Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment. Mr. Chairman, I want to talk briefly on the Poe-Costa-Moore amendment. As stated in the amendment, this is a bipartisan amendment. And I want to thank the gentleman from California and the gentleman from…
Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I want to talk briefly on the Poe-Costa-Moore amendment. As stated in the amendment, this is a bipartisan amendment. And I want to thank the gentleman from California and the gentleman from Kansas for their support for crime victims under this amendment and the VOCA fund.
The VOCA fund was established under the Reagan administration. It's a novel concept where criminals who are convicted of crime pay fees into a fund that goes to victims of crime. It's kind of like criminals pay the rent on the courthouse, as they should. And so this fund has been established to supply victims and victims services throughout the country necessary funds for those victims and those projects.
At this present time, the fund is up to $1.3 billion. But this year the fund is capped at $625 million for victims services and victims throughout the United States.
This amendment is asking that 10 million more dollars be applied to this fund because of two reasons: Unfortunately, there are more crime victims in the United States than there ever have been. And also, by necessity, there are more programs that are victims services than ever have been in the United States.
Over 4,400 different programs and agencies receive funding under the VOCA fund. Over 3 million victims receive funds from this fund every year. And this covers the gamut, from sexual assault victims to child victims, to robbery victims and victims and families of homicide.
These funds are needed for these families. But they're also needed for domestic violence shelters. They're needed for child assessment centers. Those are centers throughout the United States that take sexually exploited children and help them through the process; not only the medical process, not only the psychological process, but the criminal justice system as well.
There are 26 organizations that support an additional $10 million for this crime victims fund, because it is necessary to help victims throughout the United States. So under this amendment, we're asking for 10 million additional dollars taken from human resources that would be applied to crime victims organizations throughout the United States and money for crime victims. This money, as I stated, is necessary. Unfortunately, it is necessary to help victims.
As chairman of the Crime Victims Caucus, and my cochair Mr. Costa, and other Members like Mr. Moore from Kansas, we all support this additional funding for crime victims. Take it and place it where it is necessary.
It is a novel concept to allow people who violate the law to contribute to a constant fund, and we want that to continue, but this year there needs to be 10 million additional dollars contributed to that fund so that numerous organizations that provide specifically victims services that funding has been cut in the past will be allowed to continue those victims services in the United States.
List of Organizations Who Support the Poe-Costa-Moore Amendment
American Probation and Parole Association; American Society
of Victimology; Break the Cycle; Jewish Women International;
Justice Solutions; Legal Momentum; Mothers Against Drunk
Driving; National Alliance to End Sexual Violence; National
Association of Crime Victim Compensation Boards; National
Association of VOCA Assistance Administrators; National
Center for Victims of Crime; National Children's Alliance;
and National Coalition Against Domestic Violence.
National Congress of American Indians; National Criminal
Justice Association; National Grange; National Judicial
College; National Network to End Domestic Violence; National
Organization for Victim Assistance; National Organization of
Parents of Murdered Children, Inc.; Pennsylvania Coalition
Against Rape; Rape Abuse & Incest National Network; Sacred
Circle, National Resource Center to End Violence Against
Native Women; Security On Campus, Inc.; Stop Family Violence;
and YWCA USA.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, in my previous life before coming to Congress, I was a prosecutor in Texas for a long time. Then I was a criminal court judge. Justice is one thing that we should always find in our country, but we don't always find it in our courts, unfortunately.
This case that has now become very famous throughout the United States happens to deal with two border agents doing their job. They come in contact with a drug dealer on the violent Texas-Mexico border. The drug dealer bring in a million dollars' worth of drugs in a van. He abandons the drugs and the van, takes off, tries to run back to Mexico, gets in a confrontation with our border agents. Shots are fired. He is shot in the buttocks and disappears into Mexico.
Our Federal Government brings the drug dealer back to the United States and grants him immunity from prosecution of a million dollars' worth of drugs in order to prosecute the border agents who were doing their job. He was given that immunity and testified against the two border agents. They were convicted and sent to a Federal penitentiary for 11 and 12 years. And for the most part of their sentence, which started in January, they have been in solitary confinement, what we reserve normally for the hardest and meanest and most violent criminals in our society.
It turns out that this drug dealer was not just a mule bringing in drugs to get a little money for his sick mother back in Mexico, but while he was waiting to testify, given immunity, he goes back to Mexico and brings in another load of drugs worth about $800,000.
Our Federal prosecutors knew about that second load of drugs, but they insisted that the jury not know about that second load of drugs, and the jury never heard about that second load of drugs.
It is relentless prosecution in this case that is chilling the effect of our border agents on the border to do their job, which is to enforce the rule of law, to arrest drug dealers. Our Federal Government had the choice to prosecute two border agents that violated
policy, or a drug dealer bringing in a million dollars' worth of drugs.
Now, you would think that public policy would say we would go after drug dealers. But no, our Federal prosecutors went after the border agents. We still don't know why they were so relentless in that prosecution, but they were. So tonight, while we are here, we have two border agents serving time in the penitentiary.
