Opening Statement: Senate Judiciary Committee, Border Patrol Agents Compean and Ramos
Statement
Opening Statement: Senate Judiciary Committee, Border Patrol Agents Compean and Ramos
SEN. JOHN CORNYN (R-TX): Thank you, Madame Chairman.
I know we have Senator Kyl, the ranking member of the subcommittee, here. I have an opening statement, but I'd be glad to -- I want to express my gratitude to you, Senator Feinstein, and to Chairman Leahy for scheduling this hearing.
We've been hoping that this day would come for a long time, and I'm glad it's here. I know you've taken a serious interest in this case, as have I, and I look forward to hearing the testimony today.
The United States Senate has just completed two rounds of debate on comprehensive immigration reform, and I believe the latest effort failed, in large part, because the American people from across the political spectrum simply don't have confidence in the government's commitment to enforce the law, be it at the border, in the interior, or at the workplace. I think the public's interest in the case of Border Patrol Agent Ramos and Border Patrol Agent Compean is symptomatic of that distrust, because the public sees two Border Patrol agents serving long prison sentences while an admitted drug dealer goes free. So I think this hearing will serve an important purpose because it will air for the American people the first time -- for the first time publicly, in this venue, the facts of the case so they can hear them and they can make a judgment for themselves about the most controversial aspects of the case.
We all know that law enforcement officers hold a special place in our criminal justice system. Anyone who can arrest someone and throw them in jail holds enormous power and must be held to account when they act improperly because, of course, no one is above the law. At the same time, it's important to remember that a law enforcement officer should be treated no worse than any other citizen before the bar of justice. In other words, no special breaks, no special burdens, by virtue of their status as a law enforcement officer.
It's in this light that I've developed some serious concerns about the judgment calls made during the prosecution of this case. I want to find out if the prosecution offered the drug dealer -- find out if the prosecution allowed the drug dealer to violate the terms of his immunity agreement without consequences. Did the drug dealer commit perjury without consequence? Did the government feel the need to prosecute these two agents, as opposed to disciplinary action, to a degree that they were willing to provide the drug dealer unlimited and unescorted parole visas for various 30-day periods to do who-knows- what, including possibly transporting additional narcotics? Did the government use the threat of severe criminal charges in a vindictive manner -- that is, did the government bring that charge only after the agents declined to negotiate a plea agreement? And ultimately, is this the regular practice at the Department of Justice such that they could have been made cases -- such that they would have been made the case in -- cases against non-police officers?
These questions are not designed to quibble with the jury's decision in the case. Jurors provide a critical function in our judicial system, and their hard work and verdicts are to be respected, until and unless such time as they are reversed on appeal. But the jury can only weigh evidence that they actually hear and are allowed to consider. I would note that the jurors, some jurors, have since come forward to state that the evidence that they were prevented from hearing would have changed that verdict. Rather, my questions are designed to examine whether the prosecution of Agents Ramos and Compean were handled the same as other defendants,' or were they treated differently because of their status as law enforcement officers?
Madame Chair, I thank you again for your perseverance and your willingness to convene this hearing, and I look forward to hearing the testimony of the witnesses.
Source