee, I was
investigating Yousef's movements and activities not only in the United
States but in the Philippines. I even traveled to the Philippines to
question authorities who had captured Yousef's roommate and
coconspirator in the Bojinka plot.
In spite of that fact and in spite of the fact that I was looking
into Yousef's terrorist activities and in spite of the fact that I had
obtained new information about Yousef's phone calls right here in the
United States and new information about his associates while he was in
the United States, the Department of Justice still dismisses the effort
and, more than that, they are obstructing a legitimate congressional
investigation, refusing to permit this elected Member of Congress, a
ranking member of a congressional investigating committee, to interview
a Federal prisoner. They refused access to Yousef claiming that there
is a ``ongoing investigation.''
This prisoner has been in jail for over 10 years. It is more likely
that what we have here is an ongoing coverup and not an ongoing
investigation. In fact, I have been told recently by a former member of
the Justice Department that they were told routinely simply to give
answers that there is an ongoing investigation even if no ongoing
investigation was underway, but simply using it as a phrase to dismiss
a request from Congress.
[[Page H1067]]
Well, this is outrageous, but it's typical of this administration.
This is a lot more than just a hurtful pride on my part of being turned
down.
This administration is setting a terrible precedent. What people have
to understand, when I am turned down like this, is when there is a
liberal Democrat in the White House, the President will have set that
Members of Congress can simply be dismissed, and that when they are
trying to do a congressional investigation need not be cooperated with,
in fact, can be obstructed. Is that the type of President that we want?
Is that acceptable? It shouldn't be acceptable to Democrats and it
shouldn't be acceptable to Republicans.
Doesn't Congress have a right to talk to Federal prisoners. Are these
the rules of engagement? Is it really the rules of engagement that we
want for our government that Members of Congress and the legislative
branch don't have a right to talk to Federal prisoners?
Well, that's apparently what the Bush administration is trying to
establish as the executive authority, as executive authority, the right
to deny congressional investigators access to Federal prisoners. The
danger of this should be easy to understand, both on my side of the
aisle, the Republican side, and the Democratic side of the aisle.
Again, the attitude, apparent in the treatment of this request, is
not an aberration or is it some sort of situation where this is not
really a representative way the President has acted with his authority.
No, I am afraid that's not the case.
This request was first made and denied when the Republicans
controlled the Congress and I was the chairman of the Investigative
Subcommittee.
Now Congress has a Democrat majority. In my position as ranking
member of the International Organizations, Human Rights, and Oversight
Subcommittee of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, I have seen it
time and time again.
Our subcommittee chairman, Bill Delahunt from Massachusetts, read in
the newspaper that our President is negotiating a security agreement
with the Iraqi Prime Minister that will govern the future relationship
of our countries.
Now let me say that again. The chairman of the Oversight Subcommittee
on Foreign Affairs Committee is getting the information about a hugely
important foreign bilateral security agreement by reading the
newspaper. So, Chairman Delahunt conducted a hearing about the status
of such an agreement and invited the administration to send a witness
to testify before Congress.
How did the administration respond? They ignored the request. So the
hearing was held with a private panel of witnesses, and, yes, the
public has a right and an obligation to fully understand such
commitments that are being made by the President in our name.
In a democratic society, policy is made after having an open
dialogue. George Bush was elected President, not king.
In another attempt last month, our subcommittee held another hearing
on the Iraqi security agreement and, again, our panel invited and
pleaded with the administration to provide a witness. Their response?
Silence.
Our subcommittee held another, a third hearing on this topic. Again,
our subcommittee invited the administration to attend and explain to
Congress what kind of commitment our government has agreed to with the
government of Iraq. Even our full committee chairman wrote letters
asking for the administration to participate in the subcommittee
hearing. All the requests to the administration by our committee and by
the superiors in the full committee were ignored, except for one, and,
in one instance, where the contact was made, and I am sad to say that
once again this administration was less than honest on a matter of
national importance, Chairman Dela-
hunt's subcommittee was told by a White House staffer that the
administration's unwillingness to participate in hearings was because
``There is nothing to talk about because we haven't put pen to paper''
on security, because they haven't put the pen to paper on the security
agreement, supposedly.
Well, when confronted with the fact that the New York Times had
written a story saying that a 17-page agreement was being passed
around, this White House staffer backtracked and quibbled.
This is unacceptable, it's dishonest, and it's typical. It's like
saying there is an ongoing investigation; don't discuss anything
anymore with me. There is nothing going on here.
Now, there is something going on, just as, instead of talking and
trying to negotiate about what type of spokesman we could have at a
hearing, instead, what we get is an undermining of the congressional
right to oversee for the foreign policy decisions of this
administration.
This stonewalling prevailed until a few weeks ago, when Condoleezza
Rice, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, a person and a leader who I
deeply admire, testified at a hearing of the full International
Relations Committee.
