Dana Rohrabacher

Mr. ROHRABACHER

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Chairman, I believe my amendment is germane. After all, we do add many such regulations on bills that we pass. They have to meet certain standards. This standard certainly is no different than many of the other standards. It is just that this body refuses ever to involve themselves in anything that would stem the flow of illegal immigrants into this country and quit giving people an incentive to come here to take the jobs and the benefits that belong to the American people. And certainly this amendment, which is no different than many other types of restrictions that we place on government spending, is certainly germane to this bill. And, therefore, I would argue my case that it is germane.

Mr. ROHRABACHER

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this resolution. But, as this debate progresses, we should be proud of the sincere expressions of concern by our colleagues on both sides of the aisle and both sides of this resolution, for the lives and well-being of America's defenders who are now at risk in order to protect our country, our communities and our families. All of us have been to heartbreaking wakes, funerals, burials; all of us have gone to the bases to see off our Reservists and our National Guardsmen and to wish them Godspeed; and all of us have been on the tarmac to greet them when they return, sometimes having lost comrades, killed or wounded. All of us want to do what is right for our defenders and for the future of our country. So we need to be extraordinarily careful. Whatever we do today honors their efforts and their sacrifice. We should not be the authors of a policy that ensures the lives of these American heroes have been lost in vain. If at the end of this episode our country is at greater risk, then indeed their lives will have been lost in vain. I am supporting this last effort, this last chance, if you will, to see that our commitment to Iraq will not result in failure. A failure now will have consequences that are worse than the price that we are now paying in blood and treasure. We do not have the option of walking away without consequences. No amount of midwest corn pressed into ethanol will allow us to ignore the Middle East. Helping establish moderate democratic governments in the Middle East is not just a favorite of the people there, but it is an imperative to our own prosperity and security. Our dependency based friendships with oil-rich yet dictatorial regimes has set the parameters for the fundamental decisions American leaders have made. It has skewed our ability to be a force for freedom and progress. And it is freedom and progress that shield us from the whims of feudalistic, corrupt despots and religious megalomaniacs. It is the onslaught of freedom that will change that reality that we are now dependent upon. That is what we had to deal with, and now we have come to this moment of decision. I wish it were not so. But it is a sad reality that what is right is usually not easy. The right course is, in the long term, usually frustrating and heart-wrenching. There are stalls and reverses to every historically significant event and undertaking. There are always those who walk away when the road gets rough, who cannot see the end and when uncertainty looms. If one seeks certainty, bold actions will never happen. Only if we are bold to our enemies and steadfast will we ever succeed in any international endeavor. The current conflict in Iraq has several dimensions; and, yes, it is between the Sunnis and the radical Shiite sects of Islam, a bloody Janus, with one face to Tehran and the other to Riyadh. But don't be fooled, Mr. Speaker. The murderers, torturers and the haters on both sides revile the United States. The sword of Sadr and the bombs of al-Qaeda have turned on each other, but they both have a dream that is close to their hearts, and that dream is a nightmare to those who cherish freedom and to those who stand with liberty and seek comity among the people of the world. That macabre nightmare is the removal of the United States influence from the Muslim world. You see, there is another force in Iraq and throughout that part of the world, where the majority of people are guided by the visions of the prophet Mohammed. Those of whom I speak are those Muslims who desire liberty and justice, who want government to be elected and directed by the people, who do not want to live their life in fear and would choose a positive relationship with the western world. They are there, as we have witnessed in one of the most devout Muslim countries of the world, Afghanistan. It was not the American soldiers but the Afghan people themselves who drove out the Taliban and al-Qaeda from their country. Similarly, moderate Muslims, people of good will all over the Middle East, and they are there and they tremble that America will lose its resolve and retreat before a radical form of Islam. An American retreat condemns them to suppression under the heels of fanatic Muslims who hate our way of life and are willing to murder anyone who suggests that Islam and the West can live in peace with one another and that we can respect each other's faith and build a better, more peaceful and, yes, a freer world. Mr. Speaker, if the sole superpower cannot stabilize Iraq, we are not a superpower. If we cannot thwart such a gang of bandits and savages as we face in Iraq, who will stand with us anywhere? Who will be our ally? We must not lose in Iraq. But what does that mean? That means we must not leave that country defeated and in retreat or we and our families will lose and in the short run pay a horrible price. Yes, if we retreat from Iraq, these ghouls who kill civilians, who would kill civilians and are currently killing civilians by the tens of thousands, they will follow us home and they will be emboldened. The sides are chosen, the game is in play. We will determine, not the terrorists or the radical lunatics, who stands and who falls, who marches forward and who retreats. All of this will be determined by our military capabilities, our technological advantages, but even more so by our will, by our desire and by our sure grit. What we do today makes the future. We choose how it will be shaped. I am reminded of General Petain, the French commander who fought the Germans at the Battle of Verdun. Some attribute the phrase ``they shall not pass'' to him. Well, he rallied the French people to that German onslaught. But, 20 years later, he capitulated to Nazi Germany almost without a fight, because he and the people of France viewed the Second World War as not worthy of the price necessary to prevent a Nazi victory. Well, did that defeatism and appeasement, what did it do? The cost was unimaginable. Let us today not make this severe misjudgment again about the magnitude of the downside of retreating before an evil force that threatens the West. There will be a cost with the retreat. So let us note that what we do in Iraq will determine if the West will truly stand behind any ally of freedom and any enemy of radical Islam. Let us make sure there is hope in the Middle East and throughout the world. Mr. Speaker, let us today not make this severe misjudgment again about the magnitude of the down side of retreating before an evil force that threatens the West. There will be a cost if we retreat. Many in this Chamber supported military interventions around the world during the 1990s, including numerous civil wars, situations from which they now claim the United States should steer clear. However, the consequences of withdrawal from Bosnia or Haiti pale in comparison to withdrawal from Iraq. What happens in Iraq determines if the West will truly stand behind democratic government in the Middle East and elsewhere in the Islamic world. Moderate Muslims must have confidence in our ability to triumph over our fears, to withstand humanitarian impulses to simply disengage from conflict, not to give in to force and pressure when applied by an enemy. Otherwise, we lose. The world loses. The moderates of the Islamic world will never prevail against this evil unless we are with them and have courage and persevere, unless we are willing to hold the line, until the moderate forces in the Islamic world can take up the fight with a reasonable chance of victory. On the flip side, only a defeat of radical Islam will bring peace to that troubled region. A loss of faith in America's ability to persevere in the Middle East would be a catalyst for catastrophe. That region in chaos would disrupt the entire world economy. Shifts of power would channel enormous resources into the hands of the enemies of Western civilization, enemies of the United States. It's a frightening picture that doesn't need to happen. How is this different than a year ago? The difference is 1,000 American lives lost in a distant, foreign land. America is war weary. I too am weary. Every story of another young person, blown apart, rips at my heart. Those Americans who have gone are volunteers, heroes all. We owe it to them not to call it off and change direction in haste. To withdraw quickly, without honor, that would indeed mean their lives were lost in vain. It would mean the next front line battle will be the home front. I, then, am one who is not anxious to declare defeat and retreat from Iraq. I am willing to give the Iraqi people a while longer, a slot of time, to step forward and meet the bloody, yet historic, challenge that faces them. We can't do it for them, but we can, as the world's leading free nation, give them this chance. Otherwise, we are clearly not a leading nation at all. We are too weary to lead. That is not the America I know. Today we define ourselves, to the world, and to our children. We must have a commitment to our ideals and courage. America has a crucial role to play in this world and we are America. Let us not fail in this our historic responsibility.

Mr. ROHRABACHER

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. I rise to support this amendment. However, I will admit that it is rather more symbolic than substantive. And earlier this morning, Speaker Pelosi spoke before the Science Committee, as we have been reminded here during this debate. And during that testimony she declared her commitment to combat global warming. And that is a high priority. Well, it is not then irrelevant for Members of Congress to call into question the seriousness of such public proclamations when personal choices are so extravagantly contradictory to those proclamations. I am sorry. Speaker Pelosi, by commandeering a huge government plane for her personal transport to California, this is totally contradictory to the alarm bells that we heard her ringing in the Science Committee just a few hours ago. And just for one, let me note that I certainly appreciate that Speaker Pelosi came to speak to us. And I certainly respect Bart Gordon and the job that he did in putting together a very fine panel of witnesses for us. But I am personally a skeptic about global warming. And let me just note that what we have here, after listening to the witnesses today, is the clear evidence that global warming and cooling have taken place in cycles throughout the history of the world. Right now, we are being told that this particular cycle is caused by human beings and how dangerous that is. Well, let me note that even the witnesses today, the very witness that was showing how we can prove the Earth is warming on the chart, started his chart in 1850, which happened to be, by his own admission, the very end of a cooling period that had been going on for 500 years. So you start at the very low point and then you go to today and claim, oh, it is getting warmer. So what? You started at a low point. Now, there is consensus that there is some warming going on, 1 degree over the last 30 years, supposedly. In reality, it is 1 degree over 100 years. And, yes, this is happening, but is it caused by human action? Even after hearing the witnesses today, I can't tell you that I don't believe, I still do not believe this is caused by human activity. Now, why is this so important that we discuss this? Why is it important that we reject this alarmism? Because we are all now committed to an energy-independent America, and we are going to have to focus our energies and resources on developing new alternative sources of energy and technology that will make us independent of foreign oil. And if we are alarmed by global warming and we are stampeded into focusing our efforts on something that is going to change a climate trend, instead of, for example, focusing on energy that will help clean the air at the same time, while making us independent, we are going to be making some bad decisions. And who will be impacted by those decisions if we are stampeded by all of this alarmism about global warming? The people who will be better off are the researchers who have been getting grants by the billions of dollars over these years in order to claim that there is global warming. And I might add, there is plenty of evidence that researchers who are opposed to the global warming theory have been cut off from research grants. But who will be worse off? My children will be worse off. Your children and grandchildren will be worse off because we have not developed the technology aimed at cleaning the air and making us energy independent. Rather, we will have been stampeded into spending more money on useless research and money aimed at changing the climate trend of the planet, rather than on the health of the people of this planet. It makes no sense whatsoever. If we are committed to energy independence, let's be serious about it. Conservation is part of the answer. And if Speaker Pelosi is serious, she should be serving as an example and not be doing things like commandeering a huge aircraft, which is enormously wasteful, to take her all the way to California. And although this is symbolic, I think there is some substance here that does deserve to be commented on, so I am supporting this amendment.