This amendment simply tries to right a wrong. It requires that no funds be used to incarcerate either one of these two border agents, Ramos and Compean, any further, and that they can be released from custody.
Almost everyone agrees that the punishment is way out of line. Even the prosecutor said that once. Last week the Senate held hearings on the prosecution of this case in a bipartisan manner and said that these sentences were way out of line. And so this amendment will simply allow no Federal funds to be used to incarcerate these two border agents.
Hopefully the House will continue to have hearings on why these two agents and other border agents have been prosecuted by the Western District of Texas while ignoring other violations of the law by drug dealers.
I hope that my fellow colleagues on both sides of the aisle would agree to support this amendment and to allow the release of these two individuals, and not allow any Federal funds to be used to incarcerate two men who were simply doing their job for the rest of us on the violent Texas border.
Mr. Chairman, how much time do I have?
I appreciate the support. I would like to comment on the comments earlier by the gentleman from California.
It is true. I don't know if the American public knows this, but if drug dealers bring in $5,000 of drugs or less, they are not prosecuted. But this wasn't a $5,000 case. The drug dealer first brought in $1 million worth of drugs, and in the second case he snuck in $800,000 worth of drugs. The jury was never told about that.
The other thing I would like to point out is that Members of Congress met with the Homeland Security inspector general about this case. They gave us information that turned out not to be true. Mr. Skinner finally testified under oath before Congress that the information they gave us about this case was false. That is disconcerting in this type of matter when we have Homeland Security telling Members of Congress things that are not true about this particular matter.
I don't have time to go on that, but I would ask for support of this case. This is the only remedy available. In my judicial experience, I do believe in our court system, and our courts eventually will work this case out. It will be reversed, but meanwhile they are in jail. The only way they can get out of jail is if we pass this amendment. I appreciate it.
I thank the gentleman from Iowa for yielding.
I know that we've discussed this issue a lot tonight, but it's important because it has to do with the most important concept that any of us have, liberty. And we have found in the investigation of this case that the U.S. Attorney's Office has done everything it can to make sure that these two people stay in jail.
The key to this is that the jury did decide the facts of this case, but the jury didn't get all the facts given to them under the law. There was another case where the drug dealer brought in another $800,000 worth of drugs while he's running free at American taxpayer expense, and brings in these drugs while he's waiting to testify. Anybody who served on any jury in the country would want to know about that second case. This jury was prohibited from knowing about that because of the insistence and the relentless prosecutor who demanded that the jury not hear about all of the facts.
The question is why? Why wouldn't the prosecutor want the jury to know all the truth about this case?
We don't know. We do know that the Mexican Government, in its righteous indignation, sent a speedy letter over to the U.S. Attorney's Office demanding prosecution of these border agents. The Mexican Government dealing in our court system, their opinion is irrelevant, I submit, Mr. Chairman.
And this case is a case where our Border Patrol agents are in Fabans, Texas. I don't believe there's been a person here that's been to Fabans, Texas, unless they've gone there on purpose to see the border. It's a violent, dangerous, desolate area. And based upon the rules they have to follow, they cannot fire their weapon unless they are fired upon. In other words, they've got to take a bullet before they can defend the border. And they operate under that environment because of the national security of our border.
In this case, overreaching by the prosecutor; too heavy a sentence. He even said so later after the prosecution. And what this does is release these two individuals while the appeal goes on. It releases them from custody of our Federal Government. And it's the responsibility of Congress in further investigations to find out why our Western District of Texas is so relentless in prosecuting border protectors. And this is one way we can do something. We have that authority. We can cut the funds, and we ought to cut the funds that incarcerate these two individuals. We ought to pass this amendment in a bipartisan manner.
There's a disagreement over who brought that to them. We first heard that the Mexican Consulate brought it to someone working in the Federal Government. And then we also heard that another border agent brought it, so I don't know the answer to that question.
There was a grand jury investigation. I do not know who testified. The border supervisors were on the scene and were aware of the entire circumstances.
No one knew that the drug dealer who disappeared back into Mexico had even been shot, and so they thought that the person was shot at and he disappeared. And the next thing they know, they are being questioned about 30 to 60 days later about the incident that occurred.
The border agents were offered, if they pled guilty to the offense, 2 years incarceration. If they did not plead guilty and went to trial, the prosecutor added the section under our law, 924(c) section that required or would allow a mandatory additional 10 years incarceration because a weapon was used. That is subject to appeal as to whether that applies to peace officers or not. That was added. Therefore they received 11 and 12 years in the penitentiary after the trial and after sentencing because they would not plead guilty for a crime they didn't do.
Yes. There has been an appeal. Both of these cases are on appeal, and they are in custody while these cases are on appeal.
The indictment on its face is being challenged because in the indictment it alleges the deadly weapon or the brandishing of a firearm, which requires an additional 10 years. That is also contested on appeal, whether it applies to peace officers or not.
In my opinion, absolutely not. It applies to other cases where a firearm is used, such as in a robbery. It doesn't apply to border agents who are required to use and possess a firearm while they are on duty. And so it is not, in my opinion, the intent of Congress. And, of course, that will be litigated on appeal as well.