When asked about this issue, about witnesses not showing up from the
State Department and this administration to explain to us in public and
to discuss in public these very important agreements that are being
negotiated with Iraq, she pledged at that time that there would be
future witnesses dealing with this Iraqi agreement.
At least Condoleezza Rice, the Secretary of State, feels secure
enough in this administration to do what's right and to talk directly
to Congress and to send her people over to talk to us.
Unfortunately, we had to go all the way to the Secretary of State
before we could get anybody in this administration to participate. Let
me note, I am a supporter of the President's Iraqi policies. I have
been a supporter since day one. I supported the surge, and I am not in
favor of some of the propositions made by my friends on the other side
of the aisle, which I consider would be a precipitous leaving of Iraq
and would cause damage, I believe.
But that's not the point. The point is, Congress has a legitimate
oversight responsibility and that the President of the United States
should be discussing in public so that the public could understand why
policy is being made rather than trying to secretly arrange a policy
agreement and then surprise everybody, you know, as a done deal. Sadly,
this administration's antipathy to the constitutional responsibilities
of the legislative branch of government does not stop and end with my
efforts and those of my subcommittee on investigations.
In October of last year, 22 of my colleagues and I wrote to the
Acting Attorney General, Peter Keisler, regarding the pending lie
detector test for former National Security Advisor Sandy Berger.
Madam Speaker, I submit for the Record, a copy of a letter concerning
making that request of Acting Attorney General Peter Keisler.
Washington, DC, October 10, 2007.
Mr. Peter D. Keisler,
Acting Attorney General, Department of Justice, Washington,
DC.
Dear Acting Attorney General Keisler: In 2005, former
Clinton National Security Advisor Sandy Berger pled guilty to
the mishandling and destruction of classified documents.
He admitted to entering the National Archives and
unlawfully removing, then subsequently destroying, classified
documents dealing with terrorist related issues. He removed
the documents by stuffing them down his pants and in his suit
jacket, presumably with the intention of getting rid of any
damning evidence showing his involvement in the failure of
our intelligence and law enforcement communities to prevent
the Sept. 11th attacks prior to his testimony before the 911
Commission. These documents have never been recovered.
As part of a plea deal, Mr. Berger agreed to take a
polygraph test to be administered by the Department of
Justice. It has been two years since that agreement and Mr.
Berger has yet to fulfill his obligation.
We are writing to officially request that as Attorney
General you direct the Department of Justice without any
further delay to administer a lie detector test to Mr. Berger
and determine what documents were stolen and how our National
Security was compromised.
The Congress, and the American people, deserve to know the
facts of this crime and what Mr. Berger was covering up.
Therefore we respectfully request a directive be issued by
your office ordering Mr. Berger to surrender to the Justice
Department immediately and that a polygraph test be
administered forthwith.
Sincerely,
Dana Rohrabacher,
Member of Congress.
In 2005, Sandy Berger pled guilty to the mishandling and destruction
of
[[Page H1068]]
classified documents. He admitted that he unlawfully removed and
subsequently destroyed classified documents from the National Archives.
These documents dealt with the failure of our intelligence agencies
during the Clinton administration to prevent the horrendous attacks on
9/11.
As part of his plea, Mr. Berger agreed to a lie detector test which
was given by the Department of Justice. This would determine what
documents had been stolen by Mr. Berger. We are still waiting for that
test to be administered.
As a member, as a senior member of the House Foreign Affairs
Committee, I was and still am rightfully concerned about the length of
time between his crime and the administration of his lie detector test.
So on October 10, 2007, I sent a letter, that letter signed by 22 of
my colleagues, asking the Department of Justice why the test had not
been administered.
On October 22, 2007, my office received a form letter acknowledging
the DOJ's receipt of our inquiry. It was signed with an illegible
signature. We have no idea who signed it. All we know is that he or she
penned it ``for'' next to a printed name Brian Benczkowski.
Principally, he is the principal Deputy Assistant Secretary General.
{time} 1730
We were also given a tracking number so we could track any future
correspondence. In spite of that fact, we received a computer-generated
response and a tracking number to an official congressional inquiry,
okay, signed by 23 Members of Congress. We had hoped that we would
actually have an answer to our request and that there would actually be
a human being rather than a tracking number that we could look to.
Well, we got our wish and we got a letter back. On January 24, 2008,
94 days after the letter, we received a response, and I submit the
response for the Record.
Department of Justice,
Office of Legislative Affairs,
Washington, DC, January 24, 2008.
Hon. Dana Rohrbacher,
House of Representatives,
Washington, DC.
