Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, on May 8, 2008, I introduced H.R. 5993, the Presidential Signing Statements Act. This bill would promote congressional and public awareness and understanding of Presidential signing statements. I am very pleased that next Friday the House Judiciary Committee will examine the issue of Presidential signing statements as part of a hearing on the balance of powers in our government.

The history of Presidential signing statements dates back to the 19th century. However, on September 17, 2007, a Congressional Research Service report noted that U.S. presidents have increasingly employed these statements to assert constitutional and legal objections to congressional enactments.

In doing so, Presidents sometimes communicate their intent to disregard certain provisions of bills they have signed into law. It is for this reason that I have introduced the Presidential Signing Statements Act. Just as the American people have access to the text of bills that are signed into law, they should have easy and prompt access to the content of Presidential signing statements that could affect how those the laws will be executed. To enable a more complete public understanding of our Nation's laws, the Congress should also be able to call for the executive explanation and justification for a Presidential signing statement.

According to CRS, President Clinton signed 381 signing statements while in office. Seventy of these statements raised legal and constitutional objections. President George Bush has signed 157 signing statements, 122 of these statements contain some type of constitutional challenge or objections. Because future Presidents are likely to continue this practice, Congress should act now to pass legislation to ensure proper understanding and disclosure of these signing statements.

The American Bar Association recently examined the issue of presidential signing statements and appointed the task force on presidential signing statements and the separation of powers doctrine.

The task force issued a report urging Congress to enact legislation requiring the President to promptly submit to Congress an official copy of all signing statements he issues and to submit a congressional, to the Congress, a report setting forth in full the reasons and legal basis for this statement. The ABA also recommended that such submissions be available in a publicly accessible database.

The bill that I introduced would require the President to provide copies of signing statements to congressional leadership within 3 days of being issued. Secondly, it would require signing statements to be published in the Federal Register; and, third, require executive staff to testify on the meaning and justification for Presidential signing statements at the request of the House or Senate Judiciary Committee; and, fourth, provide that no monies may be used to implement any

law accompanied by the signing statements if any provision of the act is violated.

Because it's critical that we preserve the division of power in our government and public understanding of our Nation's laws, I hope many of my colleagues will consider cosigning the Presidential Signing Statements Act.

I look forward to next week's House Judiciary Committee hearing, and the opportunity to further discuss why this legislation is a much- needed piece of legislation.

Before I close, I ask God to please bless our men and women in uniform in Afghanistan and Iraq, and ask God to please bless the families of our men and women in uniform, and ask God to continue to bless America.

Mr. Speaker, I will be fairly brief.

I want to thank Chairman Brady, Ranking Member Ehlers, Ms. Zoe Lofgren, and you, yourself, Mr. Chairman, for working on this legislation. It certainly is something that we don't think about, life and death, as much as maybe we should and be prepared. But it has been explained by Ms. Lofgren and Mr. Ehlers exactly what it does. So I want to quickly say that when my father, who served in the Congress 26 years, passed away and we were trying to settle his estate, the treasurer of his account, an attorney, who didn't really want anything, but he said by law I'm responsible for the distribution of these monies. And so it came to me at that time that it should be made as easy for the family as possible when a loved one, if he or she is serving, or maybe a candidate should pass away in office, and it does happen, sadly, from time to time.

So, again, in closing, I want to thank Mr. Ehlers and Mr. Brady and Ms. Lofgren for moving this bill to the floor of the House. And I hope one day that the President can sign this because it's what should be done for the family.

Mr. Speaker, as the Members of the House are aware, in February of 2006, U.S. Border Patrol agents Ramos and Compean were convicted of shooting and wounding a Mexican drug smuggler who brought $1 million worth of marijuana across our borders into Texas. The agents were sentenced to 11 and 12 years in prison and now have been in Federal prison, in solitary confinement, for 545 days.

On June 18, 2008, I sent a letter, signed by Congressman Ted Poe, Congressman Dana Rohrabacher, Congressman Virgil Goode, Congressmen Louie Gohmert, John Culberson, and Don Manzullo, to ask the U.S. Department of Justice Office of Professional Responsibility to investigate the actions of U.S. Attorney Johnny Sutton in this case.

At this point, we have not received the response from the Justice Department. And I only hope they are thoroughly examining the details of this prosecution. One of the main reasons for our request for this investigation stems from the firearm charges used by his office in prosecuting the agents. The charge carried a 10-year minimum sentence. Without this charge, one of the agents, Agent Ramos, would have already completed his sentence and would be out of prison and with his family today.

When you look at the history of why Congress enacted this statute, one reason stands out, to warn criminals to think twice before they put a gun in their pocket on the way to the scene of a crime. The reason for this statute clearly does not apply to law enforcement Officers Ramos and Compean. These men were not carrying guns so they could commit a crime. They were required to carry guns as part of their job.

The real criminal in this case, the Mexican drug smuggler, has since pled guilty to smuggling additional loads of drugs. He is scheduled to face sentencing in Federal Court tomorrow. This is the same drug smuggler who the prosecution portrayed as a one-time offender and gave him free medical care, border-crossing cards and immunity to testify against our border agents.