Mr. ROHRABACHER

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Speaker, today we discuss a black mark on this administration, a vile crime against two law enforcement officers whose job has been protecting our families and communities and keeping control of America's borders. This sad episode started back on February 17, 2005, just another routine day for Border Patrol agents Ignacio Ramos and Jose Compean. Both were Border Patrol veterans with unblemished service records. Agent Ramos, in fact, had been nominated for Border Patrol Agent of the Year. As they did their rounds that day 2 years ago, a trip sensor at the border was discovered, and Agent Compean then discovered footprints and drag marks, a usual indication of a drug load being smuggled across the river. He then spotted a vehicle and radioed the description and then followed the suspect. The suspect realized he had been made and turned around to rush back towards Mexico. Agent Ramos then spotted the van driving at a high rate of speed. After the driver ignored all commands to pull over, of course, Ramos gave chase. By the way, according to the prosecuting attorney, pursuing fleeing suspects without a supervisor's permission is against Border Patrol policy. This, in and of itself, is an insane policy. The drug smuggler who they were pursuing abandoned his vehicle and fled toward Mexico on foot but was intercepted by Agent Compean. Once again, ignoring several commands by Agent Compean to stop, a physical altercation ensued with Compean ending up in a ditch. While seeing his opportunity, the smuggler then ran toward the border, which was nearby. According to Agent Compean's sworn testimony, while running, the suspect turned and pointed with something shiny in his left hand. Believing his life was in danger, Agent Compean opened fire. Hearing gunshots, Agent Ramos came to his side, and he, too, shouted for the smuggler to stop. But instead of obeying his command, the illegal drug smuggler once again turned as he ran and again pointed something shiny at the officers. Ramos, believing it to be a weapon, fired one shot. After disappearing into the banks of the Rio Grande, the smuggler reappeared on the Mexican side where he jumped into a waiting van. Unbeknownst to the officers, Ramos's bullet may have hit the illegal drug smuggler in the left buttocks. Minutes after the shooting, seven other agents were on the scene, including two supervisors. When the abandoned van was examined, 743 pounds of marijuana were found. The payload was seized, and one would think congratulations would have been in order. Agent Ramos and Compean are heroes, right? They are responsible for taking off the streets $1 million worth of drugs bound for our communities. Good job fellows, right? Wrong. At this moment Agents Ramos and Compean, not the illegal drug smuggler, are languishing in a Federal prison serving 11- and 12-year sentences. This is the worst miscarriage of justice that I have seen in my 25 years of public service. It is a nightmare for the two Border Patrol agents and their families, these Border Patrol agents who willingly risk their lives protecting us for 5 and 10 years. The whole rotten episode turned justice on its head. The book was thrown at our heroes who protect us, while the drug smugglers got immunity. According to the U.S. attorney, Johnny Sutton, a Bush appointee and a longtime friend of the President, Ramos and Compean are not heroes. In fact, he considers those two officers to be criminals, charging them with assault with serious bodily injury, assault with a deadly weapon, discharge of a firearm while committing a crime of violence, which carries, of course, a minimum mandatory sentence of 10 years, and a civil rights violation. Sutton claims that he had no choice but to prosecute the two Border Patrol agents because, according to Sutton, they broke the law when they violated these procedures concerning the discharge of their weapons at this fleeing suspect. No. Even if procedures were not followed, Sutton could have granted immunity to the law enforcement officers and thrown the book at the drug smuggler. That was his choice. He chose the side of the drug smuggler and threw the book at the Border Patrol agents. This was an indefensible decision, and now Sutton lies to us and to the American people, suggesting that he did not have a choice, that he had to prosecute. Well, the facts don't back him up. And what happened after this man got away? After the incident the drug smuggler contacted Renee Sanchez, a childhood friend for advice. Now, why did she contact Renee Sanchez? Because Renee Sanchez happens to be a current Border Patrol agent in Arizona. And instead of turning in this drug smuggler, turning the drug smuggler over to the authorities for prosecution, this law enforcement officer, Agent Sanchez, he is sworn to uphold the laws of the United States, but he chose to personally intervene on behalf of his childhood friend who was a known mule for the drug cartels. He was also called as a character witness on the drug smuggler's behalf during the trial. Mr. Sanchez contacted the Department of Homeland Security, who in turn decided to open an investigation into the conduct of Ramos and Compean. What? What? You have got a drug smuggler with 750 pounds of narcotics who is being thwarted from making his delivery, and that he complains that he was shot at, and our Government decides to investigate the law enforcement officers. Mr. Sutton had every chance to focus his enormous prosecutorial powers on the drug dealer, but he chose to target the law enforcement officers. He chose to turn a procedural violation into a criminal act rather than prosecuting a career drug smuggler. As part of their investigation, the Department of Homeland Security Office of Inspector General sent a special agent to Mexico to offer the drug smuggler immunity in exchange for testimony against the Border Patrol officers. The smuggler was then brought back to the United States and given free medical care at all taxpayers' expense. Now, one has to wonder if Mr. Sutton, our U.S. attorney, would have even spent one-tenth of that effort trying to find this criminal himself and track him down in Mexico so that he could be extradited and punished for smuggling narcotics into our country. No. No effort was made to do that. Instead, an expensive Herculean effort was made to try to get the Border Patrol agents. Now the drug smuggler is being portrayed as a victim because he swears he was not armed. Our government takes the word of this nefarious character over two law enforcement officers. In short, the initial decision to prosecute the two Border Patrol agents instead of the drug smuggler was indefensible. Period. Sutton's only defense, to cover up this horrendous decision, has been to lie and to demonize the two Border Patrol agents. Well, it just does not jive. According to that investigative report, Agent Compean's sworn statement, in his sworn statements he repeatedly stated he believed the drug smuggler had a weapon and felt threatened. The Border Patrol training manuals allow for this type of deadly force to be used when an agent fears imminent bodily injury or death. Both of the officers say they saw this drug smuggler turn and point what they believed to be a weapon in their direction while he was running away. The wound created by the bullet corroborates their version of the events. So we have the prosecutor, even with the direction of the trajectory of the bullet as indicated by the wound, but the prosecutor is ignoring the fact that it backs up the Compean and Ramos position. During the trial an Army doctor, a prosecution witness I might add, testified that the drug smuggler's body was bladed away from the bullet that struck him. That is consistent with the motion of a left-handed person running away while pointing backwards, causing his body to twist. Once again, this corroborated Ramos's and Compean's belief that the smuggler had a weapon. And that was a reasonable belief considering the smuggler was transporting over $1 million of drugs that day. And I am sure, of course, drug dealers with $1 million worth of drugs are not armed. Now, it is important to understand that only three individuals were eyewitnesses to the crucial events of that day, the two accused Border Patrol agents and a self-admitted drug smuggler. Those are the only two people who saw what happened. The other Border Patrol agents who responded to the scene testified under immunity, and quite often contradicting themselves; however, the most important thing when thinking about their testimony is their view of the events was completely obscured by a levee at the road, which is about 12 feet higher than the road on which they stood, and about 8 feet higher from the spot on the other side of the levee where Ramos and Compean stood and where they fired their pistols. So let me make it very clear what I just said. None of the other agents could possibly have seen what transpired between Ramos and Compean and this drug smuggler, even if they climbed on top of their vehicles. It was physically impossible for them to see. Yet these agents were threatened with prosecution if they did not testify against Ramos and Compean. They agreed to testify. If they agreed, they would be granted immunity. It begs the question why these agents need to be granted immunity if they were not involved in the incident, and this whole thing calls into question what effect that this threat that was held over their head had on the truthfulness of their testimony. The U.S. attorney's version of what happened that day relies almost exclusively on the testimony of the drug smuggler. Despite the fact that there were seven other agents, including two supervisors on scene within minutes, no report of the shooting was ever filed, even though the Border Patrol regulations require the supervisors to file the report. Agents are only required to orally notify their supervisors, and Ramos and Compean justifiably believed that their supervisors were totally aware that there was a shooting. They were within about 50 feet or 100 feet of what was going on. So, as a matter of fact, the agents, those agents are prohibited from actually filing a written report, as in INS firearms policy, section 12B, 1G states: Ensure that supervisory personnel or investigative officers are aware that employees involved in a shooting incident shall not be required or allowed to submit a written statement of the circumstances surrounding the incident. All written statements regarding the incident shall be prepared by the local investigative officers and shall be based on an interview of the employee. That is what their regulations state. Yet U.S. Attorney Johnny Sutton continues to claim that the officers filed a false report to cover up their crime. They are not even permitted to file a report, much less a false report. And they were not asked by their supervisors who heard the shots. So the supervisors decided not to ask questions about it, probably because had they then officially known about the incident, they would have had to fill out about 5 hours' worth of paperwork. This is about bureaucratic requirements of the people at the border. If one shot is fired, on their own time they end up having to work about 5 hours. Because it looked like the incident was over, all of them, including the supervisors, decided to just close the book. Was that a good decision? Well, probably not, considering that you have an out-of- control prosecutor trying to find something to prosecute our defenders about. By no means did their actions rise to the level of criminality, what might be considered an unauthorized discharge of their weapons, because, of course, they could not absolutely prove they knew that the drug dealer had a weapon. Well, if they could not absolutely prove it, then according to the U.S. Attorney, they are guilty of attempted murder. Again, let me note, the agents thought the drug dealer was aiming something at them. He had just been in a physical altercation with one of the officers. Of course, when it came to the details about that, our U.S. attorney believed the drug dealer, who swears that Compean, for example, in the altercation just fell down. You know, you would be surprised how many police officers just fall down in the middle of trying to enforce the law when dealing with professional criminals like the ones that Compean and Ramos were dealing with. Just fell down. Yeah. You believe that, but you do not believe these guys with an unblemished record of 5 and 10 years of protecting the American people. So even though this investigation determined that all seven officers on the scene knew about or heard the shooting, the U.S. attorney granted those officers immunity even though it was their job to report the incident. But of course they did not think it was an incident, they thought it was closed, the guns went off. They did not want to spend 5 hours filling out paperwork. Well, guess what? It was their job to do it. Actually one of them was actually promoted after all of this. But the U.S. attorney decided to prosecute the Border Patrol agents, and in doing so, he had to intimidate these supervisors by saying that he was going to charge them and giving them immunity unless they went along with this legal lynching of Ramos and Compean. If this incident would have been kept in perspective, all seven supervisors and agents who were failing to report a shooting that may or may not have been consistent with regulations governing the discharge of weapons, but just keep this all in perspective, they might have deserved a disciplinary action, maybe a week without pay or some mark on their record; that would have been the end of it. But the penalty for not reporting a shooting is a 5-day suspension. That is the maximum penalty. This was an issue of a procedural violation, not criminality, and there is a serious question about the viability of those procedures which are mandated by the policy. This, of course, flows directly from the insane border policy, and it led directly to this unconscionable situation. Over 78 Members of Congress have expressed concern, if not outrage, at the troubling aspects of this case. Our repeated attempts for Presidential intervention or even to communicate with the President have been ignored. Our pleas to keep the officers out of jail on bond pending their appeal have been denied. The President could have just had the prosecutor go to the judge and say, please, let these guys stay out at least until their appeal. No, no. It was the opposite. They insisted on the maximum. They wanted their pound of flesh. The maximum penalty, the maximum message to other Border Patrol agents: Don't you dare ever to even think about firing your weapon at the border. Instead, the President, after we appealed to try to get him to look at this, the President dug in his heels, sent Tony Snow out to chastise us, you know. We were trying to save Ramos and Compean, and then we were told by Tony Snow to take a closer look at the facts. Well, we have taken a closer look at the facts. We also know what happened. There has been a publicity campaign that has been put out to destroy and demonize Ramos and Compean even as they languish in prison, because the Federal prosecutor knows he is the one who made the mistake. He made the initial decision to grant immunity to the drug dealer, rather than for a procedural mistake by the Border Patrol agents. He made that decision. It is a horrendous decision, and he is trying to cover it up and destroying the lives of these two Border Patrol agents in the process. That is what he has to do. So he has gone on the air waves and