Dear Congressman Rohrbacher: This is in response to your
letter, dated October 10, 2007, in which you requested that
the Department of Justice administer a polygraph examination
to Mr. Samuel Berger, who pleaded guilty in April 2005, to
violations of federal law relating to the removal of copies
of classified documents from the National Archives.
We appreciate your interest and have enclosed a copy of our
letter, dated February 16, 2007, to the Honorable Henry A.
Waxman, Chairman of the Committee on Oversight and Government
Reform, advising him of our views regarding the Minority
Staff Report that was issued regarding this matter. As stated
in our response to Chairman Waxman, we believe that there are
no facts that would justify a polygraph of Mr. Berger at this
time.
We are sending an identical response to the other Members
who joined in your letter to us. Please do not hesitate to
contact this office if you would like additional assistance
regarding this or any other matter.
Sincerely,
Brian A. Benczkowski,
Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General.
The letter was dismissive and said that the DOJ found no reason to
issue a polygraph test to Sandy Berger, and attached was an old letter
the DOJ had sent to Chairman Waxman of the House Oversight and
Government Reform Committee almost a year before our correspondence.
The letter this time was signed by Brian Benczkowski.
Madam Speaker, I have been a Member of Congress for 19 years. I have
never seen such a pattern of blatant disregard and outright disdain for
Members of Congress. If Sandy Berger is not to be polygraphed to verify
the documents that were stolen from the Archives, we need to know why
such verification is not being done. This administration wouldn't even
give a respectable answer to the rightful inquiry of Members of
Congress of why we are not verifying through a polygraph test what
documents were stolen from the National Archives by the former National
Security Adviser.
On the one hand, this President believes he has a right to make
demands on us. The President said in his State of the Union address
that Congress must act on certain issues. We must do as he wishes. We
must pass legislation he deems necessary. Yet while 23 Members of
Congress write his Justice Department a serious letter of inquiry about
a national security issue, we get a computer-generated form letter and
a copy of an old response to a different inquiry. The bad attitude I am
detailing is pervasive.
The handling of a proposed totalization agreement with Mexico is
again yet another example. The totalization agreements, and
totalization agreements are not necessarily a bad thing, they can serve
a useful function. Large corporations both in the United States and
abroad often assign people to work in an overseas office for several
years. During these years, employers are double taxed. They pay both
Social Security and the equivalent tax in their native countries.
Allowing the Social Security Administration and foreign agencies to
give credit under one system towards retirement makes sense if there
are a limited number of people involved and the people who are involved
in this are working here legally and temporarily. The concept itself is
not alarming.
However, this is emphatically not the case with Mexico. We have
millions of Mexican citizens living illegally in the United States.
This is not a limited number of Swedish or Japanese executives who will
only work here for a number of years and then go home. Not only are
Mexicans not going to return to Mexico; the Mexican Government
encourages them to stay in the United States. After all, if the U.S. is
going to pay for their health care, their education and now their
retirement, why should Mexico be bothered.
Knowing the volatility of the American people on both the Social
Security and illegal immigration issues, the totalization negotiations
with Mexico were kept totally under wraps. Now remember, these
negotiations with Mexico started in 2002 with a Republican-controlled
Congress. One would think that a Republican administration would at the
very least advise Congress, perhaps giving a status report, concerning
such diplomatic efforts as the totalization negotiations with Mexico.
Well, Congress did not know the details until it hit the press.
Worse, these press releases on the agreement, put out by the
administration, were misleading and it appears that Congress was being
misled as to just what the administration had agreed to concerning
Social Security benefits for Mexican nationals illegally working in the
United States.
Now, I have proposed legislation to ensure that no work done while
someone is in this country illegally should be counted towards a Social
Security benefit. The administration apparently agreed in the
totalization agreement negotiations that illegal aliens from Mexico
will be eligible for the same treatment under Social Security as U.S.
citizens without ever becoming a legal resident or citizen. It took a
long, drawn-out legal battle in the form of a Freedom of Information
lawsuit to get the details of this agreement from the administration.
Again, stonewalling and concealment, whether it deals with Iraq or
whether it deals with a totalization agreement dealing with Social
Security rights for the people from Mexico who come to our country
illegally.
In both cases, regardless of how you feel about the Iraq policies or
Social Security for illegal immigrants into our country, the point is
we should not be keeping this debate secret. Congress has a right to
oversee such agreements, and we should have a public dialogue about
these types of decisions.
This administration has, as I am pointing out, a history of
concealment and in some cases of distorting and actually not telling us
the truth about what is going on with these negotiations and agreements
that are happening behind closed doors.
Once Congress and the public found out about the agreement in the
totalization agreement, a fire storm broke out not just about giving
illegals Social Security but about keeping it secret from Congress.