While the American people won't wait for the Fifth United States Circuit Court of Appeals in New Orleans

to render its decision on the agents' appeal, I am hopeful that the House Judiciary Committee will soon hold a hearing to investigate this injustice. I thank Chairman John Conyers and his staff for their interest in investigating this case.

This case deserves a hearing because Ramos and Compean were doing their job to protect our borders. They should never have been prosecuted. During oral arguments for their appeal on December 3, 2007, one of the judges considering the case, Judge E. Grady Jolly said, and I quote the judge, ``It does seem to me that the government overreacted here. For some reason this one got out of hand.''

I want the families of Agents Ramos and Compean to know that my colleagues on both sides of the aisle and I will continue to do all we can to see that this miscarriage of justice corrected.

Mr. Speaker, last week, I received a notice from the Chief Administrative Officer and the Architect of the Capitol directing me to remove a memorial located outside of my office that honors fallen Marines from Camp Lejeune, North Carolina. The notice stated that the Faces of the Fallen memorial does not comply with the new hallway policy of the House.

However, memorials to honor the lives of those killed in Iraq and Afghanistan are respectfully displayed and should not fall under the Hallway Policy's jurisdiction.

In 2004, Congressman Rahm Emanuel and I introduced legislation calling for an exhibit in the Capitol Rotunda to honor U.S. servicemembers who have died in Iraq and Afghanistan. Our legislation was never considered. Instead, House Speaker Dennis Hastert directed the construction of a memorial listing names of the fallen in the foyer of the Rayburn House Office Building.

Because we believed more should be done to honor the lives of our fallen servicemembers, I, along with other Members of Congress, began to display more proper memorials outside our individual offices.

Hundreds of visitors from my district and others have stopped to view the faces of fallen Marines from Camp Lejeune displayed outside my door. It is seeing the faces of these Marines, the fathers, the mothers, the sisters, the brothers, the sons and the daughters that deeply impact these visitors.

Since the media has reported the attempt to remove the Faces of the Fallen memorial displayed outside my office, I have heard from constituents and people across the country who believe these memorials should remain on display.

An article published yesterday in the Jacksonville Daily News distributed in the area surrounding Camp Lejeune quoted two women who understand what it means to lose a loved one who has served our Nation.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to submit the article for the Record.

The article quotes Deborah May, a woman whose husband was killed in Iraq in 2003. She told the Jacksonville Daily News that she has walked through the hallways of the House office buildings and she supports the memorials on display. And I quote Mrs. May: ``When I go, I take my small children with me. The very least they could do is put a picture there to show my children that my husband is remembered and that this is what our government is about and our country and the freedoms we have.''

The article also quotes Vivianne Wersel, the president of the Surviving Spouses Support Group at Camp Lejeune, who said that the memorial is as much as an icon as the American flag. And I quote her: ``These servicemembers have given their lives for a conflict and something they believed in. I think that it is a reminder for those that are visiting Congress and that is what America is all about. They can walk the halls of Congress because of these young men that have given them the freedom to speak and the freedom to live.''

Last week, I wrote a letter to Speaker Nancy Pelosi to explain the history behind these memorials and to ask her support in preserving their display. I know she understands the importance of honoring the servicemembers who have sacrificed for our Nation. And I thank her for honoring my request that the House observe a moment of silence each month to remember those killed

or wounded in Iraq and Afghanistan. I hope that Speaker Pelosi will agree with many of us in Congress and people across this Nation that these memorials should remain on display.

And before closing, Mr. Speaker, I want to show a picture of a child whose father died in Iraq for this country. This is a picture of Tyler Jordan whose father, Phillip Jordan, was a gunnery sergeant with the United States Marine Corps. And this young man is receiving the flag on his father's grave on his coffin. Four years ago, I had this picture sent to me so I could blow it up. And I want to say this to Tyler Jordan: Your daddy, Phillip Jordan, is on this poster. He was killed along with others in the year 2003.

A name means a lot to those who are not here any longer. But nothing means more than for a child to come to Washington and to see his father's face outside a congressional office.

So again I have great respect for Speaker Pelosi. And I hope she will agree with us that these posters should remain outside the Members of Congress' office.

And with that, Mr. Speaker, I ask God to please bless our men and women in uniform and to please bless the families of our men and women in uniform. And I ask God to please bless America and help us to see the way to always remember those who died for this country and not forget them.

God bless America.

[From the Jacksonville Daily News, July 13, 2008]

Jones Stands Ground on Lejeune Memorial in Hall Outside Office

(By Molly Dewitt)

A memorial honoring Camp Lejeune's fallen service members

may have to come down.

A ``Hallway Policy'' approved by Nancy Pelosi, house

speaker and chair of the House Office Building Commission,

limits the display and placement of items in hallways of the

House of Representatives office buildings. That includes a

display erected by Representative Walter B. Jones (R-NC)

outside his office.

Jones's Faces of the Fallen memorial consists of several

easels displaying 3-by-l posters bearing the names and faces

of Marines from Camp Lejeune who died while serving in

Operation Iraqi Freedom and Operation Enduring Freedom.

The policy specifically prohibits easels from being placed

in a hallway.

``We're not talking about posters. We're not talking about

things in the hall,'' Jones said. ``We're talking about men

and women that died for this country.

