Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, only those who have been to war can truly understand the hell of war. I have not been to war, but I know enough to understand that when our men and women are in harm's way, we should be respectful of the extreme dangers they encounter. Most of us cannot imagine the stress that those in uniform undergo when they have to make a split-second decision as to whether to fire or be fired upon, to kill or be killed.

Recently in Afghanistan, the vehicle convoy of U.S. Special Operations marines stationed at Camp Lejeune was struck by a suicide bomber during an ambush. After the incident, why I do not know, an Army official felt compelled to speak out in the press. Whether intentionally or not, this Army officer implicated the marines in the killing of Afghanistan civilians by stating, ``Americans have killed and wounded innocent Afghan people.''

His comments were irresponsible and without respect for his fellow comrades. The four branches of the military are a family. No one in the military family should be in the newspapers criticizing a fellow member of that family who has been faced with death. And, because of his comments to the press, these marines have been publicly indicted as indiscriminate killers.

Mr. Speaker, President Theodore Roosevelt once said, ``A man who is good enough to shed his blood for his country is good enough to be given a square deal afterwards. More than that no man is entitled, and less than that no man shall have.''

To ensure due process for these marines, all military officials should refrain from making public comments or expressing their opinions about the incident until the investigation is complete and all the facts are verified. Mr. Speaker, our military servicemembers, the military family, and certainly these marines deserve no less.

Mr. Speaker, today is the 125th day since two U.S. Border Patrol agents entered Federal prison.

Agents Ramos and Compean were convicted in Federal court for wounding a Mexican drug smuggler who brought 743 pounds of marijuana across our border into Texas. These agents should have been commended for their actions, but instead the U.S. Attorney's Office prosecuted the agents and granted full immunity to the drug smuggler. The extraordinary details surrounding the prosecution of this case assure that justice has not been served.

In an interview this Friday, May 18, 2007, with Glenn Beck of CNN Headline News, U.S. Attorney Johnny Sutton again repeated a false claim about this case, stating that the agent shot ``an unarmed guy in the back.'' That is his quote.

Mr. Speaker, I do not know how anyone, especially this Federal prosecutor, would choose to accept the word of a criminal over two law enforcement officers who have sworn to uphold the Constitution and to protect the American people. Yet this prosecutor believed the word of a drug smuggler who claimed he was unarmed. It is a sad day in this Nation when a criminal has more influence over a Federal prosecutor than two law enforcement officers. I am going to repeat that, Mr. Speaker. It is a sad day in this Nation when a criminal has more influence over a Federal prosecutor than two law enforcement officers.

Both agents testified that the drug smuggler turned and pointed an object at them while he was running away, and they fired in self- defense. An Army doctor who removed the bullet fragment from the drug smuggler confirmed that the bullet entered into his lower left buttocks, passed through his pelvic triangle, and lodged in his right thigh, not in the back, as Mr. Sutton has repeatedly claimed. At the trial, the Army doctor testified that the drug smuggler's body was ``bladed'' away from the bullet that struck him, consistent with the motion of a left-handed person running away while pointing backward, causing the body to twist.

Mr. Speaker, there is only one logical object that the drug smuggler would have pointed at the agents in this circumstance: a firearm.

In addition to this physical evidence, an article published by the Inland Valley Daily Bulletin on October 26, 2006, quotes two of the drug smuggler's family members who said, and I quote, ``He has been smuggling drugs since he was 14 and would not move drugs unless he had a gun on him.'' That is his own family that made a statement.

The facts have shown what countless citizens and Members of Congress already know: That the U.S. Attorneys office was on the wrong side of this issue and this case.

I am pleased and grateful that Chairman Conyers and Chairman Leahy have shown interest in holding hearings to investigate the injustice committed against these two Border Patrol agents. The conviction of these two agents is a travesty that cries out for oversight, and I hope that Members of Congress on both sides of the aisle will say thank you to Mr. Conyers and also to Chairman Leahy because they are willing to look for the truth and justice instead of injustice.

And I call on the President of the United States to, please, Mr. President, look at this case and pardon these two border agents that were only trying to protect the American people.

Mr. Speaker, today is the 119th 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-year sentences respectively. I am hopeful that this will be the month that House Judiciary Chairman John Conyers and Senate Judiciary Chairman Patrick Leahy will hold a hearing to investigate the injustice perpetrated against these two U.S. Border Patrol agents.

Agents Compean and Ramos were convicted last spring for wounding a Mexican drug smuggler who brought 734 pounds of marijuana across our border into Texas. These agents never should have been persecuted. Yet the U.S. Attorney's Office granted immunity to the drug smuggler and prosecuted the agents who were doing their job to protect our borders.