Yes, as I said, Congress, as well as America's seniors, have every
right to know if the President of the United States is in the process
of signing an agreement to give Social Security benefits to illegal
immigrants. It is something we should discuss. It is not something
where the
[[Page H1069]]
President should try to make an agreement behind closed doors. In this
case the administration is undermining the public's right to know and
the Congress is being left in the dark.
And please remember, the danger from this agreement is not past. Due
to the public outrage, it has been put on the back burner, but the
President at any time can submit this agreement to Congress even if he
has not detailed it for us now so we can discuss it.
What I am describing is a pattern of arrogance and contempt, and that
is especially true not just with Social Security but with broader
issues relating to illegal immigration and on issues dealing with
Mexico.
The tragic case of wrongly imprisoned Border Patrol agents Ignacio
Ramos and Jose Compean exemplifies the worst aspects of this
administration's attitude problem, and will forever leave a black mark
on this administration.
President Bush has himself made decisions that directly led to the
ongoing tragedy which sees these two Border Patrol agents languishing
in solitary confinement; and that's where they are today, in solitary
confinement, being treated worse than we treat the terrorists in
Guantanamo. That is where we are now. That is what they have had to
endure in that solitary confinement for over a year.
Now, this is clearly a questionable case, but President Bush has
deliberately dug in his heels to protect his good friend and young
protege, the prosecutor, U.S. Attorney Johnny Sutton. Rather than
entertain the probability that a terrible injustice was in progress and
instruct the Justice Department and the Department of Homeland Security
to cooperate so Congress could get to the bottom of this nightmare,
this President has thumbed his nose at the congressional concerns and
initiated a policy of obstruction and denial in terms of Ramos and
Compean.
Since the Ramos and Compean case was brought to my attention in
September 2006, I have written over a dozen letters to this
administration requesting various documents regarding the harsh
prosecution of Ramos and Compean. I have been joined by several other
Members of Congress in this effort, including Congressmen Poe,
Culberson, and McCaul. These three Members of Congress, in fact,
attended a briefing on Ramos and Compean's prosecution by the
Department of Homeland Security Inspector General's Office on September
26, 2006.
In that briefing, serious questions were raised by these three
Members about the fundamental justification for this prosecution to
begin with. The President and his lap-dog prosecutors would like us to
believe that they have no discretion, but these Members of Congress who
have long histories in the law and in prosecution, they know. They
could see there was something wrong because we know that the actual
charges being brought against Ramos and Compean, and they were fully
aware of this because these Members of Congress, as I said, have a big
background in law, they knew that what charges were being brought were
totally at the discretion of the prosecutors. The prosecution's hands
were not tied.
What were the grounds for charging these men with crimes like
attempted murder, assault with a deadly weapon, the unlawful discharge
of a firearm during a crime of violence, and a Federal civil rights
violation? These charges that could have put Ramos and Compean in
prison for 10-20 years were totally at the discretion of the
prosecution. Did this fit the crime? If there was any crime at all that
was committed, why would they be charged with this overwhelming attack
by the prosecution knowing that by making these charges these men are
going to end up being put away for one or two decades of their life.
These two Border Patrol agents had wounded a fleeing illegal alien
drug smuggler who was escaping after assaulting one of the officers who
had intercepted the drug dealer during an attempt to bring $1 million
worth of drugs into this country. Although they were never intended by
Congress to be applied in this way, the gun laws which were applied by
the prosecution, the gun law of mandatory prison sentence, was applied
to the law enforcement officers in this case, and these law enforcement
officers had made a split-second decision to discharge their weapons.
Is that right? Isn't there some question about that, considering they
threw the book at these guys?
The prosecutors knew that it was not the intent of Congress that they
should be charging law enforcement officers with split-second decisions
in the discharge of a weapon; but they threw the book at the agents,
including the charges that required tens of years of mandatory
imprisonment. Again, it was at their discretion that they made these
charges.
When Congressmen Poe, Culberson, and McCaul asked why the most
serious charges that could be leveled at the Border Patrol agents were
initiated by the prosecutors, and why the prosecutors took the word of
the drug dealer that he had no weapon rather than the word of the law
enforcement officers, the DHS officials, briefing these Congressmen,
assured them that this was a legitimate and righteous prosecution.
These were, according to the DHS briefing given to these Members of
Congress, these were rogue cops. Ramos and Compean were rogue cops, and
the Congressmen were told they actually confessed that they knew that
the drug smuggler was unarmed and that the agents didn't really feel
threatened.
And the biggest lie of all, the Department of Homeland Security
briefer insisted that Ramos and Compean had told fellow officers the
day of the incident that they ``wanted to shoot a Mexican'' that day.
That charge raised eyebrows considering that the accused, Ignacio Ramos
and Jose Compean, are themselves Mexican Americans married to Mexican
American wives with Mexican American children. Sure, they just go out
and intentionally shoot some Mexicans that day. Sure.