The hallway policy, instituted on April 17, was ``developed

to improve House compliance with the requirements of the

Americans with Disabilities Act and the Occupational Safety

and Health Act as applied to Congress by the Congressional

Accountability Act, and the Life Safety Code,'' according to

the policy.

``This is just typical bureaucratic malarkey,'' Jones said.

No one has ever complained about loss of hallway

accessibility due to the memorial, Jones said.

``I've never had anybody come in and tell me that they had

trouble getting through the hall,'' he said.

``I've seen people with wheelchairs, I've seen a large

number of people walk by and it's never impeded anyone from

getting through the hall.''

Deborah May, whose husband Staff Sgt. Donald C. May Jr. was

killed March 25, 2003 during Operation Iraqi Freedom, said

she's walked the hallways in the House of Representatives

office buildings.

``You could have a wheelchair race down those halls,

because they're very wide,'' she said.

She wants the memorial display to remain.

``When I go, I take my small children with me. The very

least they could do is put a picture there to show my

children that my husband is remembered and that this is what

our government is about and our country and the freedoms we

have.'' May said, tearing up.

The memorial has been displayed outside of Jones' various

office locations for the past five years and several years

ago an initial attempt to remove them was made, he said.

``Those that write the rules just don't have the respect

for those who have given their life for their country,''

Jones said.

``As far as I'm concerned this is disrespectful to those

who have given their lives in Afghanistan and Iraq.''

Jones believes Pelosi will make an exception for the

memorial.

``When we're having men and women dying every day and every

week in Afghanistan and in Iraq--my God, the least that we

can do is have people walk by and see the face of one that

never came back home,'' Jones said. ``I think Ms. Pelosi will

understand.''

Jones sent a letter to Pelosi on Wednesday regarding the

matter.

It has been suggested to Jones that a listing of the names

of the fallen be placed in an entrance foyer, but he believes

that to be insufficient, he said in the letter to Pelosi.

Jones said, regardless of her decision, he plans to stand

his ground in the situation.

``We're not going to let this be an issue, were going to do

what's right,'' Jones said. ``I told them they'll have to

remove me with the posters.''

Vivianne Wersel, the president of the Surviving Spouses

Support Group at Camp Lejeune, said the memorial is as much

an icon as the American flag.

``These service members have given their lives for a

conflict and something that they believe in,'' she said. ``I

think that it is a reminder for those that are visiting

Congress and that is what America is all about. Whether my

husband's picture is in it or not, it plays a role to remind

those that walk the hall of Congress. They can walk the halls

of Congress because of these young men that have given them

the freedom to speak and the freedom to live.''

Madam Speaker, this week I received a notice from the Chief Administrative Officer and the Architect of the Capitol directing me to remove a memorial outside of my office, which honors fallen marines from Camp Lejeune, North Carolina, because it does not comply with the new hallway policy of the House.

The hallway policy states that items such as flags, equipment, furnishings, and trash must be removed from the hallways. The policy defines furnishings, in part, as easels and exhibits and posters.

While the Faces of the Fallen memorial displayed outside my office does include posters and easels, I cannot believe that these symbols of service to our Nation could be considered mere furnishings. Discarded office equipment and trash are certainly a hindrance to the public who passes through the hallways of congressional office buildings. However, memorials to honor the lives of those killed in Iraq and Afghanistan are a welcome tribute that should not fall under the hallway policy jurisdiction.

Yesterday, I wrote a letter to Speaker Nancy Pelosi to explain the history of this memorial and its importance. In 2004, Congressman Rahm Emanuel and I introduced legislation directing the Architect of the Capitol to establish an exhibit in the Capitol rotunda to honor the memory of members of the United States Armed Forces who have died in Operation Iraqi Freedom and Operation

Enduring Freedom. Our legislation was never considered. Instead, House Speaker Denny Hastert directed the construction of a modest memorial listing names of the fallen in the foyer of the Rayburn House Office Building.

Because we consider the listing of names to be an insufficient way to honor the lives of our fallen servicemembers, I, along with other Members of Congress, began to display more proper memorials outside of our own office areas.

To fully appreciate the loss of a military hero, I believe it is important to see the face of what might have been the fathers, the mothers, the sons, the daughters. Hundreds of visitors from my district, and others, have stopped to view the faces of fallen marines from Camp Lejeune displayed outside my office door, and they have been impacted deeply by this memorial.

Madam Speaker, on one occasion, a mother from Minnesota came into my office with tears in her eyes and thanked me for displaying the picture of her son, who had been killed while serving our Nation.

I know that Speaker Pelosi understands the importance of honoring the men and women who have died in service to our country. I am very grateful that the Speaker has honored my request and the request of others that the House observe a moment of silence each month in honor of those killed or wounded in Iraq or Afghanistan.

As another sign of appreciation for these military heroes, I am hopeful that Speaker Pelosi will support those of us who wish to continue displaying memorials outside of our congressional offices in honor of the men and women who made the ultimate sacrifice for our country.

With that, Madam Speaker, I close by asking God to continue to bless our men and women in uniform and ask God to bless the families who have given a child dying for freedom in Iraq.

Mr. Speaker, on May 8, 2008, I introduced H.R. 5993, the Presidential Signing Statements Act. This bill would promote congressional and public awareness and understanding of presidential signing statements.