The illegal drug smuggler received full medical care in El Paso, Texas, was permitted to return to Mexico and has sued the Border Patrol for $5 million for violating his civil rights. Many Members of this House, including Congressman Ted Poe, who is a former judge from Texas, have voiced concerns about the unfair prosecution of these agents.

With the troubling revelations surrounding the leadership of the U.S. Justice Department, I believe it is necessary to investigate the U.S. Attorney's Office in western Texas and the prosecutor's actions in this case. Never in America should the Congress sit by and allow a breakdown of honesty and integrity in our Nation's judicial system.

Mr. Speaker, if the American people cannot have faith in our Federal courts, I am afraid the future of our democracy is in danger. For the sake of these agents and their families and the integrity of our judicial system, I am pleased and grateful that Mr. Conyers and Senator Leahy will be holding hearings to investigate the injustice perpetrated against these two agents.

I yield to the gentleman from Michigan, the chairman of the Judiciary Committee.

Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, I am grateful to the chairman

Mr. Speaker, this week the House will consider the 2008 defense authorization bill. For the sixth year in a row, the bill contains language to rename the Department of the Navy to be the Department of the Navy and Marine Corps.

I want to thank House Armed Services Chairman Ike Skelton and Ranking Member Duncan Hunter for their continued support for this change because the need to recognize the coequal status of the Navy and the Marine Corps team is long overdue. I have continued to introduce legislation to rename the department. I hope this year the Senate will support the House position and join in bringing the proper respect to the fighting team of the Navy and Marine Corps.

Over the years, this name change has received not only the support of the full House Armed Services Committee but also the support of former Navy Secretaries and Marine Corps Commandants.

The Honorable Wade Sanders, Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Navy for Reserve Affairs, 1993 to 1998, voiced his support for the change when he stated: ``As a combat veteran and former Navy officer, I understand the importance of the team dynamics and the importance of recognizing the contribution of team components. The Navy and Marine Corps team is just that, a dynamic partnership, and it is important to symbolically recognize the balance of that partnership.''

General Carl Mundy, the 30th Commandant of the Marine Corps stated: ``I believe the changes you propose will do much to clarify the relationship, responsibilities, and functions of the appointed civilian authority over the United States naval services. I believe that any Secretary, present, past or future, will be very proud to bear the title `Marine' as well as `Navy.' ''

Admiral Stansfield Turner, United States Navy, Retired, former Director of Central Intelligence, stated: ``I think this change in title enhances the prestige and pride of the people in the Marine Corps. And it does not necessarily take anything away from the Navy in that process.''

Mr. Speaker, last year an editorial in the Chicago Tribune on April 21, 2006, also supported the change stating: ``No service branch shows more respect for tradition than the United States Marine Corps does, which makes it all the more ironic that tradition denies the Corps an important show of respect: Equal billing with the other services and the branches.''

Mr. Speaker, as I begin to close, I want to show the Members of the House, these are the orders from the Secretary of the Navy. Sergeant Michael Bitz, United States Marine Corps, was killed for this country 2 years ago and his family received in his memory the Silver Star for Valor. And yet, Mr. Speaker, you can see that the title of the order says the Secretary of the Navy, Washington, D.C. and the Navy flag. This was a Marine who gave his life for this country.

Isn't it proper that the orders for the Silver Star should look like this and say at the top the Secretary of the Navy and Marine Corps, Navy flag, Marine flag, they are one fighting team and they should be recognized as a fighting team.

It is about time, after 40-some years, the House, with the Goldwater- Nichols bill, said there are four separate branches: The Marine Corps, the Navy, the Air Force, and the Army, and it is time that the Marine Corps be recognized as one of the strongest fighting teams in this country.

Mr. Speaker, today is the 112th day since a great injustice took place in this country.

On January 17, 2007, two United States Border Patrol agents entered Federal prison to begin serving 11- and 12-year sentences respectively.

Agent Compean and Agent Ramos were convicted last spring for wounding a Mexican drug smuggler who brought 743 pounds of marijuana across our borders 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. The illegal drug smuggler received full medical care in El Paso, Texas, was permitted to return to Mexico, and has sued the border patrol for $5 million for violating his civil rights. And he is not an American citizen.

The American people have not forgotten Agents Ramos and Compean, who should have been commended instead of indicted. I encourage citizens across this country to continue calling the White House and ask the President to use his authority to immediately pardon these two heroes.

Members of Congress and the American people are outraged and concerned with this administration's indifference to the plight of two honorable men who have been crucified unfairly by a Federal prosecutor. These two agents have given years of their lives in service to this Nation; yet they have been unjustly punished for doing their job to protect the American people.