This is what Members of Congress were told in an official briefing.
Asking for proof, the three Congressmen who were being briefed were
told that the charges were documented in the reports of the
investigative officers. The Department of Homeland Security briefer
promised to provide this proof that Ramos and Compean had actually
intended that day to go out and ``kill a Mexican.'' Of course, the
proof never came.
The Congressmen kept asking. Calls weren't returned. The Department
of Homeland Security stalled for 5 months. Members asked for copies of
the completed report of investigation which should have backed up the
alleged facts that were told to Members during the September 26
briefing to the Members of Congress.
Months passed, and nothing more. Just months passed. Nothing from the
Department of Homeland Security. Several letters and public pressure
arose, and the Department of Homeland Security finally released a
redacted version of the official report of investigation in February
2007. And surprise, surprise, the alleged confession of Ramos and
Compean was nowhere to be found in that document. The documentation of
the charge that they had brazenly proclaimed their intent to kill a
Mexican was not there. But that charge was repeated over and over
again.
How could this be? How could the Department of Homeland Security
officials, how could they assure Members this was a solid prosecution
and that evidence existed that Ramos and Compean were guilty and they
wanted to shoot a Mexican? These were flat out lies told to Members of
Congress who were being officially briefed by this administration.
During a Department of Homeland Security subcommittee hearing on
February 6, 2007, DHS Inspector General Richard Skinner was questioned
by Congressman Culberson about this issue. Under oath Skinner
acknowledged the information given to the Texas Congressman was in fact
false, but he smugly justified his blatant and willful lying by calling
it ``mischaracterization unfortunately repeated at the briefing.''
{time} 1745
No, Mr. Skinner, it was a lie, no matter how colorful the euphemism.
Ollie North was prosecuted on a charge far less egregious than what
we're talking about now. Ollie North gave, or so it was alleged,
misinformation to congressional staffers who were not part of an
official briefing of Members of Congress; yet, he was prosecuted.
[[Page H1070]]
This administration ends up lying in a briefing to Congress and
shrugs it off. To this day, absolutely nothing has been done about this
crime. And yes, lying to Congress, especially about an issue of this
magnitude, is a crime.
Administration officials deliberately misled Members of Congress in
order to discourage them from pursuing the Ramos and Compean case, and
no one has been held accountable for this crime. The Ramos and Compean
case has stunk since day one. The President, instead of looking into
the matter, which he should have done, has dug in his heels, permitting
his appointees to slander these two agents.
Even worse, the President has personally made decisions that have
resulted in these two agents languishing in solitary confinement. They
are in solitary confinement because of decisions made directly by the
President of the United States. U.S. Attorney Johnny Sutton publicly
labeled Ramos and Compean as corrupt; yet, again, when asked for some
sort of justification on this, what corruption charges were brought
against these people, there were no charges of corruption.
To say that this is a mean-spirited and vindictive prosecution is to
put it mildly. This case demonstrates why hearings are an integral part
of the check-and-balance system created by our Founding Fathers. It is
in this venue that the executive branch is held accountable for their
actions. Under oath, it was only when an administration official was
under oath that the lies about Ramos and Compean were admitted. But
this administration has decided to thumb its nose at that obligation
and has decided not to make its case under oath at a public hearing
and, instead, has actually said things, as I say, calling Ramos and
Compean corrupt in radio interviews and such.
Chairman William Delahunt graciously approved my request to hold
hearings on the Ramos and Compean case. In doing so, an official
subcommittee investigation into the case in preparation for the hearing
was authorized. During the course of this investigation, the resistance
from the Department of Justice, Homeland Security, and State was
consistent with the arrogance and obfuscation that flows through this
administration from the top down. Our hearing had to be postponed for
months because of the administration's refusal to provide documents or
to send the necessary witnesses to testify before the subcommittee,
citing that the committee did not have proper jurisdiction; therefore,
the U.S. Attorney Johnny Sutton, the Department of Homeland Security
Inspector General Skinner, or any of his other investigators need not
appear. That decision was clearly made by the White House.
Our Government provided a flawed immunity agreement, free health
care, unconditional border crossing cards to an illegal alien criminal
drug smuggler in exchange for his testimony that sent Border Patrol
Agents Ramos and Compean to prison.
Our Government kept secrets from the jury that the drug dealer
intercepted by Ramos and Compean had hauled another shipment of drugs
across the border, this, while on a Government-issued border crossing
pass.
Clearly, this is well within the jurisdiction of an oversight
investigative committee responsible for overseeing relations with other
countries, including Mexico, and including international drug
smuggling. Clearly, the public has a right to know about these things.