The history of presidential signing statements dates back to the 19th century; however, a September 17, 2007, Congressional Research Service report noted that U.S. Presidents have increasingly employed the statements to assert constitutional and legal objections to congressional enactments. In doing so, a President sometimes communicates their intent to disregard certain provisions of bills that have been signed into law.

It is for this reason that I have introduced the Presidential Signing Statements Act. Just as the American people have access to the text of bills that are signed into law, they should have easy and prompt access to the content of presidential signing statements that may affect how those laws will be executed. To enable a more complete public understanding of our Nation's laws, the Congress should also be able to call for the executive explanation and justification for a presidential signing statement.

According to CRS, President Clinton issued 381 signing statements while in

office; 70 of these statements raised legal or constitutional objections. President George W. Bush has issued 157 signing statements; 122 of these statements have contained some type of constitutional challenge or objection. Because it's reasonable to assume that future Presidents will continue this practice, Congress should act now to pass legislation to ensure proper understanding and disclosure of these signing statements.

The American Bar Association recently examined the issue of presidential signing statements and appointed the Task Force on Presidential Signing Statements and the Separation of Powers Doctrine. That task force issued a report urging Congress to ``enact legislation requiring the President to promptly submit to Congress an official copy of all signing statements he issues . . . to submit to Congress a report setting forth in full the reasons and legal basis for the statement.'' The ABA also recommended that ``such submissions be available in a publicly accessible database.''

Mr. Speaker, the bill that I have introduced would require the President to transmit copies of the signing statements to congressional leadership within 3 days of issuance; require signing statements to be published in the Federal Register; third, require executive staff to testify on the meaning and justification for presidential signing statements at the request of the House or the Senate Judiciary Committee; and, fourth, provide that no moneys may be authorized or expended to implement any law accompanied by a signing statement if any provision of the law is violated.

Mr. Speaker, because it's important that we preserve the provision of power in our government and public understanding of our Nation's laws, I hope many of my colleagues will consider cosponsoring this legislation, H.R. 5993.

And, Mr. Speaker, I would also like to ask God to continue to bless our men and women in uniform and ask God to continue to bless the families, and may God continue to bless America.

Madam Speaker, in May of this year I introduced H. Res. 1183, a resolution calling for the House to observe a moment of silence on the first legislative day of each month for those killed or wounded in the United States engagements in Iraq and Afghanistan. I am very grateful that last month the Speaker of the House initiated this moment of silence to honor America's fallen heroes. It is my understanding that the Speaker will continue this monthly observance during votes tomorrow.

I again thank Speaker Pelosi for making this tribute a part of the regular order of the House. This moment of silence will serve as a solemn reminder of the more than 4,000 killed and more than 30,000 wounded in Iraq and Afghanistan, and a thank-you from a grateful Nation. During the month of June, 56 United States servicemembers were killed; 27 in Afghanistan and 29 in Iraq.

Madam Speaker, I am sure every American shares my heart, which is heavy for the sacrifice of these fallen heroes. We are grateful to all of our men and women in uniform for their courage and for their selfless commitment to duty.

Again, I want to thank Speaker Pelosi and her staff for continuing to make this remembrance a reality for those who have sacrificed for our Nation and for their families. We, the House of Representatives, the People's House, should never forget those who have given their life for this great Nation.

May God continue to bless our men and women in uniform, and may God continue to bless the families of our men and women in uniform. And I ask God to continue to bless America.

Mr. Speaker, America was built on Judeo- Christian values. No one who knows the history of our nation can deny that freedom of religion played a critical part in its development. Yet there are those in our society who wish to threaten America's long history of religious freedom by limiting public expressions of religion by people of faith.

In 2001, the Virginia Chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union sued the Virginia Military Institute on behalf of two former cadets who opposed the school's nondenominational pre-supper prayer. In 2003, a three-judge panel of the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals decided in favor of the ACLU and stripped VMI of its right to prayer, a tradition dating back to the school's founding in 1839. After the ACLU eliminated prayer at this State-supported school, the group expressed interest in locating Naval Academy graduates to file a suit similar against lunchtime prayer at Annapolis.

In response to this threat, I introduced the Military Academy First Amendment Protection Act, legislation to protect the ability of our military service academies to include the offering of a voluntary, nondenominational prayer as an element of their activities.

With the support of other Members of Congress, this legislation was included as a provision of the fiscal year 2006 National Defense Authorization Act which was signed by the President and became law on January 6, 2006. I am so grateful to my colleagues in both parties who stood with me and acted to protect prayer at the United States Military, Naval, and Air Force Academies.

Since their founding, America's military academies have instilled in our military leaders the principles of our Founding Fathers and the traditions of our great military services. However, today, the American Civil Liberties Union has threatened to sue Annapolis over its tradition of lunchtime prayer.

Mr. Speaker, this is an example of why America is in trouble. Prayer or devotional thought has taken place at meals for midshipmen since the Naval Academy was founded in 1845. These prayers are nondenominational and have been rotated among chaplains of different faiths, from the Catholic to the Protestant to the Rabbi. Those who choose to attend the United States Naval Academy know what the rules are from day one.

Legal threats by the ACLU are not made in the spirit of religious tolerance but in a spirit of intolerance of any expression of faith at all.