By using the power of his office to pardon these two agents, the President has the opportunity to reverse a grave injustice.

Mr. Speaker, in closing, I would like to share part of the comments made by Chairman John Conyers on the floor last week following my remarks on these two border agents, and I quote the chairman: ``It's important that the kinds of concerns you have raised are known to all of our men and women who carry badges and weapons defending us, not just at borders, but in every State in the Union.'' Again, that is a quote from Chairman John Conyers.

I want to thank Chairman Conyers for his interest in this issue, and I am encouraged that the Senate Judiciary Committee and the House Judiciary Committee will soon move forward with hearings to investigate the injustice committed against these two border agents.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank Armed Services Chairman Ike Skelton for including language in this year's Defense authorization bill to change the name of the Department of the Navy to be the Department of the Navy and Marine Corps.

I also thank Ranking Member Duncan Hunter who in the past has also included this language in the Defense authorization bill. This will be the sixth year that the House will send legislation to the Senate that supports this change. I hope that this year the Senate will agree that this change is long overdue.

Since 1947, Congress has twice affirmed that the Marine Corps is a separate military service within the Department of the Navy. In 1947, the National Security Act stated that we have four separate military services:

the Army, the Air Force, the Navy and the Marine Corps.

In 1986, the Goldwater-Nichols Act stated that each service's commanding officer serves equally as a member of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. That is, the Marine Corps and the Navy are coequal partners. The Marines do not serve beneath the Navy; they are an equal team.

Mr. Speaker, that is why I have again introduced legislation, H.R. 346, to recognize their coequal status by changing the name of the Department of the Navy to the Department of the Navy and Marine Corps.

Not only has this change received the full House Armed Services Committee support, but also from former Navy secretaries and Marine Corps commandants.

In a statement of support for this legislation, the Honorable Wade Sanders, Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Navy for Reserve Affairs, 1993-1998, stated, and I quote, ``As a combat veteran and former Naval officer, I understand the importance of the team dynamic, and the importance of recognizing the contribution of team components. The Navy and Marine Corps team is just that: a dynamic partnership, and is important to symbolically recognize the balance of that partnership.''

In addition, General Charles Krulak, 31st Commandant of the Marine Corps stated, and I quote, ``This bill is a perfectly logical evolution in a series of legislative initiatives designed, in part, to clarify and codify the role of the United States Marine Corps. . . .I enthusiastically support both the spirit and intent.''

General Carl Mundy, the 30th commandant of the Marine Corps stated, and I quote, ``I believe the changes you propose will do much to clarify the relationship, responsibilities and functions of the appointed civilian authority over the United States Naval services . . . I believe that any Secretary--present, past or future--will be very proud to bear the title `Marine,' as well as `Navy.' ''

The Honorable John Dalton, the 70th Secretary of the Navy stated, and I quote ``One of the things for which I am most proud that I accomplished during my tenure was moving the headquarters of the Marine Corps into the Pentagon. It was a controversial decision, but I am convinced it was the right thing to do. . . . Your legislation would be another vital step to give that distinguished service the recognition it so greatly deserves.''

Before I close, I want to point out to the House that I have beside me the Order of the Silver Star for Marines killed in Iraq. Marine Michael Bitz' family received a Silver Star in his memory. Yet when you look at this poster you will see an exact copy of the article for the Secretary of the Navy, Washington D.C., and the Navy flag.

All this legislation will do, all this legislation will do, is to make the Navy and the Marine Corps an equal partner. You can see if these orders were issued and this bill had become law, it would say the Secretary of the Navy and the Marine Corps with the Navy flag and the Marine flag for this brave marine who gave his life for this country.

I hope this year that the House under the leadership of Ike Skelton will demand that the Senate agree to the House position and change the name to be the Department of Navy and Marine Corps.

Mr. Speaker, today is the 105th day since a great injustice took place in this country. On January 17 of 2007, two U.S. Border agents entered Federal prison to began serving 11-year and 12-year sentences respectively. Agents Compean and Ramos were convicted last spring for shooting a Mexican drug smuggler who brought 743 pounds of marijuana across our borders 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. The illegal drug smuggler, who received full medical care in El Paso, Texas, was permitted to return to Mexico and is suing the Border Patrol for $5 million for violating his civil rights. Mr. Speaker, that is a joke. He is not an American citizen, he is a criminal.

The same U.S. Attorney's Office in Western Texas also prosecuted another law enforcement officer, Deputy Sheriff Gilmer Hernandez, who was doing his job to protect the American people.