lied to the public to discredit these agents. We found out today, for example, that the Department of Homeland Security lied to Congress trying to cover up for their lies to Congress. What happened is five Members of Congress were briefed. We will hear about this later on tonight from another Member of Congress. They were told that Compean had claimed he was going to go out and shoot a Mexican. Now, here is Compean, Jose Compean, right? These are two Mexican American, proud Hispanics, and they were going to go out and shoot a Mexican. And this is from five or six areas that were just total lies given to Members of Congress looking into this. And then they were questioned, when the Department of Homeland Security investigators were questioned, they said, oh, yes, we have all of this proved in various reports. And so they asked for them, those reports. And today it was just determined that for 4 months the Department of Homeland Security has been lying to Members of Congress because those reports never existed. There was nothing to substantiate the charges, the horrendous charges that were made against Compean and Ramos. Well, what we hear now is, well, you have got to just forget it because the jury has spoken. That is what Mr. Sutton and the prosecutor want to say. That is the end of it. That is the last word. Well, let's look at what the jury knew about and whether or not this was a fair trial. The drug dealer we are talking about, in between the time he was shot and all of this was going on, and Ramos and Compean are waiting to be tried, he was caught again, this time with 1,000 pounds of marijuana that he was trying to smuggle into our country. But that information was kept from the jury. That information never made it to the jury. Now, was that important for the jury to know? The prosecution told the judge that this would in some way jeopardize other prosecutions or investigations, so the jury was kept from that information. And, in fact, that information has been expunged from the record, so we can't get that information. But we know it happened. And they play word games with us to say, well, he really wasn't arrested. He was apprehended. No, this man was caught again with 1,000 pounds of drugs. Do you think the jury should have known that? Would that have been something important for the jury to know when they are deciding on the lives of these two brave Americans? Well, it is something that the jury never knew. The jury also never knew that the drug dealer, after the bullet fragment was removed from his body, he was taken by an investigator, and the bullet was taken by the investigator and spent the night at the home of this agent. Well, let me tell you something. You don't take evidence and break the chain of custody of evidence. He took the bullet into his home, and he took this witness into his home. Any lawyer will tell you that this is the type of sloppiness that taints the evidence and disqualifies a prosecution. It is also significant to mention that of those 12 jurors, three of them later submitted sworn affidavits alleging that they had been misled by the jury foreman into believing that, if the majority of people wanted to vote guilty, they had to also vote guilty, that a hung jury was not going to be allowed by the judge. They felt pressured to vote guilty, and they have since signed affidavits and made statements that they would have changed their vote. They believed these men to be innocent, and some of them actually broke down in tears when they heard that they could have actually saved these men had they stuck to their guns. But they were told that the judge, these are not lawyers, these are simple people; they were told they had to go along with the majority. And when the judge heard this, and the judge heard that there was evidence, he knew that this evidence had been kept from the jury, he, even after knowing this, denied the request that the two agents be permitted to stay out on bond until their appeal was made. Well, let's look at this. There is no doubt that Johnny Sutton had a choice. This U.S. attorney decided to prosecute the good guys and gave immunity to the bad guys when he could have done it the other way around. But he chose not to. And now he is engaged in this propaganda campaign against these two men. Well, the prosecution's only witness of course, the major witness testified that, of course, this drug smuggler was hit in the buttocks, not from the back. And even with that, we hear the U.S. attorney claiming that the essence of this case is these corrupt agents shot an unarmed man in the back. That is what he says. Well, of course, this was not an unarmed man. You know, we are not talking about a nun or some tourist who happened to stray across the border. This was a professional drug smuggler who works for a drug cartel, a delivery man to deliver vile drugs into our communities to corrupt our children and destroy the lives of our families. These Border Patrol agents were up against this man, not just a man, a criminal of this level. And of course, they didn't, as I just said, they didn't shoot him in the back. One bullet, we think, maybe from the gun of one of these officers, actually shot him in the buttocks, but the medical officer said that he was turned around. So it was like he had something that he was pointing with his hand, which could well have been a gun. So it wasn't in the back. It was in the buttocks, and it confirms what the law enforcement officers were saying. Now, let me say, remember this, this is really important. There is no way to know that this drug dealer, whether he was armed or not. Mr. Sutton chose to believe the drug dealer, but how do we know he wasn't armed that day? The two agents claimed they said they saw something in his hand. They have to take the word of the drug smuggler. Now, he has been smuggling drugs since he was 14, and his family in an interview said he always was armed. There is no question. He was a member of the drug cartel. But Mr. Sutton, our U.S. attorney, takes his word over the word of our defenders. He has turned reality on its head. He has sided with a drug smuggler over two men who risk their lives every day to protect us, and now he must destroy them and vilify them in order to protect this horrendous decision that he made to go with the bad guys rather than the good guys. There is no evidence, for example, that Mr. Sutton claims they were corrupt. The Wall Street Journal printed an editorial saying these are corrupt law enforcement officers. Corrupt. The Wall Street Journal vilified these two men. Of course the Wall Street Journal, of course, has a policy, an editorial policy of an open border policy. But now, to back up their guy, their open borders guy, they vilify these officers with a total falsehood. There has never been a charge of corruption against either one of these two agents. They have never been charged with corruption. They have, in fact, a totally clean work record. And, yes, Ramos had some family problems a few years ago. And let's make it clear what has happened. Another part of this vilification campaign is that Mr. Sutton, even though he was not permitted to bring this up in the court because it is totally irrelevant, brought up a family problem that Officer Ramos had many years ago. This is a despicable tactic on the part of the U.S. attorney. Indefensible. Except it does illuminate what this U.S. attorney is all about. The family situation for Mr. Ramos was recognized as an aberration. The fact is, Ramos has been recognized as a solid and respected officer, and this is why he was nominated for Border Patrol agent of the year. And of course the U.S. attorney says, oh, well, that is not true. He never became Border Patrol agent of the year. That is the type of dishonest communication that calls into question his entire decision- making process. No one has ever claimed he was Border Patrol agent of the year. But he was nominated for that, and that means something. So our U.S. attorney has found that he is just compelled to vilify these people. So what is the real significance of this case? The U.S. attorney's despicable prosecution of these border agents has put all of our border agents on notice: Any use of force to protect America, to secure our borders, if you do that, use any force, you will go to prison and your life will be destroyed and you will be shown no mercy. The consequences of the Ramos and Compean case extend far beyond the destruction of these two men and their families. And yes, it is horrible that these families are being driven into destitution. The Compeans have lost their home. Their kids and the family, all their family is shattered. They have no health insurance. But what are the consequences for us? What does it mean for our families? I will tell you what it means: It means that our southern border is now open, not just to an invading army of illegal immigrants but to drug dealers and to terrorists. Let's ask ourselves this question: What if that van that they found all the drugs in, what if it turned out to be a dirty bomb that they discovered, a dirty bomb headed towards a major city that would have destroyed the lives of hundreds of thousands if not millions of Americans? Instead of 750 pounds of drugs, which is bad enough, what if it was a dirty bomb? And what if the drug dealer turned out to be a terrorist instead of a Mexican national? Well, those two men would have been invited to the White House to be congratulated. It is clear there is a larger and a hidden agenda at play here. And Ramos and Compean simply are pawns who got in the way. Johnny Sutton is a dishonest and overzealous prosecutor who has lied to us about this case. And he is on the wrong side of the law by siding with drug smugglers, letting them go free while he is prosecuting two men for criminal activity when it may just well have been a procedural matter. His claim of not being able to prosecute the drug smuggler is ludicrous. Both his office and the investigation have no trouble in tracking down the drug smuggler, yet he chose to turn a blind eye to the drug smuggler's offenses. And according to the investigation, there were lots of prints, sets of prints that he could have used on that van. Plus we had agents Ramos and Compean who identified him as the guy who jumped out of that van. They could have prosecuted the drug smuggler. But they chose to prosecute our heroes, our defenders. Well, did Ramos and Compean make mistakes? Well, maybe they did. Should they have been punished and reprimanded for them? Maybe. Should they have been charged with a crime? Absolutely not. And by doing so, the Justice Department has demoralized our Nation's defenders. And what does that mean to us? That means that our defenders cannot now count on their government to support them even when they are up against a drug smuggler who may very well be armed. What does that mean for the rest of us? That means we have absolutely lost control of our border. Border agents are put in a situation on a daily basis that they must make a split-second decision. By the way, this is the first time Compean has ever used his weapon in the 5 years of service. He is being portrayed as some trigger-happy Border Patrol agent? Well, these agents don't have a second chance when someone aims something at them. So this policy that you can't fire until you are in the sights of a drug smuggler's gun is a death warrant to our defenders. Ironically, Ramos and Compean thought that the drug smuggler was aiming at them. Interestingly, as I say, Compean had never fired his weapon before. These are the facts. These are the facts that have enraged the public, causing Americans to wonder what in God's name is their government doing? What is their President thinking? How can our President be so mean-spirited and arrogant not to hear the pleas from so many of our citizens, even from Members of Congress, for some type of mercy for Ramos and Compean, who had risked their lives to defend us for so long? Well, there is a hidden agenda here. That is what this is all about. Very powerful economic interests in this country want cheap labor. They want open borders. They want cheap labor from illegals to come here so they can depress the wages of working Americans. Well, the out-of-control flow of illegal immigrants is a nightmare to regular Americans, not this one group of elitists. But the policymakers here in Washington and their elite corporate interests are so arrogant and so smug that they do not care about the suffering of the American people. They don't care. These elites don't care that illegal immigrants are shutting down the emergency rooms so if your children in California have a car accident, they will die. They are overcrowding our classrooms so our kids aren't getting the education they deserve. They are driving down wages. And our criminal justice system is breaking down in California. We have American citizens who are being victimized. They are being murdered and raped and robbed by criminal illegal immigrants every day. But these elitists don't care, and our President doesn't seem to care. The only heroes in this entire immigration mess, the only heroes are the thin green line of the Border Patrol. And the elites now have decided they have to brutally smash two of them in order to warn the others not to get in the way of their open border policy. The public has every right to be angry about this case, and I join them in this outrage. Let me note that today I received 304,000 petitions that were signed by citizens of this country for the President of the United States asking for pardon. As we know, Officer Ramos was attacked last night or the night before. He was brutally attacked in prison. And this should do nothing but ask for another plea. This man's life is in danger. Compean's life was in danger. We knew that. That is why they should have been out until their appeal is heard. We are pleading with the President. The American people are asking the President to pay attention. Please pardon these men. Give them a chance. If they are murdered in prison, the President will be held accountable. The President is accountable of the fact that Ramos was beaten up. This case shows the insanity of this administration's border policy and perhaps the hidden agenda of this border policy. No guest worker program, no amnesty program is going to be feasible if we cannot control our borders. If this country cannot stop an illegal alien drug smuggler, this country has no border controls whatsoever. And let me end my comments by this following statement: Our job is to watch out for the interests of the people of the United States. The people of the United States and many of these illegals who stream across our border are wonderful people. The vast majority are wonderful people. But we have to be concerned about the interests of our people who are suffering because of this out-of-control illegal immigration flow. United States, who is it? It is us, U.S. Who are we? We are Mexican American people just like Ramos and Compean. We are Irish Americans. We are black Americans. We are people who came here from every corner of the world. And if we don't have a consideration for Americans over and above what we care about people in other countries, then we will not have an America that our Founding Fathers dreamed about. We are losing our country. And if we lose control of the southern border, the terrorists and the drug dealers and the invading armies of illegals will make it so that within a short period of time, maybe 10 years from now, maybe 20, we will have lost America. The American people are crying out in a rage. The President should listen. The President has to listen.