Congress has a legitimate role to play in ensuring that the first amendment rights of American citizens are protected. By passing legislation to ensure our service academies' right to offer a voluntary, nondenominational prayer at an otherwise authorized activity of the academy, Congress codifies its belief that decisions respecting prayer should remain in the hands of each service academy's superintendent.

I am pleased that the law protects the right of the superintendent of the Naval Academy to continue the long tradition of lunchtime prayer at Annapolis.

As mission-crucial institutions, it should be the military authorities, and not civilian courts, that decide what practices are essential to fostering leadership and accomplishing the unique military mission.

I am hopeful that my colleagues in Congress will continue to stand with me to ensure the protection of our future military heroes and their first amendment rights.

And I must say, Mr. Speaker, in closing, to those nine members of the

Naval Academy who joined the ACLU to sue Annapolis, all I can say is shame on you because America will not survive unless it protects the Judeo-Christian values of this great Nation.

Mr. Speaker, as the Members of the House are aware, in February of 2006, U.S. Border Patrol agents Ramos and Compean were convicted of shooting and wounding a Mexican drug smuggler who brought $1 million worth of marijuana across our borders into Texas. The agents were sentenced to 11 and 12 years in prison and now have been in Federal prison for 523 days.

Last week I sent a letter, signed by Congressmen Ted Poe, Dana Rohrabacher, Virgil Goode, Louie Gohmert, John Culberson, and Don Manzullo, to ask the U.S. Department of Justice Office of Professional Responsibility to investigate the actions of U.S. Attorney Johnny Sutton in this case.

One of the main reasons for this request stems from the firearm charge used by his office in prosecuting the agents. This charge carried a 10-year minimum sentence. Without this charge, one of the agents, Agent Ramos, would have already completed his sentence and would be out of prison and with his family today.

The office of U.S. Attorney Johnny Sutton charged the agents with the discharge of a firearm during a crime of violence. Yet, there is no such crime. The law makes it a crime to use or carry or possess a firearm in relation to any crime of violence. The Supreme Court ruled last year in United States vs. Watson that discharge of a firearm is only a sentencing factor for a judge to consider at the conviction, not for the jury to determine if a crime occurred. However, you can imagine how difficult it would be to convince a jury that two Border Patrol agents, law enforcement officers, were unlawfully using, carrying, or possessing their firearms.

When you look at the history of why Congress enacted this statute, one reason stands out: To warn criminals to think twice before they stick a gun in their pocket on the way to the scene of a crime. This is the reason the statute clearly does not apply, does not apply to law enforcement officers like Ramos and Compean. These men were not carrying guns so they could commit a crime, they were required to carry guns as part of their job.

By focusing the jurors' attention on this nonexistent crime of discharging a firearm, there is reason to believe that Johnny Sutton intentionally manipulated the Federal criminal code to obtain a conviction against these two Border Patrol agents at all costs.

The American people must be confident that prosecutors will not tailor the law to make it easier to secure a conviction in a particular case. Federal prosecutors take an oath to enforce the law, not to make it.

I want the families of Ramos and Compean to know that my colleagues and I will continue to bring this injustice to the attention of the American people and to the White House.

I am most grateful, I am most grateful to Chairman John Conyers and his staff for their interest in investigating the prosecution in this case. I hope that the House Judiciary Committee will soon hold a hearing on this injustice, and I am also hopeful that the Department of Justice will take this matter seriously and will investigate Mr. Sutton's conduct in this case.

Mr. Speaker, before closing, I want the family, again, of Border Patrol Agents Ramos and Compean, that those of us in Congress on both sides of the aisle, we care about their families, we care about these Border Agents, and never, under any circumstances, should they have been indicted and prosecuted.

I want to thank Chairman John Conyers for holding hearings on this matter.

Congress of the United States,

Washington, DC, June 18, 2008.

Re Complaint for Prosecutorial Misconduct Against Johnny

Sutton, United States Attorney, Western District of Texas

H. Marshall Jarrett,

Counsel, Office of Professional Responsibility

United States Department of Justice, Washington, DC.

Dear Counsel Jarrett: As Members of Congress, we write this

letter to bring to your attention for investigation what we

have concluded to be a serious miscarriage of justice by

United States Attorney Johnny Sutton. Mr. Sutton supervised,

and has vigorously defended, his office's actions in a case

wherein two United States Border Patrol agents--Ignacio Ramos

and Jose Alonso Compean--have been convicted, and each are

now being punished by imprisonment of 10 years, for a crime

that does not exist, and therefore, for a crime that could

not have been committed.

Specifically, Mr. Ramos and Mr. Compean were charged with

violating 18 United States Code Section 924(c)(1)(A) by the

``knowing[] discharge[] [of] a firearm . . . during and in

relation to a crime of violence.'' (Emphasis added). There

is, however, no such crime. Rather, Section 924(c)(1)(A)

makes it a crime to ``use or carry . . . during and in

relation to any crime of violence'' or to ``possess a

firearm'' ``in furtherance of'' any such crime. And, as the

United States Supreme Court recently pointed out,

``discharge'' is only a sentencing factor to be considered by

the judge after conviction, not by the jury in the effort to

determine whether the law has been violated. United States v.

Watson, 169 L.Ed.2d 472 (2007).