This administration apparently believes there is no obligation to
answer questions in public and under oath about the actions or policies
of the administration. And in preparation for that hearing, we made a
request, and request after request, countless phone calls, and even a
freedom of information lawsuit by a watchdog group, Judicial Watch, and
the administration still refuses to release copies of the border
crossing cards that were issued to the drug smuggler in this case. Of
course, they are claiming, when we make this request about these cards
issued to the drug smuggler that permitted him to freely go across the
border, they say that the drug smuggler is protected under, get this,
``the privacy act.'' This is what the Justice Department tells us.
I was instructed by the Justice Department to obtain a privacy waiver
in order that that information be released, a privacy waiver for an
illegal alien criminal. This is absurd and just another example of the
condescending and dismissive attitude. This type of obstructionism,
however, is the rule, not the exception, of this administration.
By the way, due to a bureaucratic fluke, the border crossing cards,
we actually got a hold of them, and this is how we have learned that
this person that was involved with the Ramos and Compean event actually
took a second shipment of drugs.
I submit for the Record the letters and copies of these exchanges
with the administration.
Congress of the United States,
House of Representatives,
Washington, DC, September 12, 2006.
Attorney General Alberto Gonzales,
Department of Justice,
Washington, DC.
Dear Attorney General Gonzales: We are writing to you as
members of Congress with deep concern over the Justice
Department's wrongheaded prosecution of two U.S. Border
Patrol agents who were simply doing their jobs to protect our
homeland.
Agents Ignacio Ramos and Jose Alonso Compean should have
been commended by our government for their actions last year
in attempting to apprehend a Mexican drug smuggler who
brought 743 pounds of marijuana across our border. But
because of an incomprehensible prosecution by the U.S.
Attorney's Office--including granting full immunity to the
smuggler so he could testify against our agents--these men
may soon receive 20-year prison sentences for firing shots at
the fleeing smuggler, who they believed carried a gun. The
smuggler--who received complete medical care at William
Beaumont Army Medical Center in El Paso, Texas--is now suing
the Border Patrol for $5 million for violating his civil
rights!
The Justice Department's unjust prosecution does nothing
but tie the hands of our Border Patrol and prevent them from
securing America against a flood of illegal immigrants,
drugs, counterfeit goods and quite possibly, terrorists. This
demoralizing prosecution puts the rights of illegal alien
drug smugglers ahead of our homeland security and undermines
the critical mission of better enforcing our immigration
laws. The convictions against these agents demand oversight.
Due to significant concerns over the circumstances
surrounding the prosecution of Agents Ramos and Compean, the
House Judiciary Committee has already recognized the need for
a thorough review of this case by calling for Congressional
hearings and an investigation of the Department of Homeland
Security, Office of the Inspector General, U.S. Customs and
Border Patrol and the U.S. Attorney's Office.
Mr. Gonzales, we strongly urge the Department of Justice to
postpone the sentencing of Agents Ramos and Compean, and to
reopen their case for a fuller investigation of the facts.
Sincerely,
Walter B. Jones, Tom Tancredo, Ted Poe, Charlie Norwood,
Ernest Istook, Dana Rohrabacher, Sue Myrick, Virginia
Foxx, John Duncan, Barbara Cubin, Jim Ryun, Virgil
Goode, Ginny Brown-Waite, Gary G. Miller, Kenny
Marchant, Ed Whitfield, Ed Rover, Dan Burton, Robin
Hayes, Henry Brown, John Campbell, Michael Bilirakis,
Members of Congress.
____
Department of Justice,
Office of Legislative Affairs,
Washington, DC, February 16, 2007.
Hon. Henry A. Waxman,
Chairman, Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, House
of Representatives, Washington, DC.
Dear Chairman Waxman: This letter responds to concerns
expressed in the January 9, 2006, Minority Staff Report,
``Sandy Berger's Theft of Classified Documents: Unanswered
Questions'' (``the Report''). The Report alleges failures in
the Department's handling of the Berger investigation. We
have reviewed the Report and respectfully disagree with its
characterization of the Department's investigation.
The Department's investigation began when we were first
advised of Berger's actions by the National Archives and
Records Administration Inspector General (IG) on October 15,
2003, almost two weeks after Archives staff and agents of the
IG had begun their own investigation of the incident. The
Department and the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI)
devoted significant resources to the task, including
prosecutors and FBI Special Agents trained in the
investigation of national security cases. The FBI conducted
over 50 interviews, made inspections of the Archives
facilities, and reviewed thousands of pages of documents, in
addition to other law enforcement efforts. We examined Mr.
Berger's conduct during all four of his visits to the
Archives.
The Report suggests that the Department did not inquire
about Mr. Berger's first two visits to the Archives, citing
the IG's recollection that the Department had informed the IG
in April 2004 that the Department had not questioned Mr.