Mr. ROHRABACHER

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Speaker, 271 years ago, American patriot and champion of human liberty, Thomas Paine, was born. His pamphlet ``Common Sense'' is credited with convincing the people of what was then the 13 colonies to declare themselves independent and committed to representative government and human liberty. Paine was thus instrumental in bringing about the American Revolution. During that historic life and death struggle with Great Britain, which then was the world's mightiest empire, Paine was called upon by George Washington. At a moment when the tide seemed to be against us, General Washington implored Paine to write something that would bolster the spirits of those Americans supporting the patriots' cause. Yes, there were naysayers and defeatists in those days too, as well as people who were demoralized by the ongoing conflict that was going badly. Yet, had those before us lost faith and given up, the cause of liberty and independence would have been lost. Thomas Paine, at this dark moment of despair, wrote ``The American Crisis.'' It was read aloud to every soldier in Washington's Continental Army, some listening while standing in the snow, freezing, ill equipped and hungry. Yet, they did not give up. They did not give into pessimism. It made all the difference for them and for us. Every generation of Americans has to bear the weight of responsibility that comes with a commitment made to human liberty by our forefathers and -mothers 200 years ago. When freedom was in the balance and darkness of defeat loomed, Americans persevered and carried the day in the battle against tyranny and injustice, sometimes at horrendous cost, as in our Civil War when we rid America of the sin of slavery. Yes, at times, it looked as if the Union was lost. Lincoln had the thankless job of leading this country and keeping it unified, he, and the Union soldiers, steadfast and strong. How our world would be different, our country would be different today had they quit and gone home. In the 20th century, Americans stepped forward to save the world from the evil onslaught of Japanese militarism and Nazism and then communism. There were always low points when pessimism could have taken hold; and had America retreated, it would be a far more sinister world. So, too, with the current preeminent threat to our security and freedom and the world's, radical Islam has declared war on our way of life. It is an enemy to the liberty those Americans before us so cherished and sacrificed to protect. We are now at a moment when the people of our country are weary of this conflict, especially as it plays itself out in far-off Iraq, where deadly explosions take the lives of Americans, young Americans, as well as Iraqis. Let us not fool ourselves. The future of freedom and America's role in the world is in the balance. The future will be determined by what we do. Yes, there is reason for despair. The casualty lists include names of young people from Orange County, my Orange County, heroes such as young Marine Lance Corporal Marcus Glimpse of Huntington Beach, whose funeral I attended last April. Also, there is Corporal Angel Jose Garibay of Costa Mesa, and just this past weekend, the funeral of a 23- year-old second lieutenant from Irvine, Mark J. Daily. They now have joined a very selected band of brothers in heaven who gave their lives for America and for the cause of human freedom. Yes, we are proud, but also we feel a profound sadness at their loss. Perhaps as we decide now, in this moment, when the bloodshed seems so futile, we should remember an earlier time of crisis, when the future seemed bleak, but our own resolve carried the day and the cause with it of human liberty. I will read the following excerpt from Thomas Paine's ``The American Crisis,'' when he said: ``These are the times that try men's souls. The summer soldier and the sunshine patriot will, in this crisis, shrink from the service of their country; but he who stands by it now, deserves the love and thanks of man and woman. Tyranny, like hell, is not easily conquered; yet we have this consolation with us, that the harder the conflict, the more glorious the triumph. What we obtain too cheap, we esteem too lightly: it is dearness only that gives everything its value. Heaven knows how to put a proper price upon its goods; and it would be strange indeed if so celestial an article as freedom should not be highly rated.'' I ask my colleagues and the American people to think about these words and to stand firm for the cause of liberty for which our Founding Fathers have sacrificed so much We Americans, made up of every race, religion, and ethnic group have a special role to play in this world. We are the hope and light of all those who would live in freedom and long for justice. So as we face the crisis of our generation, perhaps we should again visit the words of Thomas Paine who inspired those who came before us to persevere and triumph over a formative foe.