While this distinction might, at first glance, be merely

technical, the United States. Court of Appeals for the Fifth

Circuit, the circuit in which Mr. Ramos and Mr. Compean were

convicted, ruled that an indictment that did not allege that

a defendant had so used or carried, or so possessed, a

firearm was insufficient to charge an offense under Section

924(c)(1)(A). See United States v. McGilberry, 480 F.3d 326,

329 (5th Cir. 2007). Indeed, six years before McGilberry, the

Fifth Circuit, ruled that ``discharging a firearm during and

in relation to a crime of violence'' was not an ``actus

reus'' element of the offense defined by 18 U.S.C. Section

924(c)(1)(A), but only a factor to be considered at

``sentencing'' after conviction.'' See United States v.

Barton, 257 F.3d 433, 441-43 (5th Cir. 2001). And one year

after Barton (and five years before Watson), the United

States Supreme Court agreed, ruling that Section 924(c)(1)(A)

did not define ``discharge'' of a firearm as a separate

offense, but only as a ``sentencing factor[] to be considered

by the trial judge after conviction.'' See Harris v. United

States, 536 U.S. 545, 550-53 (2002).

Notwithstanding these binding precedents in the Western

District of Texas, United States Attorney Sutton secured an

indictment charging Mr. Ramos and Mr. Compean with the non-

existent crime of ``discharging'' a firearm ``in relation to

a crime of violence.'' By this charge Mr. Sutton facilitated

the conviction of the two border control agents by means of

jury instructions that focused the jury's attention upon the

``discharge'' of the agents' firearms, rather than upon

the lawfulness of the possession, carrying, and use of

such firearms in the ordinary course of their employment.

Moreover, by this indictment and these instructions, Mr.

Sutton obtained a conviction of an offense that carried a

minimum 10-year sentence, as provided by the statute,

rather than the lesser sentence for violation of Border

Patrol rules and regulations. See also, Brief Amici Curiae

of Congressman Walter B. Jones, Gun Owners Foundation,

United States Border Control Foundation, United States

Border Control, and Conservative Legal Defense and

Education Fund, Inc., In Support of Appellants, United

States of America v. Jose Alonso Compean and Ignacio

Ramos, No. 06-51489, U.S. Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit

(May 27, 2007).

It is our firm conviction that, by these actions, Mr.

Sutton is guilty of prosecutorial misconduct, the effect of

which has imposed an irreversible and substantial effect upon

Mr. Ramos and Mr. Compean and their families. Prior to the

return of the indictment against Mr. Ramos and Mr. Compean,

Mr. Sutton must have known that it was impossible for there

to be probable cause for a ``crime'' never enacted by

Congress, as authoritatively and previously decided by the

United States Supreme Court and the United States Court of

Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. According to Rule 3.09 of the

Texas Disciplinary Rules of Professional Conduct, a

prosecuting attorney is to ``refrain from prosecuting . . . a

charge that the prosecutor knows is not supported by probable

cause.''

Indeed, the Comments to Rule 3.09 of the Texas Rules of

Professional Conduct admonish prosecutors to remember their

``responsibility to see that justice is done, and not simply

be an advocate.''

On April 1, 1940, then Attorney General Robert Jackson,

speaking to United States Attorneys serving in each federal

judicial district across the country, reminded them why

justice should be their goal, not winning their cases. ``The

prosecutor,'' he said, ``has more control over the life,

liberty, and reputation than any other person in America. His

discretion is tremendous . . . We must bear in mind that we

are concerned solely with the prosecution of acts which the

Congress has made federal offenses.''

Mr. Sutton has manipulated the federal criminal code to

obtain a conviction against two U.S. Border Patrol agents,

preferring to win at all costs over his duty as a United

States Attorney, and his duty under the Texas Rules of

Professional Conduct. This is a matter which your office has

a duty to investigate and, on the basis of what we now know,

to remedy.

Sincerely yours,

Walter Jones,

Ted Poe,

Virgil Goode,

Dana Rohrabacher,

Louie Gohmert,

John Culberson,

Donald A. Manzullo,

Members of Congress.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to bring to the attention of the House the issue of illegal alien crime.

As many of my colleagues are aware, over the past year crimes committed by illegal aliens have been at the forefront of our national media.

In Los Angeles, an illegal alien has been charged with the March 2008 murder of a young athlete and scholar, Jamiel Shaw. Shaw was gunned down outside his home in a senseless act of violence.

In New Jersey, an illegal alien has been charged with the August 2007 execution-style slaying of three New York college students and the shooting of another. This illegal alien suspect was previously granted bail on child rape and aggravated assault charges.

And in my home State of North Carolina, an illegal alien has been charged with second degree murder for driving drunk and killing a 22- year-old man in a car crash over last fall's Thanksgiving holiday.

While crimes like these are occurring all over the country, the public has no way of knowing the extent of the problem. This is because the Federal Government and the States do not report statistical information on criminal alien crimes. It is for this reason I have introduced H.R. 6192, the Illegal Alien Crime Reporting Act.

Last week, I sent a Dear Colleague letter to every Member of the House to inform them of this legislation. The bill would require States to submit in-depth statistics on illegal alien criminal activity in order to receive funding from the Department of Homeland Security. It would also require all Federal agencies to submit data on criminal activity by illegal aliens. And lastly, the bill would require the FBI to compile this information and produce an annual publication similar to its existing Uniform Crime Report with detailed statistics on illegal alien crimes.

