Category: Uncategorized

By Rep. Spencer Bachus (R-AL)
Congressional Record
June 12, 2007 (H6314)

Mr. Chairman, I have a question I think the American people would like answered. It is a question that has not been asked tonight. We know ]House Appropriations Committee Chairman David Obey (D-WI)], and we know he has taken a position that he is not going to publish or disclose these earmarks [for the DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2008]. He has expressed his opinion.

What we don’t know, Mr. Chairman, is, the Speaker is not sitting in the Chair and we don’t know where the Speaker stands on this whole procedure. We do know that the majority leader said that all earmarks would be published, there would be complete transparency. We know that he said in committee they would be debated. We know that the Speaker on a number of occasions, I think we have all seen those quotes, we have heard a few tonight, the Speaker make it clear during the campaign and after the campaign that all earmarks would be disclosed prior to any vote on the House floor.

So, Mr. Chairman, I believe it is incumbent on the Speaker to come before this body and address the body and tell the body whether or not the procedure that we are witnessing, whether it is chairman of the Appropriations Committee has taken this on himself, whether he is doing it on his own accord, whether he has polled the Democrat Members to see where they stand.

But more important, we want to know where the Speaker stands. We want to know whether the Speaker consulted with the chairman, whether she has blessed this. We know what she said in USA Today. We know what she said in the Christian Science Monitor and what she said in a news conference just last month. We know that in a press conference on March 13, 2007, she specifically said that all earmarks would be made public before a vote on the House floor. We know that, so it is a mystery to us why we are going through this process.

Now, the chairman of the full committee said back in 1999 there was a bill, one bill, that the Republican majority did not publish the earmarks before the vote on the floor. We know that is part of his reason for doing this. But we also know that the Speaker of the House told the American people that this would never happen as long as she was Speaker. And she, as a late as a month ago, said there would be no votes on the House floor on an appropriations bill where earmarks were not published.

In fact, the gentleman from Illinois, the majority whip, says, if possible, we are going to put them on the Internet weeks before we vote on them on the House floor. They are not on the Internet. We don’t know how many earmarks there will be, what earmarks are under consideration, the total amount of those earmarks.

But more importantly, we do know one thing, Mr. Chairman, we know that the Speaker of this House, the Speaker of this House said that this wouldn’t happen. She said it many times on many occasions, both during the campaign when she asked the American people to turn the Republicans out and put the Democrats in.

And we know that from exit polls that many people went to the polls on election day with that promise in mind; and they voted for Democrats who now serve in this body under the assurance that this wouldn’t happen, and it is happening.

Now, we know that the chairman of the full committee, we know his position. He said we just have to do. He talks about what we have done and what they have done. The important thing is the American people.

In fact, earlier tonight on one of the news network, it was not Fox, they asked: Where does Speaker Pelosi stand on this? The American people are asking, where does the leadership of the majority stand on this issue?

That is my question, Mr. Chairman. I would ask that before we proceed in this body, that the Speaker of this House come before this body and not tell, I don’t care if she tells Republicans, I don’t care if she further explains to Democrats, I want her to tell the American people why, only 3 weeks after promising that earmarks would be fully disclosed both in committee and on the floor of this House, that we backed away from this.

By Rep. David Obey (D-WI)
Congressional Record
June 12, 2007 (H6315)

We had crocodile tears expressed here about the number of earmarks and what will happen to earmarks. Let me cite the record.

In 1994, the last year when Democrats controlled the House, earmarks were primarily concentrated in four appropriation bills. They were project-oriented bills like military construction, energy and water, Interior and general government. This Homeland Security bill had not even come to pass yet because it was before 9/11.

In the Labor-Health-Education appropriation bill the last year that the Democrats controlled, we had zero earmarks. The last year under Republican control that we had earmarks in the Labor-H bill, we had over 3,000.

In the Transportation bill, the authorizing bill, from 1956 through 1995, we had 20 separate highway bills pass this House containing a total of 739 earmarks. Do you know how many we had, Mr. Chairman, in 2005 under Republican control in just one bill? Five thousand.

Then we all remember the infamous 3-hour vote on Medicare part D.

I would ask my colleagues on this side of the aisle to keep this civil. If the other side wants to turn it into a circus, fine, but I think we ought to behave.

Let me say, we remember Medicare part D when the Republican leadership kept the vote open for 3 hours. Meanwhile, the newspaper stories told of how they promised earmarks in the transportation bill in return for votes on Medicare part D.