Mr. ROHRABACHER

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this proposal to increase the minimum wage by $2.10 an hour over the next 2 years. What we are witnessing today, of course, is the quintessential example of political figures offering something for nothing. We can just bestow upon the American people $2.10 an hour, and there is no cost to it. Well, if that is really the case, and there is no downside, why are we such pikers? Why are we not offering a minimum wage hike of $5 an hour? Or $10? Or maybe even $20 an hour more? We know that that is not realistic because there is a downside that can be calculated. In fact, by mandating the pay raises that we are talking about today, economists have estimated that about 1.6 million people, the people at the very bottom rung of our economic ladder, will be put through great hardship. They won't be hired, or they will be fired because their salary now must be allocated in these small businesses which, of course, is where most of the employment takes place, their salaries will now have to be allocated to the other employees. Yes, there is a cost to pay when you mandate someone in their operation gets paid more money, and the burden will be borne by the very lowest level of employees. That is what this proposal is all about. Now, there is a way to actually help people have higher salaries. I happen to believe in high wages. I am not a pro-management guy. I believe in higher wages for the American people, and there is a way that we can achieve higher wages for the American people, especially those at the lowest income. But those who are advocating that we raise the minimum wage wouldn't think about advocating this solution. And that solution is very easy for the American people to understand: We have an out-of-control flow of illegal immigrants into our country. If we would commit ourselves to solving that problem, to get control of this massive flow of illegals into our country, we would have more than a doubling of this minimum wage. We would have wage earners all up and down the scale, even at the very bottom of the scale, help. But, no. Why aren't we doing this? Because, yes, there is a price to pay for that as well. Getting control of illegal immigration, making sure that our employers are not hiring illegals, who would pay that price? People who come to this country illegally would pay that price. Their lives would be harder. It would be tougher on them. But we are supposed to be representing the interests of the American people. Yes, we sympathize with people who come here illegally. We sympathize with those people overseas, but if we raise the minimum wage this way, there will be more illegals who will come to this country to get that higher minimum wage, and our own people at the bottom rung of the economic ladder will be put out of a job. Let's watch out for the interests of the American people. Let's commit ourselves to getting control of the massive flow of illegals into our country, and then we can raise the wages of everyone. Let's not offer people stunts and schemes like this of the minimum wage, of offering them something for nothing. Let's really help them out.

Mr. ROHRABACHER

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to H.R. 6406. And while I believe in free trade between free people, this bill would extend trading rights to the dictatorship of Vietnam and other questionable countries. Why are we doing this? We are told that, of course, increasing commerce with such dictatorships will eventually lead that dictatorship to evolve into a more docile or a more democratic society. That has not worked. It has created a monster in China. Why is there any reason for us to think it won't do the same in Vietnam? The Vietnamese themselves have been pleading with us not to grant Most Favored Nation status; basically permanent normal trade status is what we are talking about tonight. I include this letter in the Record. It is a letter to the President of the United States from 28 leading Vietnamese, who probably will end up in prison, discussing how their country is not free, that the people there have none of the liberties that we are talking about and that such trade would go in the opposite direction rather than making the leadership of the dictatorship more open to reforms. A Call for Democracy--Open Letter to President George W. Bush on the Occasion of his Trip to Vietnam To Attend the APEC Summit in November 2006 Vietnam, November 14, 2006. Dear Mr. President: On behalf of all Vietnamese people who struggle for democracy and freedom in Vietnam we warmly welcome you to our country on the occasion of your trip to Hanoi to attend the Asian Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) Summit. When arriving in Vietnam, you will see, in addition to the natural beauty of our country, many high-rise buildings and splendid mansions belonging to the elite of the Vietnamese Communist Party and wealthy businessmen. However, you won't see the poverty of the majority of Vietnamese people who live in the countryside or in suburban areas. You will not be allowed to see the impoverished farmers who keep on coming to Hanoi to protest against the confiscation of their land year after year, their plight unheard. Mr. President: The Vietnamese people have no free elections. In Vietnam, the Communist Party chooses all candidates prior to an election, and people who are not chosen by the Communist system cannot run in an election. Since all candidates are nominated by the Party, from the People's Committee at the village level to the National Assembly, elections are only a ploy used by the regime to disguise their intentions. This is the reason why people's legitimate complaints are never addressed. The Vietnamese people have no freedom of the press, and therefore freedom of speech is severely limited. Although Vietnam currently has more than 600 newspapers, all are owned and controlled by the Party. Until now, no private newspaper has ever been allowed to appear. Vietnam has one of the strictest systems of control over public use of the Internet in the world. Many web sites with information on freedom and democracy are not available in Vietnam. The Vietnamese people do not have freedom of religion and worship. Religious organizations which were not established by the state, such as the Unified Buddhist Church of VietNam, the Hoa Hao Buddhist Church, the Cao Dai Congregation and the Mennonite Church of Vietnam, are all prohibited from operating. Many Buddhist monks and Christian priests are placed under ``administrative restrictions,'' i.e. under detention in their own pagodas or churches. Recently, due to pressure from the United States, the European Union, and other countries and international organizations, the Vietnamese government released some prisoners of conscience. Nevertheless, hundreds of political dissidents are still detained or placed under ``administrative restriction'' based on Decree 31-CP which allows anyone to be detained up to two years without a court order. Corruption in the Communist Party of Vietnam is at an epidemic level. Vietnam is classified as one of the most corrupt countries in the world but nobody within Vietnam dares to point that out because we don't have freedom of the press. The most corrupt people are high-ranking members of the Vietnamese Communist Party themselves. Despite legal restrictions, the Vietnamese people still seek real democracy and freedom. Among the appeals is the ``Call for Democracy for Vietnam'' issued by the Unified Vietnamese Buddhist Congregation in 2001, the ``Nine Steps towards Democracy in Vietnam'' by the Non-Violent Movement for Human Rights in 2005, and most recently the ``Declaration for Democracy and Freedom'' courageously released on April 8, 2006 by 118 private citizens inside Vietnam. Mr. President: You have said many times that spreading democracy is one of your great goals. We found it very encouraging when you said that you always side with those who fight for freedom in the world and will support them in this effort. We hope, therefore, that you will use your forthcoming visit to encourage the Communist leaders of Vietnam to adopt real democracy. In order to implement this policy, first and foremost they would have to discard Article 4 of the Vietnam constitution which gives absolute power to the Vietnam Communist Party, repeal the 31-CP Decree, release all political dissidents currently detained in prisons or under house arrest, and move resolutely in restoring the freedom of the press, freedom of religion, and freedom to form organizations and political parties, and freedom to stand for election. With our best wishes for a successful trip and for good health and happiness to you and Mrs. Bush, we remain, Yours most respectfully, Engineer Nguyen Phuong Anh (Hanoi). Retired Colonel Pham Que Duong (Hanoi). Engineer Bach Ngoc Duong (Hanoi). Lawyer Nguyen Van Dai (Hanoi). Catholic Father Nguyen Huu Giai (Thua Thien). Mr. Nguyen Thanh Giang, Ph.D. (Hanoi). Engineer Do Nam Hai (Saigon). Mr. Tran Van Hoa (Quang Ninh). Mr. Nguyen Ho (Former Labor Union Leader, Saigon). Professor Nguyen Chinh Ket (Saigon). Professor Tran Khue (Saigon). Retired Major Colonel Tran Anh Kim (Thai Binh). Mr. Le Quang Liem (Hoa Hao Buddhist Leader, Saigon). Catholic Father Phan Van Loi (Hue). Catholic Father Nguyen Van Ly (Hue). Mr. Cao Van Nham (Hai Phong). Lawyer Le Thi Cong Nhan (Hanoi). Pastor Ngo Hoai No (Evangelical Missionary League, Saigon). Technician Nguyen Phong (Hue). Pastor Nguyen Hong Quang (Mennonite Church of Vietnam, Saigon). Retired Army Officer Vu Cao Quan (Hai Phong). Mr. Nguyen Dan Que, MD (Saigon). Mr. Pham Hong Son, MD (Hanoi). Venerable Thich Nu Dam Thoa (Senior Buddhist Nun, Bac Giang). Writer Tran Khai Thanh Thuy (Hanoi). Writer Hoang Tien (Hanoi). Catholic Father Chan Tin (Saigon). Journalist Nguyen Khac Toan (Hanoi). Also let me note this: If not for the cause of freedom and justice, which we are supposedly fighting for in Iraq right now, we at least should back up our own military troops who gave their lives in Vietnam. The Vietnamese have never come clean with us on the POW issue. Ask Sam Johnson, who is one of our own colleagues. Yes, they have given us us the right to dig, but they have kept from us all of the prison records of those POWs who we knew were alive and in captivity. They have refused time and again. Until they come clean on POWs, until there is some reform that shows they are going in the right direction, it is wrong, it is morally wrong for us to extend this Permanent Normal Trading Status for this type of dictatorship. And, in fact, we know what it is all about. It is not trying to evolve Vietnam into a more democratic society. It is about our big businessmen sacrificing the interests of American workers by chasing cheap labor, cheap labor under dictatorships where they don't have a right to stand up for their own rights. I ask that this bill be defeated.