This makes no sense. Mr. Speaker, citizens across this country, and many of us in Congress want to know why does a Federal prosecutor in Western Texas choose to go after law enforcement officers while protecting illegal aliens who commit crimes?

The American people have not forgotten Agents Ramos and Compean, who should have been commended instead of indicted. I am encouraging citizens across this Nation to continue calling the White House and ask the President to use his authority to immediately pardon these two heroes.

Many of us in Congress are concerned about the Federal prosecutor in this case and the justification for the criminal charges brought against these agents.

Mr. Speaker, Senate Judiciary Chairman Patrick Leahy has already approved Senator Diane Feinstein's request for an investigation of this case. And in recent testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee, Attorney General Gonzalez promised to fully cooperate with an oversight hearing on the agents' case.

I want to thank Mr. Greg Barnes on the staff of the House Judiciary Committee for taking time last week, at

my request, to meet with Mrs. Monica Ramos, the wife of Agent Ramos and his father, her father-in-law, Mr. Joe Loya.

I also appreciate that Chairman John Conyers took time to say hello to Ms. Ramos and her father.

Mr. Speaker, I am encouraged that the House Judiciary Committee is seriously looking at holding hearings to investigate the injustice committed against these border agents. And that is why it is so important, Mr. Speaker, that the House look seriously at what happened to these men, who should be rewarded for trying to protect the American people, not serving time in a Federal prison.

Yes, sir, I'd be delighted to yield to the chairman.

I thank the chairman. You are very generous, and thank you so much.

Mr. Speaker, today is the 98th 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 year sentences respectively.

Agents Compean and Ramos were convicted last spring for shooting 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, who claimed he was unarmed. The illegal drug smuggler received full medical care in El Paso, Texas, was permitted to return to Mexico, and is suing the Border Patrol for $5 million for violating his civil rights.

Mr. Speaker, he is not an American citizen. He is a criminal.

The same U.S. Attorney's Office in western Texas also prosecuted another law enforcement officer, Deputy Sheriff Gilmer Hernandez, who was doing his job to protect the American people. This makes no sense. Citizens across this country and many of us in Congress want to know why does the Federal prosecutor in western Texas choose to go after law enforcement officers while protecting illegal aliens who commit crimes.

The American people have not forgotten agents Ramos and Compean, who should never have been sentenced to jail. Instead, they should be commended for trying to protect the American people. I encourage citizens across this country to continue calling the White House and asking the President to use his authority to immediately pardon these two heroes.

Many of us in Congress are concerned about the Federal prosecutor in this case and the justification for the criminal charges brought against these agents. Senate Judiciary chairman Patrick Leahy has already approved Senator Dianne Feinstein's request for an investigation of this case; and just last week in testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee, Attorney General Gonzales responded to Senator John Cornyn's call for an oversight hearing by promising to fully cooperate.

Mr. Speaker, I am hopeful that the House, under the leadership of House Judiciary chairman John Conyers, will soon hold hearings to look into this injustice.

Mr. Speaker, I hope that the House will continue to encourage the chairman of the Judiciary Committee, Mr. Conyers, to look into this case, and I ask the American people to continue to call the White House and to complain about this injustice.

Mr. Chairman, first, I thank the gentleman from Illinois for this time.

Mr. Chairman, if this bill was about Congress or the Federal Government setting salary levels for top executives, then I would be opposed to it. But that is not what this bill does. This is about letting stockholders, the owners of publicly traded companies, have the right, if they want, to render a judgment about whether the compensation for top executives, their employees, is appropriate.

I know that this bill is not perfect, but neither is the present system. Corporate directors and executives work for shareholders. I do not see how anyone can look at the present system where sometimes CEOs who have failed their shareholders are getting hundreds of millions of dollars of shareholder money, and then say with a straight face that it is bad for shareholders to be able to directly tell corporate directors what they think about these compensation packages.

Mr. Chairman, let me remind the House of a few of the outlandish compensation packages that have been made public: Home Depot CEO Robert Nardelli, total compensation for 2006, $131 million; Merrill Lynch CEO Stanley O'Neal, total compensation 2006, $91 million; AT&T CEO Edward Whitacre, Jr., total compensation for 2006, $69 million; Ford Motor Company CEO Alan Mulally earned $39.1 million for 4 months in 2006, $39.1 million for 4 months of work in 2006.

Mr. Chairman, numerous people in the Third District of North Carolina, which I have the pleasure and the privilege to serve, have spoken to me and expressed their concerns about these multimillion- dollar packages. Mr. Chairman, many people have said that America is losing its middle class, but in modern America, more and more middle- class families are becoming stockholders. In 1989, just 30 percent of American households owned stock. Today 52 percent of households own stock; 80 million Americans now own shares of directly held stock, mutual funds or 401(k) retirement plans.