Last year, we had three major scandals. We had the Cunningham affair, then we had the bridge-to-nowhere, which caused a lot of heartburn around the country; and now, just recently, we have another story suggesting that the committee chairman then, the gentleman from Alaska, inserted a project for Florida.

Under Republican rules, as they existed then, nobody knew about any of that until about 2 years after the fact. Under the proposal that we are proposing for earmarks, you would know about that 30 days before they went into effect. That is a huge difference.

Let me also point out, in 1994, the four biggest appropriation bills that’s Commerce-Justice, Labor, Transportation and VA-HUD. The last year the Democrats controlled the House, in 1994, the four major appropriations bills, Commerce-Justice, Labor-Health, Transportation and VA, we had a total of 764 earmarks. Those same bills, just one fiscal year ago, had 8,600 earmarks.

With all due respect, I don’t want to hear any crocodile tears on the other side of the aisle with respect to the issue of earmarks. They have exploded under their operation of this House, not under ours.

In terms of what’s going on tonight, I should make quite clear that the gentleman from California (Mr. Lewis) told me in January that the minority party would give us no procedural cooperation because they didn’t like the way we had handled a continuing resolution. They wanted us to have a straight CR rather than thinking our way through priorities. Now they have simply moved on to another excuse.

So I would simply say, whether you vote for the underlying amendment or for the amendment to the amendment, these are not real amendments. It is clear to me that they have only one purpose, to bring this House to a halt, and they are looking for any excuse they can find.

They got a mighty weak one, but we are going to stay here until the job is done. This is the people’s business. We are not going to be diverted by their trying to play Trivial Pursuit on this bill.

---

By Rep. Don Young (R-AL)
Congressional Record
June 12, 2007 (H6315)

I have voted every time to continue our process against my leadership. I was not going to say anything, but when you referr
ed
to the bridge-to-nowhere as a scandal, when you voted for it four times, most of the people in this room voted for it four times. It was always transparent. I was always proud of my earmarks. I believe in earmarks, always have, as long as they are exposed.

But don’t you ever call that a scandal.

---

By Rep. John Shadegg (R-AZ)
Congressional Record
June 12, 2007 (H6316)

You can accept those facts tonight and change the procedure. The majority can accept that fact tomorrow and change the procedure. The majority can accept that fact next week and change the procedure, but the procedure will change.

I have the greatest respect for the chairman of the Appropriations Committee. I admire his energy, his tenacity and his passion. I understand that he believes he has proposed a fair system. I understand that he has just recited for us a history lesson about how earmarks were handled in the past.

But I would suggest to you that time moves on. The American people now understand earmarks in a way they did not understand. The American people understand earmarks, and they understand this process, and they cannot be fooled. You cannot take the process for disclosing earmarks and make those earmarks public after the bill has been debated.

There is not a constituent of yours that believes that makes sense. The American people understand that some people in this body believe earmarks are very good, and some people in this body believe earmarks can be very bad and very corrupt.

They are in unanimity on one point, and that is, they want to know what’s in those earmarks. That means those earmarks have to be debated on this floor.

Now, I understand that the gentleman who is the chairman of the Appropriations Committee believes that he can just vet them, and he can post them in August, but that obviates the most important part of this process. We do not engage in this process by adding language to bills, critical language to bill language that the American people don’t get to see or know about after debate has occurred.

We didn’t tell the American people that we would make the process open this year, that we would disclose every earmark and allow every earmark to be debated, because we don’t run the place.

You run the place. You’re in the majority.

Email and attachment from Jay Johnson-Castro.

We all know…Attorney General, Alberto Gonzalez is under the gun in Congress…

He also may be the key to the “for profit” prisons and the rounding up of the helpless and humble immigrants. Is he blocking investigations into the grip corruption has on the incarceration of tens of thousands of immigrants…and hundreds of thousands of otherwise minor offenders?
Most of you know that we did a walk and a vigil at the Raymondville, Willacy Co., TX “for profit” concentration camp where 2,000 helpless immigrants and asylum seekers are imprisoned in inhumane conditions.

Right not…the most hardened and callous criminals are not those on the inside of the “for profit” prisons…so much as those who propose, finance, build and operate the prison camps…along with their politically corrupt puppets who get them approved. These criminals are running the prisons, literally robbing we the taxpayers of thousands of millions of dollars, on the pretext that they are protecting our society…from criminals…and terrorist. That’s why the lock up “illegals” for profit. The real illegality is that they are getting away with crime.