Mr. ROHRABACHER

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Speaker, I rise to pay tribute to a friend, a mentor, and a true hero of American liberty and a champion of liberty and justice for all of humankind. The death of economist and libertarian spokesman, Dr. Milton Friedman, last week silenced a powerful voice in the public debate over the role of individual liberty in our society. As a young man who first became active in politics while I was in high school in the mid-1960s, one of the very first writers who helped shaped my ideas was Milton Friedman in his classic work, ``Capitalism and Freedom.'' Its powerful message of a respect for individual liberty, private property, and limited government inspired me as a young activist in the Youth for Goldwater at that time, I might add, and then again a couple of years later in Youth for Reagan, and continued to guide me as I became a speech writer for President Ronald Reagan and a Member of the United States Congress. Dr. Milton Friedman was always a creative and innovative thinker. I might add, he was a decent and wonderful warm-hearted human being as well, a man who openly challenged the underlying premises of stateism and of socialism and of the authoritarian impulses that we have often found in politics. His critiques of government schooling, taxation policies, welfare state policies, Social Security, of agricultural subsidies and the rest, all of these predicted long ago the problems that we are having right now with those very same policies; of what they have brought upon our society, the challenges, the tremendous challenges we face because we used those policies and that model as a solution to uplifting the well-being of our fellow Americans. Last week Milton Friedman's voice was silenced by death, but as long as his writings are read and his ideas cherished, the principle of individual personal economic liberty will remain strong in the United States and around the world. And I would submit for the Record a statement, an exchange, between Milton Friedman and General Westmoreland over the issue of a volunteer Army and the draft. I would submit that for the Record as an example of the clear thinking and principles, I think, of Milton Friedman. In his testimony before the commission, Mr. Westmoreland said he did not want to command an army of mercenaries. Mr. Friedman interrupted, ``General, would you rather command an army of slaves?'' Mr. Westmoreland replied, ``I don't like to hear our patriotic draftees referred to as slaves.'' Mr. Friedman then retorted, ``I don't like to hear our patriotic volunteers referred to as mercenaries. If they are mercenaries, then I, sir, am a mercenary professor, and you, sir, are a mercenary general; we are served by mercenary physicians, we use a mercenary lawyer, and we get our meat from a mercenary butcher.''

Mr. ROHRABACHER

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.R. 5602 legislation to authorize the extension of nondiscriminatory treatment (normal trade relations treatment) to the products of Vietnam, and to establish a procedure for imposing quotas on imports of subsidized textile and apparel products of Vietnam. Mr. Speaker, as we speak American soldiers are dying in Iraq in support of a noble effort to create a democratic government. Why then are we about to give Permanent Normal Trading Treatment to the dictatorship in Vietnam, a cabal of gangsters and thugs that mercilessly prohibits in Vietnam and Laos any democracy, freedom of law, freedom of the press, and human and religious rights? The Vietnamese government has never come clean on the whereabouts of over 600 American soldiers who were left behind in Vietnam after the war. I'm not talking about granting us permission to dig for American remains, I'm talking about their refusal to hand over the prison documents of those men who we know were alive when we left Vietnam thirty years ago. Mr. Speaker, the same political party that forced us to cut and run from Vietnam has stubbornly refused to acknowledge the complete lack of freedom there and in Laos. It doesn't care if we retreat from Iraq just like we did from Vietnam, before the job is done. But what truly disturbs me is how the majority can go along with this and reward the thugs in Hanoi for what they did and continue to do to their own people and to the relatives of our veterans who never returned. Have we completely lost our moral compass? Is cheap labor so much more important than democracy, freedom of religion and supporting our soldiers and their families? Do we care anymore about freedom? Accordingly, I strongly urge my colleagues to reject this misconceived initiative that insults our troops and ignores the wishes of good people of Vietnam who want to live free from the thugs in Hanoi.

Mr. ROHRABACHER

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of my resolution, H. Res. 1016. I would like to thank Mr. Ehlers for his help in support of this bill, as well as Mr. Brady and Members on both sides of the aisle. It has taken considerable time and effort to get this bill to the floor, and I appreciate their help in bringing this matter tonight and making sure we get this done before the end of the session. Mr. Speaker, the war in Iraq and Afghanistan is being fought by American military personnel; and, as we know, many of them have been killed or wounded. In fact, there have been 21,263 wounded American military personnel during this conflict in Afghanistan and Iraq. That includes 468 amputees. To better illustrate that point, imagine every Member of this House plus 33 others have been wounded in Iraq or Afghanistan and that the wounds were serious enough to require amputation, and sometimes that meant amputating more than one limb. It is hard to comprehend the level of sacrifice and the recovery from such a loss. These brave warriors and their families must learn an entirely new way of life. Sometimes readjusting, finding one's place is as traumatic and as hurtful as the wound itself. Many of them worry about how they will work and what kind of life they can provide for themselves and for their families. My resolution, H. Res. 1016, will enable us, Members of the United States Congress, to help disabled veterans directly. We should serve as an example to other government agencies and to private-sector employers. We need to send an unmistakable message that every disabled veteran should have the opportunity to work at a decent-paying job and that they can this way adjust and bring themselves back into this community as they heal and come home. This resolution coordinates the House Administration Committee and the CAO to find qualified disabled veterans to fill open positions in our House offices. Congress has two important obligations when sending America's defenders into harm's way. The first is to ensure that those soldiers have the necessary training, equipment and resources to get the job done and come home safely. The second is to ensure that when these heroes come home, especially if they have been severely wounded, that their wounds are cared for and once they are healed, there are adequate avenues available to ensure them a decent life, especially the personal and professional satisfaction of a real job. I would challenge my colleagues to achieve the following goal: by the end of the next year, every congressional office should employ at least one disabled veteran. Not only would these veterans benefit from these jobs, but we would benefit greatly from the unique perspective that these heroes would bring to our offices. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank Mr. Clifford Heinz for bringing to my attention disturbing news stories regarding returning veterans. I also thank the majority whip, Mr. Blunt, for his hard work in helping to move this resolution to the floor for the vote. We must ensure that the returning veterans from this war are treated with the dignity and honor, that it is the dignity and honor that they have earned and deserve. This resolution is an important first step in what I know will be a continued effort by this Congress to say thank you to the disabled veterans who have paid a price beyond the call of duty and never fully repaid. Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to support this resolution and to take seriously the challenge of personally hiring a disabled veteran for their office. I ask them to support H. Res. 1016.