Mr. Speaker, nothing is more important than the security of our Nation and the safety of our citizens. I hope that my colleagues will take the time to consider the issue of illegal alien crime and join us as a cosponsor of the Illegal Alien Crime Reporting Act.

Mr. Speaker, today is the 512th day since a great injustice took place in this country. On January 17, 2007, two U.S. Border Patrol agents entered Federal prison to begin serving 11 and 12 years, respectively. Agents Compean and Ramos were convicted in March of 2006 for wounding a Mexican drug smuggler who brought 743 pounds of marijuana across our border into Texas.

These agents never should have been prosecuted, yet the U.S. Attorney's Office prosecuted the agents and granted immunity to the drug smuggler. I want to repeat that, Mr. Speaker, yet, the U.S. Attorney's Office prosecuted the agents and granted immunity to the drug smuggler, who claimed he was unarmed. The illegal drug smuggler received full medical care in El Paso, Texas and was permitted to return to Mexico.

Mr. Speaker, today I would especially like to thank House Judiciary Chairman John Conyers and his staff for their interest in investigating this case. Last week, I spoke to Chairman Conyers about this case, and I was so grateful to learn that the chairman is seriously considering holding hearings to thoroughly examine the prosecution of these two Border agents. The American people have not forgotten Agents Ramos and Compean, who should have been commended instead of indicted. The hundreds of thousands of Americans who have supported these two heroes will greatly appreciate a decision by Chairman Conyers to hold hearings on this injustice.

These two agents have given years of their life in service to this Nation, yet they have been unjustly punished for doing their job to protect our homeland. Those of us--and there have been many on both sides of the political aisle--who have spoken out on behalf of these agents for more than a year are waiting on the Fifth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in New Orleans to render its decision in this case.

When those who bravely defend our borders are prosecuted, it sends a confusing message to law enforcement, who are trying to protect the American people. Mr. Speaker, it is my hope and prayer that one day soon this injustice will be corrected and these two heroes will be home with their families.

Mr. Speaker, I want to close by saying that we have called on the President of the United States to pardon these two agents, and yet nothing has happened. The last hope for this Congress is in the hands of Chairman Conyers. And I have great respect for Chairman Conyers, he is a man of integrity and honor.

So with that, Mr. Speaker, I will ask God to continue to bless these two Border agents and their families. And I will also ask God to continue to bless our men and women in uniform, and ask God to continue to bless America.

Madam Speaker, today many Members of Congress and their families will attend the Congressional Picnic hosted by President and Mrs. Bush at the White House.

However, for two imprisoned Border Patrol agents, this day will not be a picnic. Today is day 505 of a terrible injustice in America. Agents Compean and Ramos have been in Federal prison in solitary confinement since January 7 of 2007.

These two U.S. Border Patrol agents were convicted in March of 2006 for wounding an illegal alien drug smuggler from Mexico. The smuggler brought $1 million worth of marijuana across our border into Texas, and the drug smuggler was given immunity by

the Federal prosecutor to testify against the two border agents. Since then, the prosecutor's star witness, the Mexican drug smuggler, returned to America with more illegal drugs. He has now been arrested and has pled guilty to four felony counts for smuggling drugs.

Ramos and Compean were doing their job to protect the border and to protect the American citizens. Yet, through a questionable prosecution, the agents were convicted and sentenced to 11 and 12 years in prison.

Many of us in Congress have called on the White House to pardon these two border agents. They are heroes, yet the administration has done nothing to reverse this injustice.

Those of us who have been speaking out on behalf of these agents for more than a year are waiting on the Fifth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in New Orleans to render its decision in this case. During an oral argument for their appeal on December 3 of 2007, one of the judges considering the case, Judge E. Grady Jolly said, and I quote the judge, ``It does seem to me that the government overreacted here. For some reason, this one got out of hand.''

Madam Speaker, I hope that those attending The White House Congressional Picnic have a wonderful time this evening. I'm sure that Agents Compean and Ramos would also like to be home having a picnic with their family.

Madam Speaker, this injustice needs to be corrected. I hope that the American people will continue to care about Compean and Ramos, to let the White House know that these men should be free.

It is my hope and prayer that one day soon, this injustice will be corrected and these two heroes will be home with their families, maybe to have a picnic.

Mr. Speaker, on May 8, 2008, I introduced H. Res. 1183, a resolution calling for the House to observe a moment of silence on the first legislative day of each month for those killed or wounded, as well as their families, in the United States' engagements in Iraq and Afghanistan.

I am very grateful that the Speaker of the House has written me to indicate her support for this proposal and has agreed that it is important for the House of Representatives to honor America's fallen heroes. It is my understanding that the Speaker will initiate this moment of silence during the first series of votes tomorrow.

I am pleased that this month will mark the beginning of the House's ongoing observation of a moment of silence for those killed or wounded in Iraq or Afghanistan. I thank Speaker Pelosi for making this right and fitting tribute a part of the regular order of the House.

This moment of silence will serve as a solemn reminder of the more than 4,000 killed and more than 30,000 wounded in Iraq and Afghanistan and a thank you from a grateful Nation. For their courage and selfless commitment to duty, these servicemembers, and their families, deserve our unending support.