The right to have an advisory vote would strengthen shareholders and strengthen the capitalistic system. Therefore, Mr. Chairman, I support this bill.

And, again, I thank the gentleman from Illinois for the time.

Madam Speaker, today is the 69th 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 year sentences, respectively.

Agents Compean and Ramos were convicted last spring for shooting a Mexican drug smuggler who brought 743 pounds of marijuana across our border into Texas. These agents never should have been prosecuted. 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, was permitted to return to Mexico, and is suing the Border Patrol for $5 million for violating his civil rights.

Madam Speaker, he is not an American citizen. He is a criminal.

Madam Speaker, it is ironic that one of the Federal prosecutors dismissed by the Justice Department, who never should have been terminated, was criticized for not doing more to try cases of illegal immigration. Yet we have a Federal prosecutor in western Texas, Johnny Sutton, who, instead of prosecuting an illegal alien, who was also a known drug smuggler, decided to give immunity to the illegal alien drug smuggler and prosecuted the two Hispanic-American border agents who tried to apprehend the smuggler.

Madam Speaker, this makes absolutely no sense. Johnny Sutton also prosecuted another law enforcement agent, Deputy Sheriff Gilmer Hernandez. Hernandez was recently sentenced to a year in jail for shooting the tires of a car transporting illegal aliens after the driver attempted to escape a routine traffic stop by aiming the vehicle at the deputy. Hernandez was charged with violating the civil rights of one of the passengers, an illegal Mexican national, who was struck in the lip by bullet or metal fragments.

Citizens across this country and many of us in Congress want to know why does the U.S. Attorney's Office in western Texas choose to go after law enforcement officers while protecting the illegal aliens who commit crimes?

The President has the power to immediately reverse this injustice by granting a pardon to these two men, who were doing their jobs to protect the American people. But, so far, the President has refused to stand up for justice in this case.

Madam Speaker, I hope the White House will agree with many of us in Congress who believe Mr. Sutton's actions in prosecuting these agents raises serious questions and need to be investigated.

I thank House Judiciary Chairman John Conyers and his staff for their interest in this situation involving the two border agents, who should have been commended instead of indicted. I am hopeful that the House, under the leadership of John Conyers, will soon hold hearings to look into this injustice.

Mr. Speaker, today is the 64th day of incarceration for two U.S. Border Patrol agents. Agents Ramos and Compean were convicted last spring for shooting a Mexican drug smuggler who brought 743 pounds of marijuana across our border into Texas.

These agents never should have been sent to prison. There are legitimate legal questions about how this prosecution was initiated and how the prosecutor's office proceeded in this case. To prosecute the agents, the U.S. Attorney's Office granted immunity to a known drug smuggler. While the Mexican drug smuggler waited to testify against our agents, DEA reports confirmed that he brought a second load of marijuana, 752 pounds, into the United States. But this information was kept from the jury and the public.

Over the past 8 months, dozens of Members of Congress and thousands of American citizens have asked President Bush to pardon these agents. In December of 2006, the President granted pardons to 16 criminals, including 6 who were convicted of drug crimes, but he would not pardon Agents Ramos and Compean.

The difference, Mr. President, is that these people you pardoned were criminals, and these two Border Patrol agents are Hispanic Americans who are heroes, heroes who were doing their job to protect our borders. Mr. President, it is not too late for you to use your authority to pardon these two men.

Not only are there concerns about the U.S. attorney's prosecution of these two border agents, but the same prosecutor's office in western Texas has just persecuted another law enforcement officer.

Deputy Sheriff Gilmer Hernandez was sentenced this week to a year in jail for shooting at a vehicle that was transporting illegal aliens. Hernandez stopped the car for running a red light and asked the driver to step out of the car, but the driver pulled forward to flee and turned the car toward the deputy. The deputy fired shots at the car's tires to protect himself.

Hernandez was charged for violating the civil rights of one of the passengers, an illegal Mexican national who was struck in the lip by fragments of a bullet or other metal. None of the vehicle's occupants were charged.

Mr. Speaker, there are many questions and concerns about the prosecutor's office that need to be answered. I want to thank Chairman John Conyers for considering my request and those of other Members of Congress for a hearing on the overzealous prosecution of these law enforcement officers.

Mr. Speaker, since 1947 Congress has twice affirmed that the Marine Corps is a separate military service within the Department of the Navy. In 1947, the National Security Act stated that we have four separate military services: the Army, the Air Force, the Navy, and the Marine Corps.