Mr. ROHRABACHER

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of House Resolution 1030. Let me just note that platitudes are not enough. When it really counts, the Border Patrol does need our support, and that includes building a fence, which some people who perhaps would be happy to sing the praises of the Border Patrol are not willing to help them with something that they consider to be essential to securing their job. Tonight, we are commending the service of 12,000 men and women of the U.S. Border Patrol. They are, in fact, performing an invaluable service on our border, putting their lives on the line daily to protect us, all of us. They are protecting us from the effects of illegal immigration which are being felt in my State dramatically. They are protecting us from drug smugglers, human traffickers, and, yes, terrorists. Yet, as we declare our support today for these brave people who have been protecting us, we should note that this administration, that this administration's U.S. Attorney's Office has targeted two U.S. Border Patrol agents, Ignacio Ramos and Jose Compean. The U.S. Attorney's Office has destroyed their careers and destroyed their lives and thrown their families into turmoil. This administration, which has a questionable record on border security, has decided to throw the book at these two agents seeking the harshest possible punishment. What for? For procedural violations that should have only resulted in a reprimand and this now has been turned into felonies by the U.S. Attorney's Office. To say that Ramos and Compean have been treated unjustly and unfairly is an understatement. Adding insult to injury, the U.S. Attorney's Office has granted immunity to the Mexican drug dealer, the smuggler who these two officers intercepted. This criminal alien was caught with 743 pounds of marijuana, and the U.S. Attorney's Office has treated this criminal as if he were a victim. At the same time, the book was thrown at our border patrol agents. I will submit for the Record, Mr. Speaker, my letter to the Attorney General regarding this outrageous case. The brutal treatment of the two border guards has demoralized our Border Patrol agents. I hope as we sing our praises today, that we understand that we are, yes, grateful to all of these people who protect us at the border, including the two Border Patrol agents that are now under attack. In the meantime, let the case of Border Patrol agents Ramos and Compean be revisited and the outrageous criminal charges against them dropped. Congress of the United States, House of Representatives, September 21, 2006. Hon. Alberto R. Gonzales, Attorney General of the United States, Washington, DC. Dear Mr. Attorney General: I am writing today to ask you to personally intervene in the prosecution of U.S. Border Patrol Agents Compean and Ramos. This proceeding has garnered national attention calling into question the Administration's commitment to secure our borders and demoralizing the frontline men and women of the U.S. Border Patrol. I have examined the statement by U.S. Attorney Johnny Sutton regarding the conviction of Border Patrol agents Compean and Ramos. It is disturbing to see that the limited resources available for investigation and prosecution were directed not at drug smugglers, but rather aimed at two veteran border patrol agents. These agents, who have risked their lives guarding our borders, did not follow the prescribed procedure concerning the discharge of their weapons. However, their lapse of compliance occurred during a tumultuous confrontation with an illegal immigrant, a criminal who was in the process of smuggling 743 pounds of illegal drugs into the United States. Subsequently, the agents did not fully report what had happened, which also violated standard operating procedures. Such violations certainly deserve a reprimand. Instead of a measured response, the U.S. Attorney has demanded the harshest possible punishment on two otherwise outstanding Border Patrol agents. There seems to be an uncompromising commitment to bring down these two border guards, while an illegal drug smuggler is being treated with great respect and elevated to the status of victim. If there ever was a classic example of distorted priorities, this it. As to the specifics of the case: The two border agents intercepted a suspicious vehicle. The driver fled on foot, running toward the border. Officer Compean, armed with a shotgun, cut off the drug smuggler. A witness heard someone yell ``hit him, hit him'' and then Compean shouted for the fleeing criminal to stop. Officer Compean could have shot him at close range. Instead, he refrained from deadly force by using the butt of his shotgun. A struggle ensued with Officer Compean ending up on the ground with dirt in his eyes, rendering the Officer vulnerable and at risk. Officer Ramos, seeing his partner laying bloodied on the ground, only then shot at the assailant as he ran toward the border. The fleeing criminal was wounded in the buttocks as he raced away from the altercation. After the incident the officers did not report the discharging of their weapons and failure to do so was a violation of standard operation procedures. Furthermore, they attempted to conceal this mistake, which dug them in even deeper. Bad decisions or mistakes are never easy to acknowledge to superiors. The desire to cover up bad decisions is a human temptation and always makes an error even worse. Nevertheless, the Herculean prosecutorial effort and huge allocation of time and resources mobilized against Officers Compean and Ramos was not justified. Nor was the prosecution's demand for a sentence that could put these two officers in prison for 20 years. This action will destroy not only their careers, but the lives of two veteran patrol agents and their families. The statement made by U.S. Attorney Sutton is not persuasive enough to warrant the severity of the penalty being sought against Officers Compean and Ramos. Did the two officers make a mistake? Yes. Did they violate procedures, not report those errors, and then obscure the facts? Yes. Does this case justify a severe reprimand, or perhaps a month-long suspension? Yes. Does it justify the egregious legal retaliation demanded by the U.S. Attorney?

Mr. ROHRABACHER

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this legislation which will further the cause of civilian nuclear cooperation with India, and I would like to thank Mr. Lantos and Chairman Hyde for the work that they put into this, again demonstrating the bipartisan cooperation that is possible even in the arena of international affairs which sometimes gets rather testy. Let me note that the United States-India relations got off to a very bad start shortly after India became independent of Great Britain. India basically sided with Russia in the Cold War. Well, the Cold War is over, and we should be making up for lost time, which is exactly what this bill is all about. This is dramatically in the interests of both of our countries. Economically, a prosperous, democratic India with an expanding middle class is a dream market for American entrepreneurs, manufacturers and, yes, technologists. This agreement is designed to provide India the energy it needs to achieve its economic goals but in a way that will not damage America or other western democracies' economy by fencing off and consuming limited energy resources or using high-pollution energy resources of their own. The high-temperature gas reactor, my subcommittee had a hearing on this, noting that there are new nuclear alternatives like the high- temperature gas reactor and other type of nuclear power systems that offer a safe method of providing India the energy it needs to uplift the standard of living of its people. This legislation is pro- prosperity, pro-energy; and, if we are vigilant, it will not be contrary to the interests of the nonproliferation movement. But it is up to us to work with India to make sure that nonproliferation remains a high priority for our countries, both of us together. Finally, let me note, Mr. Chairman, that we need to have a strong relationship for it with India, yes, with Japan and, yes, with the former Soviet Union, if we are to have peace in this world. There is a danger looming in the future. Hopefully, China will some day democratize. Until then, we must have alliances with the world's democracies like India in order to preserve the peace of the world.

Mr. ROHRABACHER

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Madam Speaker, I rise in support of this resolution. And let me note to my friend, Mr. Ackerman, that we understand that quite often throughout history, an accurate description of history and a look at history will show that there have been many sins committed against the Jewish people, and perhaps we can say the most recent one is the one that we are just now discussing with these rocket attacks. But let us also realize that there have been sins committed against the Palestinian people as well. They are people, and they were there. And this is a dispute, this is a dispute between the Palestinians and the Israeli people that is being exploited by outsiders. Let me say that in the past when Israel has been in the wrong I have not hesitated to criticize Israel. This is not one of those occasions. Israel is not in the wrong. And while we recognize there are people who have done good things and bad things, that there are heroes and sinners on both sides of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, tonight we are talking about a situation that was created intentionally by those people who launched rockets on Israel and left the people of Israel with no other choice but to respond militarily. Those people who launched those rockets on Israel knew exactly what they were doing. In fact, about a month ago the word was spread that Hamas was on the verge of cutting a deal with Israel. Then elements in Hamas and Hezbollah ratcheted up the violence specifically to undermine any opportunity for peace in the region. Peace will not be achieved in the Middle East unless we are bold enough not just to condemn terrorism, the terrorism specifically that leads to the type of violence and bloodshed and chaos that is now evident in the Middle East, but we must also back those who act when confronted with this type of violence, and in this case it behooves us to back Israel in what they are doing today as a result of those rockets and those attacks that were made upon Israeli citizens. Our sights, however, should not just be set on Hamas and Hezbollah. The rockets that slammed into Israel were made in China. They were provided to the terrorists who launched them by the mullah regime in Iran. Long ago, we should have been supporting those pro-democratic elements in Iran which totally reject the corruption, repression, incompetence, and, yes, terrorist aggression of the feudalistic mullahs who rule over them. Now is the time for us to back those democratic elements in Iran and put the Iranians on the defensive, rather than letting them supply missiles to undermine peace in the Middle East.

Mr. ROHRABACHER

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this bill, and it does pain me to be on the other side of a piece of legislation that so many of my friends are advocating so sincerely on the other side. Mr. Chairman, I yield to no one in my commitment to the Pledge of Allegiance, and the Pledge of Allegiance that includes the words ``under God.'' However, it does not follow that the appropriate way to deal with this issue is to strip Federal courts of their jurisdiction to hear cases relating to the Pledge of Allegiance. First of all, I don't believe that my colleagues who support H.R. 2389 realize the consequences of this bill, even though we just had a discussion about what those consequences might be. H.R. 2389 does not strip State and local courts from jurisdiction related to the Pledge, only the Federal courts, and specifically strips the U.S. Supreme Court of its ability to overrule State supreme courts in this matter. So, for example, if the highest court in a State like Massachusetts rules that it is unconstitutional under the Constitution for the State schools to start their day with a Pledge of Allegiance, including the words, ``under God,'' H.R. 2389 would prohibit the U.S. Supreme Court from overturning that decision. Such a result would be ironically and supremely counter to the stated goals of this bill's proponents. But that is what would become the result of this language becoming law. Members on my side of the aisle should seriously consider the consequences of the precedents that are being set. Republican support for court-stripping makes it that much easier for the other side to someday strip a conservative Supreme Court of jurisdiction on an issue paramount to our liberty. For example, if our judges on the Court remain devoted to the second amendment, rather than upholding a universal gun ban that is put into place by a future President and Congress, and the other party, they will accuse our President of stripping the court in order to get their way. Here we are neutering our ability to have protections for the constitutional things we believe in the future, in order to achieve a temporary, I might even say a political, goal in the Pledge of Allegiance. The supporters of H.R. 2389 will come to regret this day when they are being quoted by some future liberal Congress in order to strip the Court of a decision made to protect our liberties. Mr. Chairman, let us consider the long-term consequences of our actions and let us look before we leap. I would suggest that we vote ``no'' on this. That is the Reagan and conservative position.