Again, I want to thank Speaker Pelosi, and Catlin O'Neill on her staff, for working with me to make this remembrance a reality for the families of those who have sacrificed for our Nation.

Madam Speaker, today is day 482 of a terrible injustice in America. Two U.S. Border Patrol agents have been in Federal prison in solitary confinement since January 17 of 2007. Agents Compean and Ramos were convicted in March of 2006 for shooting an illegal alien drug smuggler from Mexico. The smuggler brought $1 million worth of marijuana across our borders into Texas.

The prosecution's star witness, the illegal alien drug smuggler, recently

pled guilty to four felony counts for smuggling drugs while under immunity to testify against the border agents. Ramos and Compean were doing their job to protect America and to protect our border. Yet through a questionable prosecution, the agents were convicted and sentenced to 11 and 12 years in prison, respectively.

Despite the efforts of the American people and Members of Congress in both parties, nothing has been done to reverse this injustice. Members of Congress and outside groups have filed court briefs to support these agents, and on December 3, 2007, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals in New Orleans heard oral arguments for their appeals. The only glimmer of hope for these agents and their families rest with the Fifth Circuit Court's decision.

The American people have not forgotten Ramos and Compean. The more time these men spend behind bars, the longer it takes for a decision on their appeal, the more frustrated the American people become, Madam Speaker, as millions of Americans eagerly await a ruling by the Fifth Circuit Court. My prayers are with the agents and their families. I hope that the judges' decision will rectify this gross miscarriage of justice and faith in our judicial system may be restored.

I thank Congressman Rohrabacher for calling for a national day of prayer last Sunday on behalf of these two decorated U.S. Border Patrol agents. In addition to Mother's Day, this past Sunday marked the beginning of National Police Week. This week is a fitting time for the American people to join in prayer not only for agents Ramos and Compean, but for all men and women in uniform who risk their lives each day to protect our communities. Agents Ramos and Compean were willing to risk their lives to defend our border and protect America from illegal drug smugglers.

Madam Speaker, before I close, again, we call on this White House to please listen to the pleas of the American people and the Congress to say let these men go for doing their job to protect the American people from a drug smuggler. I pray that justice will finally prevail for these men and their families.

And with that, Madam Speaker, again, I call on this White House to listen to the American people.

Madam Speaker, I was in my district voting in the North Carolina primary election and I missed rollcall votes on May 5th, 6th and 7th. I ask that the Record show that had I been present:

For rollcall No. 240--To suspend the rules and agree to H. Res. 952-- I would have voted ``yes'';

For rollcall No. 241--To table the motion to reconsider H. Res. 952-- I would have voted ``no'';

For rollcall No. 242--To suspend the rules and agree to H. Res. 1011, as amended--I would have voted ``yes'';

For rollcall No. 243--To table the motion to reconsider H. Res. 1011--I would have voted ``no'';

For rollcall No. 244--Motion to adjourn--I would have voted ``no'';

For rollcall No. 245--Motion to adjourn--I would have voted ``yes'';

For rollcall No. 246--Motion to adjourn--I would have voted ``no'';

For rollcall No. 247--Motion to instruct conferees on H. R. 2419--I would have voted ``yes'';

For rollcall No. 248--To table the motion to reconsider the vote on the motion to instruct conferees on H.R. 2419--I would have voted ``no'';

For rollcall No. 249--To suspend the rules and pass H.R. 3658--I would have voted ``yes'';

For rollcall No. 250--To table the motion to reconsider H.R. 3658--I would have voted ``no'';

For rollcall No. 251--To suspend the rules and agree to H. Con. Res. 317, as amended--I would have voted ``yes'';

For rollcall No. 252--To table the motion to reconsider H. Con. Res. 317--I would have voted ``no'';

For rollcall No. 253--To suspend the rules and agree to H. Res. 1109, as amended--I would have voted ``yes'';

For rollcall No. 254--To table the motion to reconsider H. Res. 1109--I would have voted ``no'';

For rollcall No. 255--Motion to adjourn--I would have voted ``yes'';

For rollcall No. 256--To suspend the rules and pass S. 2929, as amended--I would have voted ``yes'';

For rollcall No. 257--To table the motion to reconsider S. 2929--I would have voted ``no'';

For rollcall No. 258--Motion to instruct conferees on H.R. 2419--I would have voted ``no'';

For rollcall No. 259--To table the motion to reconsider the vote on the motion to instruct conferees on H.R. 2419--I would have voted ``no'';

For rollcall No. 260--Motion to adjourn--I would have voted ``yes'';

For rollcall No. 261--Motion to adjourn--I would have voted ``yes'';

For rollcall No. 262--Motion to adjourn--I would have voted ``yes'';

For rollcall No. 263--To suspend the rules and agree to H. Res. 1168--I would have voted ``yes'';

For rollcall No. 264--To table the motion to reconsider H. Res. 1168--I would have voted ``no'';

For rollcall No. 265--To suspend the rules and agree to H. Res. 1155--I would have voted ``yes'';

For rollcall No. 266--To table the motion to reconsider H. Res. 1155--I would have voted ``no'';

For rollcall No. 267--Motion to adjourn--I would have voted ``yes'';

For rollcall No. 268--To approve the journal--I would have voted ``no.''