In 1986, the Goldwater-Nichols Act formally acknowledged the roles of each service's commanding officer and stated that each branch's commander serves equally as a member of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.

For the past 5 years, this House has sent legislation to the Senate that would rename the Department of the Navy to be the Department of the Navy and Marine Corps. Not only has this change received support from the full House Armed Services Committee and the House itself, but by such notables as Secretary of the Navy Paul Nitz; Assistant Secretary of the Navy H. Lawrence Garrett, III; Acting Secretary of the Navy Daniel Howard; Secretary of the Navy John Dalton; General Carl Mundy, 30th Commandant of the Marine Corps; General Chuck Krulak, 31st Commandant of the Marine Corps; the Fleet Reserve Association; the Marine Corps League; the National Defense PAC; and the National Association of Uniformed Services.

Wade Sanders, the Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Navy for Reserve Affairs, 1993 to 1998, also declared his support for this change. He stated: ``As a combat veteran and former naval officer, I understand the importance of the team dynamic and the importance of recognizing the contributions of team components. The Navy and Marine Corps team is just that: a dynamic partnership, and it is important to symbolically recognize the balance of the partnership.''

Mr. Speaker, I would also like to share part of an editorial published last year in the Chicago Tribune, and I will submit the entire editorial for the Record.

[From the Chicago Tribune, Apr. 21, 2006]

Step Up for the Marines

(Editorials)

No service branch shows more respect for tradition than the

U.S. Marine Corps does, which makes it all the more ironic

that tradition denies the corps an important show of respect:

Equal billing with the other service branches.

The Continental Congress ordered ``two Battalions of

Marines'' to be raised in 1775 as landing forces for the

Navy. The Marines have remained within the Navy on government

organization charts ever since, even though the corps

functions through wartime and peacetime as a separate branch

in every other way.

Like the Army, Navy and Air Force, the Marine Corps has its

own command structure. Its commandant holds equal status with

other members of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, which happens to

be chaired for the first time by a Marine, Gen. Peter Pace.

Several Marine veterans and supporters have launched an

online petition drive to support a bill proposed by Rep.

Walter B. Jones. The North Carolina Republican, whose

district includes Camp Lejeune, wants to fix the matter

simply by changing the Department of the Navy to the

``Department of the Navy and Marine Corps.''

Jones has twice passed similar measures in the House with

bipartisan support, but the Senate was cool to them. Senate

Armed Services Committee Chairman John Warner, a Virginia

Republican, veteran and former Navy secretary, has promised

``fair consideration'' for the legislation. That's Senate-

speak for a reluctance to commit. His reluctance seems to be

rooted in a sense of tradition. But sometimes it's good to

break with tradition. The War Department, for example,

became the Defense Department after World War II. The Army

Air Corps was elevated in 1941 to the Army Air Forces and in

1947 to the autonomous Air Force.

The Marines have not asked for complete autonomy. Nothing

structurally needs to change in their relationship with the

Navy, which has served both branches well. The corps only

asks for recognition. Having served their nation proudly and

courageously since colonial days, the leathernecks have

earned a promotion.

Mr. Speaker, I quote the Chicago Tribune: ``No service branch shows more respect for tradition than the United States Marine Corps . . . which makes it all the more ironic that tradition denies the Corps an important show of respect, equal billing with the other service branches . . . But sometimes it is good to break with tradition.

``The Marines have not asked for complete autonomy. Nothing structurally needs to change in their relationship with the Navy, which has served both branches well. The Corps only asks for recognition.''

Mr. Speaker, I hope that my colleagues will join me in support of this change and cosponsor H.R. 346.

Mr. Speaker, I have before me a poster of a marine who gave his life for this country. He was killed in Iraq. His family received, after his death, the Silver Star. And what I have on this poster is from the Secretary of the Navy. It says: ``The President of the United States takes pleasure in presenting the Silver Star to the family of Sergeant Michael Bitz. The sad part of this is, Mr. Speaker, he was a marine who died for this country. He was a team member with the United States Navy; yet the citation has nothing but the Secretary of the Navy and the Navy flag.

Mr. Speaker, I ask you to look at this as I show you what it could be if this bill becomes law. What it would be with the Secretary of the Navy and Marine Corps with the Navy flag and the Marine flag. That is what this bill would do.

And, Mr. Speaker, before I close, I say to my colleagues in the House I hope you will join me as cosponsor and maybe this year the Senate will accept the House position because, Mr. Speaker, this man left three children, twins he never saw, and when they look at this honor that his father received, wouldn't it be nice 20 years from now for his family to say, ``My daddy was a marine who gave his life for this country,'' and it be recognized in the heading of this citation.