Mr. ROHRABACHER

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the King amendment. Mandating election materials and ballots be provided in languages other than English is a travesty and will lead to no good for this country and no good for the people who supposedly we are trying to help. It is a horrible, long-term attack on the unity of the United States of America. When we come from various ethnic groups and races, what unites us, it is our language, the English language. We are hurting America by making it easier for people not to learn English. We are hurting those people by giving them an incentive not to learn English. This is multiculturalism at its worst. Bilingual ballots ought to be made history.

Mr. ROHRABACHER

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of this legislation. I have represented a southern California coastal district for 18 years. There has never been an oil spill caused by an offshore rig, and we have had offshore oil drilling off my district for decades. The one spill we had that polluted our coast came from a tanker. Those who vote against offshore oil development are basically making us more dependent on tankers, which are dramatically more likely to spill oil upon our shores. As a scuba diver and one of the two active surfers in Congress, I suggest to those opposing offshore oil development, get real. What you are advocating will make us more dependent on tankers. Thus, we will are more likely to have oil spills. Cloaking your positions in environmental rhetoric does not make it so. You are making us more likely to have oil spills by making us more dependent on tankers. Support offshore oil development and a strong, independent American energy sector.

Mr. ROHRABACHER

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Chairman, we have people out there, not just Lyn Nofziger but others, and my mother suffered. I remember how she lost her appetite after suffering a debilitating disease in which she had to go through treatments. This is a travesty to use scarce Federal resources. Join this coalition of people who are Republicans and Democrats who believe in federalism, who believe in compassion and believe in personal liberty. Let doctors prescribe these things, not Federal Government bureaucrats.

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Hinchey-Rohrabacher amendment. Our amendment would prohibit any funds made available in this act to the Department of Justice from being used to prevent the implementation of legally passed State laws in those 11 States authorizing the use of marijuana for medical purposes. Our coalition of freedom-minded Republicans and Democrats on this issue is based on compassion for those who are suffering, a commitment to personal liberty and a firm belief in the principles of federalism. The use of marijuana to relieve the pain of victims of a wide variety of medical conditions is well known and increasingly documented in the media and in medical journals. For many of these people, medical science has not been able to relieve their pain. Just recently a friend of mine and a friend of many years passed away, Lyn Nofziger, and many of you here probably know him. He was Ronald Reagan's first press secretary. I went to see him after he got out of the hospital with his treatments for cancer. He had his good days and his bad days. I saw him about a week before he died. And I asked Lyn about it, and he said, yes, sometimes it is bad, and other times it is not, but I could not get myself to eat, and I had the pain no matter what they did for me. And I said, well, did you ever try that medical marijuana that we have been talking about and debating about? And he got a twinkle in his eye, and he said, yes, I did. And it brought my appetite back, and I slept like a baby. Do not tell me that we should have Federal law enforcement people come into a State where the people have voted to approve that if a doctor agrees and get in the way of Lyn Nofziger or anyone else who is suffering and use Federal money and Federal resources that should be going to fight crime in order to create that obstacle. That is a travesty. Individuals who live in the 11 States affected by the amendment have been granted by the voters of these States the legal right to use marijuana to alleviate their pain if a doctor agrees. If the voters have so voted and a doctor agrees, it is a travesty for the government to intercede, the Federal Government, allocating our scarce resources to fighting this, getting in the way of someone using something to alleviate their suffering. This is something which should be left to the States as American tradition dictates. Sandra Day O'Connor stated it best, and she stated that States should serve as a laboratory so that people can try certain new ideas out to see how they work. Well, the Federal Government should not get in the way of what is going on in these 11 States to see how this works. The most recent decision of the Supreme Court has thrown the ball into the hands of the U.S. Congress. Paul Stevens, Justice Paul Stevens, made it clear: the voices of the voters may one day be heard in the Halls of Congress on behalf of legalizing marijuana. Eleven States have already acted. I would hope you would all join us for the principles of federalism, compassion and individual liberty and not get in the way of the people who are suffering.

Mr. ROHRABACHER

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Chairman, this is our opportunity to state whether or not we believe that the United States of America is benefited by bilingualism. In every other country of the world where we have permitted and they have actually promoted bilingualism, it has led to divisiveness and balkanization of countries and hatred between peoples. One of the things that has created the unity of our country that is made up of so many different ethnic groups, so many different races, so many different religions, has been the English language. We are not doing anyone a favor by making it easier for them not to speak English. We are, in fact, doing a great disservice to those least fortunate people and those immigrants who come to our country by not encouraging them, by not giving them the incentive to learn English. It is a crime against those people and against their children. More than this, what we have here is an expensive mandate. In my county, we have five different languages that are mandated, and two more on the way. In L.A. County, there are 10 different languages, an enormous expense in order to produce ballots and ballot measures and the descriptions of those measures for the population. What are we doing this for? In the long run, it is damaging to our country. Vote against bilingualism. Support the Stearns amendment. If States want to do it, let them go ahead, but the Federal Government should not be mandating this and putting this burden on the States, something that, again, hurts the very people that they are claiming it is trying to help and will definitely in the long run hurt the United States as it keeps us divided into groups, rather than bringing us together as our Founding Fathers suggested that they wanted to have in the first place. Vote against bilingualism. Vote for the Stearns amendment.

Mr. ROHRABACHER

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote, and pending that, I make the point of order that a quorum is not present.

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Chairman, I rise to offer this amendment for the purpose of bringing equitable treatment to people who have inadvertently been made subject to the National Flood Insurance Program by the unintended consequences of a Federal flood control project. This amendment protects families who have been included in a flood zone due to the completion of a Federal flood control project in Southern California. I have seen this situation firsthand, where homeowners were required to purchase flood insurance, even though the home in which they reside and have lived in for decades has never been subject to flood insurance before. Ironically, this new flood insurance obligation came after the completion of a massive flood control project within sight of their own home. The Santa Ana River Mainstream Project is a multi-billion dollar Army Corps of Engineers flood control project in California's Orange and San Bernardino Counties. As a consequence of this Federal project, new flood maps were redrawn. These redrawn maps designated hundreds of households to be at risk of flooding which were not previously so classified. Many of these fixed-income residents cannot readily afford the newly required flood insurance and must choose between the new costly insurance and other necessities of life. This downside, of course, does not diminish the tremendous good that has come from this and other flood control projects. In my district alone, the Santa Ana River Mainstream Project has made thousands of families safer and guarded billions of dollars' worth of homes and other properties from damage and destruction, all of this achieved by the Army Corps of Engineers on time and under budget. So I applaud the Army Corps' dedication and professionalism and would like to thank them for a job well done. Those people in the floodplain have seen their insurance bills eliminated or reduced. That said, it is still important not to accomplish something good for many at the expense of a small, yet significant, part of our community. As I have said, for some local people, upon completion of the flood control project, their flood liability inexplicably shot sky high. My amendment addresses this unfortunate and unintended consequence. Under my amendment, homeowners not included in a flood zone prior to a Federal project but who become included in a Federal flood zone because of that project will be issued flood insurance at no cost to them. Households that were included in a flood zone prior to a Federal project but are put at greater flood risk because of the project will be provided flood insurance at a price formula that was in place before the Federal project was completed. This is the least we can do to help these people out, making them whole, due to their suffering from a Federal project, especially when we realize that their neighbors enjoy the benefits of this Federal project in the form of lower or no insurance premiums and end up with safer houses and safer homes. Mr. Chairman, we shouldn't be making a small group bear a huge burden in order to accomplish something good. My amendment will prevent the unintended harm done to a few as a result of a flood control project aimed at helping many. So I ask my colleagues to support this fairness amendment. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself my final 30 seconds. Mr. Chairman, let me just note we have a chance to undo a grave injustice here. Some people, yes, have large homes. Some people have small homes who have been done this injustice. It is wrong, it is unjust to take money from people and force them into a flood insurance program when they had bought their property based on totally different circumstances and we have changed the circumstances on them. This is not fair. We have a chance to rectify it now. We can sit here and argue what budget it should come out of. That doesn't do them any good. We need to try to rectify the situation for hundreds of homes in my area where the homeowners bought property knowing that it was not under flood risk, and we, through our actions, put them in jeopardy.

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Do you think if we have imposed a liability on someone, and they have not in any way contributed to that, that we should then----

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute. Mr. Chairman, we are not talking about establishing policy here. This is not the government's money or the program's money. We are talking about the people's money. The money comes directly from people's pockets. I personally think a lot of people out there will personally resent being called affluent or what you hinted at, more affluent people. Let me note for my colleague many people affected by this are lower- middle-income people who live in trailers and the like. Why should we have these people pay a hefty penalty in order to help other people? All they know is that the Federal Government has established policies that end up costing them, perhaps the money they need for their children, perhaps the money they need for their grandchildren. These are the policies we are establishing for a small group of people. That is unfair, and we should not condone those policies. This will not put at risk the insurance program. It will make it fairer, and it will mean in the future that these things will have to be taken into consideration instead of just robbing some small group of citizens. I reserve the balance of my time.