Berger about his May 2002 and July 2003 visits. This
suggestion appears to be based on a misunderstanding of the
sequence of the Department's investigation. As of April 2004,
the Department had
[[Page H1071]]
not yet asked Mr. Berger any questions, as he had not yet
agreed to an interview. When the Department did subsequently
interview Mr. Berger, the Department questioned him regarding
all of his visits. Furthermore, the Department questioned
every witness with knowledge of Mr. Berger's visits about all
of his visits. Neither Mr. Berger nor any other witness
provided the Department with evidence that Mr. Berger had
taken any documents beyond the five referenced in the plea
agreement.
In this, as in all criminal investigations, the
Department's obligation was to gather the available
testimonial and documentary evidence and then rigorously put
that evidence to the test--often pitting the memory of
witnesses against the written record supplied by the
documents--in order to determine as accurate a picture as
possible of what transpired. In this case, as in others, some
of the initial allegations did not withstand further
analysis.
For example, the Report suggests that the Department did
not give sufficient weight to the accounts of Mr. Berger's
activities provided by Archives staff, most notably the e-
mail sent on September 2, 2003, from Official A to Senior
Official 1. In this e-mail, Official A described an encounter
with Mr. Berger that day in which he saw Mr. Berger
``fiddling with something white which looked to be a piece of
paper or multiple pieces of paper'' down by his ankle. The
Department was fully aware of this e-mail, and knew that
Berger had in fact removed his notes and a document on the
visit of September 2, 2003. The e-mail was a significant
piece of information that the Department appropriately
investigated.
The account described in the e-mail was evaluated in
conjunction with Official A's interview with the IG's agents
on October 15, 2003, conducted before the Department was
involved in the case. The recording and transcript of the
interview with the IG's Agents were reviewed in full in the
course of our investigation. According to the IG's recorded
interview, Official A repeatedly stated that the interaction
was ``very quick'' and he could not be certain what he saw.
Further, Official A told the IG's Agents, ``I could not, um,
you know, swear that what I saw was documents, but it
certainly unnerved me enough.'' Later, Official A was asked
by the IG's agents how he was feeling and he responded,
``very unsettled. I mean, it's, it's unsettled but at the
same time I mean, not, not unsettled in the way that I'm a
hundred percent sure of what I've seen and, and I'm sick,
just like, did I see what, what I, you know possibly could .
. . There was a certain grey area in my mind and whether this
was actually a document, a piece of paper.''
When Official A was interviewed later by the FBI on October
17, 2003, he once again expressed uncertainty about what he
saw, diminishing further the probative value of his e-mail.
The e-mail, and Official A's interviews with the IG's agents
and the FBI, had to be further weighed against the evidence
that after the e-mail was sent and after Official A discussed
with Senior Official 1 what he saw, Senior Official 1
contacted a supervisor, but the Archives staff did not
confront Mr. Berger, did not search him, and did not contact
any security or law enforcement officials. In light of these
additional facts, the Report's suggestion that the Department
somehow failed to consider the full import of the e-mail and
related information is unfounded.
The Department's analysis of the other documentary and
testimonial evidence in this case was similarly thorough. And
at the conclusion of its extensive investigation, the
Department secured a guilty plea from Mr. Berger, pursuant to
which he admitted to ``conceal[ing] and remov[ing]'' five
copies of classified documents from the Archives, concealing
them at his office, and ``cut[ting] three of the documents
into small pieces and discard[ing] them''--all in violation
of 18 U.S.C. Sec. 1924. April 1, 2005 Factual Basis for Plea
at 2. The Department stands by its investigation and believes
that this resolution was the best one possible in light of
the available evidence,
The Report also suggests that, as a result of Mr. Berger's
conduct, the 9-11 Commission may have been deprived of the
information necessary to render its final report. The
Department, however, has no evidence indicating that this
suggestion is accurate. In the course of its investigation,
the Department interviewed numerous witnesses who might have
had knowledge of any missing items. None of these witnesses,
however, provided the Department with evidence that Mr.
Berger's conduct deprived the 9-11 Commission of information
or documents. Nor has the IG ever advised us--either at the
time of our investigation or at any time since--of any
evidence that Mr. Berger had taken any documents other than
the five referenced in the plea agreement.
Thus, not the Department, the FBI, or the Archives IG has
found any evidence that Mr. Berger took any documents other
than the five referenced in the plea agreement. The
Department's public statements made after Mr. Berger's April
1, 2005, guilty plea reflected the results of its extensive
investigation into this matter, and were based solely on the
evidence gathered in that investigation and contained in the
detailed factual statement--the contents of which Mr. Berger
admitted as a condition of his plea agreement.
Under the terms of his plea agreement, Mr. Berger must
cooperate with the Archives IG and make himself available for
any cooperation with the government. Indeed, on July 8, 2005,
after the plea and prior to sentencing, the IG, along with
Department attorneys and FBI agents, also questioned Mr.