Mr. Speaker, today I had the pleasure of meeting with Congressman John Conyers, chairman of the Judiciary Committee. I shared with him information from myself and other Members of Congress who are requesting a hearing on the case of Border Patrol Agents Ramos and Compean.

Many of us in Congress are concerned about the Federal prosecutor in this case and his decision to bring criminal charges against these agents. Agents Ramos and Compean were convicted last spring for shooting a Mexican drug smuggler who brought 743 pounds of marijuana across our border into Texas.

These agents never should have been sent to prison, yet today is their 62nd day behind bars. There are legitimate legal questions about how this prosecution was initiated, and how the U.S. Attorney's Office proceeded in this case. Members of Congress and the American people want to know why the Federal prosecutor is on the wrong side in this case.

To prosecute the agents, the U.S. Attorney's Office granted immunity to a known drug smuggler. He is not an American citizen, he is a criminal. Drug enforcement reports have confirmed that the Mexican drug smuggler brought a second load of marijuana, 752 pounds, into the United States after he was granted immunity to testify against our border agents, but this information was kept from the jury and the public.

Mr. Speaker, I am certain that Chairman Conyers will review the information that I and other Members of Congress have brought to his attention concerning the prosecution of these two heroes.

Before closing, I ask the President to use his authority and pardon these two Hispanic Americans who were doing their job to protect the American people; and, more importantly, I call on the President to listen to the American people and to the thousands of citizens who have asked for a pardon for these two men.

Madam Speaker, in 1947, with the National Security Act, the United States Congress clearly stated that we have four separate military services, the Army, the Air Force, the Navy and the Marine Corps. Too many times people, both in the military and outside the military, do not realize that we have four separate services.

The Department of the Navy was created to be the department for two equal services acknowledged by law, the United States Marine Corps and the United States Navy. Both the Navy and the Marine Corps have proud heritages. In my service in Congress and in my seven terms on the Armed Services Committee, many times in hearings we hear the Navy admirals and the Marines generals stating for the Record, we are one team, we are one fighting team.

Madam Speaker, it is time for the Marine Corps to be recognized as the other three services are recognized. As a great defender of freedom for America with H.R. 346, this is the fourth Congress that I have introduced legislation to change the name of the Department of the Navy to be the Department of the Navy and the Marine Corps.

Madam Speaker, 121 of my colleagues last year cosponsored the bill. This year the bill is the same language. We are gaining large numbers from both parties who believe in the fairness of this legislation.

I would like to share part of an editorial published last year in the Chicago Tribune, and I quote, ``No service branch shows more respect for tradition than the United States Marine Corps does, which makes it all the more ironic that tradition denies the corps an important show of respect: Equal billing with the other service branches.''

Madam Speaker, I submit for printing in the Record the entire editorial from the April 21, 2006, Chicago Tribune.

[From the Chicago Tribune, Apr. 21, 2006]

Step Up for the Marines

No service branch shows more respect for tradition than the

U.S. Marine Corps does, which makes it all the more ironic

that tradition denies the corps an important show of respect:

Equal billing with the other service branches.

The Continental Congress ordered ``two Battalions of

Marines'' to be raised in 1775 as landing forces for the

Navy. The Marines have remained within the Navy on government

organization charts ever since, even though the corps

functions through wartime and peacetime as a separate branch

in every other way.

Like the Army, Navy and Air Force, the Marine Corps has its

own command structure. Its commandant holds equal status with

other members of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, which happens to

be chaired for the first time by a Marine, Gen. Peter Pace.

Several Marine veterans and supporters have launched an

online petition drive to support a bill proposed by Rep.

Walter B. Jones. The North Carolina Republican, whose

district includes Camp Lejeune, wants to fix the matter

simply by changing the Department of Navy to the ``Department

of the Navy and Marine Corps.''

Jones has twice passed similar measures in the House with

bipartisan support, but the Senate was cool to them. Senate

Armed Services Committee Chairman John Warner, a Virginia

Republican, veteran and former Navy secretary, has promised

``fair consideration'' for the legislation. That's Senate-

speak for a reluctance to commit. His reluctance seems to be

rooted in a sense of tradition. But sometimes it's good to

break with tradition. The War Department, for example, became

the Defense Department after World War II. The Army Air Corps

was elevated in 1941 to the Army Air Forces and in 1947 to

the autonomous Air Force.

The Marines have not asked for complete autonomy. Nothing

structurally needs to change in their relationship with the

Navy, which has served both branches well. The corps only

asks for recognition. Having served their nation proudly and

courageously since colonial days, the leathernecks have

earned a promotion.

But sometimes it's good to break with tradition. The War Department, for example, became the Defense Department after World War II. The Army Air Corps was elevated in 1941 into the Army Air Force, and in 1947 to the autonomous Air Force.

The Marines have not asked for complete autonomy. Nothing structurally needs to change in their relationship with the Navy, which has served both branches well. The Corps only asks for recognition, having served their Nation proudly and courageously since colonial days. The leathernecks have earned a promotion.

Madam Speaker, I want to say more emphatically beside me is a poster, is a blow up of orders from the United States Navy to submit to the family of Michael Bitz, a Marine sergeant killed in Iraq. His family received a Silver Star for valor. He gave his life for this country.

I have met his family, I have met his children, twins he will never know on earth because he died before they were born. You can see that the orders for Silver Star says at the top, the Secretary of the Navy, Washington D.C., and there is a Navy flag, but there is nothing about the Marine Corps about the heading.

We took these orders and we want to show you how, if this bill should become law, how the fairness will show itself. If you take the orders for Michael Bitz, again, a marine who died for this country, his family received a Silver Star, and should this bill ever become law, this is what the orders will say: the Secretary of the Navy and Marine Corps, with the Navy flag and the Marine flag.

Madam Speaker, before I close, this is only an issue of fairness. The Marine Corps has earned this distinction to

stand with the other three services and be recognized as a separate service.

With that, Madam Speaker, I ask God to please continue to bless our men and women in uniform. I ask God, in his loving arms, to hold the families who have given a child dying in Afghanistan or Iraq. And I close by asking God to please continue to bless America.

Mr. Speaker, in 1947, when the National Security Act became law, Congress declared that the Department of Defense consists of four distinct military services, the Army, the Air Force, the Navy and the Marine Corps. But the act spells out the mission of today's Marine Corps and clearly indicates that the Corps is a legal distinct military service within the Department of Navy; that is, the Marine Corps and the Navy are coequal partners. The Marines do not serve beneath the Navy, they are a team. There is not a subordinate relationship between the Chief of Naval Operations and the Commandant of the Marine Corps. They are equal partners of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and it is time the Department of Navy recognizes the equal status.

Mr. Speaker, that is why I have again introduced legislation, H.R. 346, to change the name of the Department of the Navy to the Department of Navy and Marine Corps. I am encouraged that this change has been included in the House defense authorization bill for the past several years, but it has not been accepted by the Senate.

I ask my colleagues to join me in supporting the passage of this legislation, and I hope this year the House position will prevail in the Senate. This legislation is not about changing the responsibilities of the Secretary or reallocating resources, there is no cost to this change. Instead, it is about showing the Nation the true meaning of the department and recognizing the Marine Corps' extreme importance to our national security.

When the President's top military adviser, General Peter Pace, is wearing the uniform of the Marine Corps, it is time to realize that change is long overdue. The Marines that are fighting today deserve this recognition. Sadly, in the past 4 years over 900 Marines have been killed while serving in Iraq and Afghanistan. When the Department of the Navy writes the families of Marines who have been killed, their families deserve to receive that letter from the Department of the Navy and the Marine Corps.

Mr. Speaker, I have on the floor this afternoon an enhancement of the orders for the Silver Star for Sergeant Michael Bitz of the United States Marine Corps who was killed in the Iraq war for freedom. He was cited with a Silver Star received by his family after his death. I brought this to the floor to emphatically show the difference of what it is today and what it should be tomorrow.

The first poster is an enlargement of the actual orders from the Secretary of Navy. And you can see the Secretary of the Navy, Washington, D.C., with the zip code and the Navy flag. Again, this was a Marine who died for this country.

If you look at the second poster that is beside me, you will see what it can be if this bill becomes law and is accepted by the Senate and sent to the President for signing. The order should be a flag, the Navy flag, the Secretary of the Navy and Marine Corps with the Marine flag.

Mr. Speaker, as I close, this is all about fairness and equality because there are four distinct services, the Army, the Navy, the Marine Corps and the Air Force. I think it is only right and befitting that two great services that have such a tradition and a heritage be treated as partners, and that is what this legislation does, the Department of Navy and Marine Corps.

I hope my colleagues on both sides of the aisle will join us in this effort, and let's recognize two great services, the Navy and the Marine Corps, as partners and a team.

With that, I ask God to please bless our men and women in uniform and their families. And I ask God to please hold in His loving arms the families who have lost a loved one dying for this country. And I ask God to continue to bless America