Berger. At this meeting, Mr. Berger was again questioned
about all of his visits to the Archives, including those that
occurred in May 2002 and July 2003. Again, Mr. Berger's
answers in this session were evaluated and compared to his
previous answers and the vast amount of evidence collected in
the investigation.
In light of Mr. Berger's disclosures during an extensive
interview in March 2005 and his acceptance, as part of his
guilty plea, of a detailed factual basis for the charges
against him, the judgment of the Department and the FBI was
not to administer a polygraph examination to Mr. Berger. The
Department is aware of no new facts regarding the law
enforcement aspects of this investigation to suggest that it
should revisit that judgment.
In closing, I would like to emphasize that the Department's
silence with respect to certain other factual assertions and
conclusions in the Report should not be mistaken for
agreement. Indeed, to cite but one additional example, the
Department disagrees with both the manner in which certain of
its employees were interviewed and the manner in which their
statements to Committee staff were presented in the Report.
We nevertheless hope that this letter provides you assurance
that the Department takes investigations regarding the
mishandling of classified information and documents very
seriously, and vigorously investigates and prosecutes those
who endanger our national security. We appreciate your
attention to this matter.
Sincerely,
Richard A. Heating,
Acting Assistant Attorney General.
This is plea after plea from Members of Congress, I might add that
even a majority of Members of Congress have voted for and supported on
both sides of the aisle. Chairman Delahunt of our Investigative
Subcommittee knows that there's something wrong with this case. As I
say, it stinks and has stunk from the beginning.
We have asked for the President to intervene on behalf of Ramos and
Compean personally, either by pardoning or commuting their sentences.
These requests have been ignored over and over again. And last year, I
personally reached out to the President to take the pressure and
confrontation out of this issue. I suggested that the President direct
the Department of Justice to request that Ramos and Compean be
permitted to remain free on bond pending their appeal. Even common
criminals in our society are able to stay out pending appeal of a
decision.
And what was the response? The White House released a press release
the next day, it was issued the very next day, proclaiming that the
administration opposes letting Ramos and Compean out pending appeal and
that no special consideration would be granted to anyone.
Now, that's a lot of holier than thou rhetoric, okay? So no special
consideration was going to be given to anyone, much less these two
Border Patrol agents. Now, that sounds righteous, a position of not
making any exceptions, except, of course, for the fact that a short
time later, White House Aide Scooter Libby had his sentence commuted by
the President in a heartbeat.
For the record, I found out, and let me just note, I believe that
commuting Scooter Libby's sentence was justified. But it's totally
inconsistent with what we had been told of why Ramos and Compean
couldn't even be considered to let them out, even waiting, pending
appeal.
Yeah, Scooter Libby got a raw deal. But the fact is that what's
happening, what we see is only members of the President's personal
clique get such consideration. It's clear, that's evident, and it's
disgraceful.
It is truly with a heavy heart, Madam Speaker, that I stand here
reciting example after example of the maliciousness and condescending
attitude exhibited by this administration. It is a problem that's
flowing from the top.
When I hear my friends on the other side of the aisle accusing this
administration of stonewalling, of coverups, or thwarting
investigations, I sadly must concur with them. Even though I may
disagree with what the policy issue of the day is, I have to agree that
Congress is not being treated with respect and that the President is
engaged in obfuscating and in stonewalling of rightful requests by this
body.
This White House exemplifies needless hostility, turf jealousy, and
obstructionism. The American people should know it and should know that
these charges come not from a partisan
[[Page H1072]]
Democrat, but from a lifelong conservative Republican. I have worked in
the White House. I worked for 7 years as a special assistant to
President Ronald Reagan.
Ronald Reagan, as much as people can disagree or agree with the
policies that he espoused, was a person who never acted arrogantly
towards others. He never, when he was giving State of the Union
messages, never used the word ``must,'' never made demands. And I think
that President Reagan would not feel comfortable with the type of
attitude that is exemplified in this administration. He, instead,
wanted to reach out to people and cooperate.
This administration seems to want to just bulldoze whoever gets in
their way and does not have the human concern for other people,
especially for people like Ramos and Compean, the little guys, that we
saw in Ronald Reagan, which made him so popular and successful.
I would ask that the rest of my remarks be put into the Record. Thank
you very much for permitting me this hour.
And to the American people, I say, carefully consider who our leaders
are going to be and carefully consider the issue of the day. We have a
wonderful democratic society. There's a balance of power here set up by
our Founding Fathers. And it's important, whether you're Republican or
Democrat, that we maintain this balance of an authority, the
legislative, executive, and judicial in this country, and we should not
be setting precedents that the President of the United States has the
lion's share of the power in this great democracy of ours. The power is
rested in these three branches and in the people themselves.
____________________