Attached is an article by one of the most genuine journalists I know, Steve Taylor, editor of the Rio Grande Guardian (www.riograndeguardian.com. You have to subscribe to his news service…but I’ve fudged and have copied and attached it here.) It is an interview with the Willacy Co. D.A., Juan Guerra. It exposes the flow of the continuous corruption that the current administration is involved in…all the way down to the local level.

If you know anyone who is concerned about “for profit” prisons…you do not need to look much further. Just look at the national dumping ground of the weak and helpless…the rejects of the current administration. They’re sent to the Rio Grande region…the most neglected part of Texas and the entire U.S.A. Look at the politicos who are woven into the flow of corruption. Who is Gonzalez REALLY protecting?

If you are concerned about the prison system in this country…if you ache over the flagrant violation of human rights, the prison rape, the corruption…then this is the smoking gun. Help us with Raymondville, Willacy County, TX…and we’ll discover everything else we need to know. And then…we can free the innocent and the helpless…and put the criminals on the inside…instead of running the prisons for profit.

Jay
jay@villadelrio.com

*********************

By Steve Taylor
Rio Grande Guardian

RAYMONDVILLE – Willacy County District Attorney Juan Guerra wants Congress to investigate whether the office of U.S. Attorney General Alberto Gonzales stopped a federal investigation that he says was making “good progress” into a number of suspect federal prison contracts.

“I think Congress has a right to know if there was an obstruction of justice because we have not yet seen justice in Willacy County,” Guerra said. “All we have seen is a federal investigation blocked. Let’s take a closer look at these multi-million dollar prison contracts. The taxpayer has a right to know.”

Guerra looks as though his wish will be granted as U.S. Rep. Solomon Ortiz, D-Corpus Christi, has asked him to go to Washington, D.C., to brief House members and staff. The visit could lead to Guerra testifying before the House Judiciary Committee.

Ortiz has met with Guerra in person in Corpus Christi and participated in a number of teleconference calls on the subject.

“You bring up a very serious matter – one that involves a federal facility, federal prisoners, and the sale of bonds,” Ortiz wrote, in an April 20 letter to Guerra. “This requires the sort of insight available only from a congressional committee.”

Ortiz said he had referred Guerra’s letter to the House Judiciary Committee, which has oversight of federal prisons and prisoners.

“While our Judiciary Committees in Congress have been quite busy lately with the revelations associated with the firings of eight U.S. prosecutors, I know this is a matter in which they will have a strong interest,” Ortiz said.

“I understand you have already spoken to the Judiciary Committee staff which is interested in documentation of these matters, and I look forward to seeing you here in Washington to personally brief committee staff and other members about the matters you attest to in your letter to me.”

Guerra wants to know why an investigation by Assistant U.S. Attorney Jim McAlister has “gone cold.” Nancy Herrera, a spokeswoman for Donald J. DeGabrielle, Jr., the U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of Texas, told the Guardian that the Justice Department cannot confirm or deny whether an investigation has been closed.

“Everything seemed to be going well with the federal investigation,” Guerra said. “Three county commissioners involved in the prison contract had been sentenced.”

Guerra pointed out that at a hearing last November, McAlister asked if one of the county commissioners, David Cortez, could be given probation because he was cooperating well with the federal investigation.

“McAlister gave the distinct impression that someone else, higher up the food chain, would fall as a result of Cortez’s cooperation,” Guerra said. “A week later, McAlister told me in private the investigation was over. I was stunned.”

Guerra said he has made good chronological notes for Ortiz and his congressional colleagues.

The first contract was awarded to Corplan Corrections in late 1999 by Willacy county commissioners. The 500-bed prison facility was estimated at $15 million, with a no-bid contract provision.

Guerra said he remembers Cortez, a county commissioner from Webb County, and state Sen. Eddie Lucio, D-Brownsville, presenting themselves to commissioners as consultants for Corplan, whose president was James Parkey.

Willacy County’s commissioners at the time were Judge Simon Salinas, Alfredo Serrato, Jose Jimenez, Noe Loya and Israel Tamez. Jimenez, Loya, and Tamez voted for the project. Salinas and Serrato voted against because of the no-bid clause.

“The bonds were to be sold by Municipal Capital Markets, whose president was Michael W. Harling,” Guerra said. “The construction company was Hale Mills, Inc., and the operator was Management & Training Corporation, whose president was R. Scott Marquant.”

According to its Web site, Municipal Capital Markets, a Dallas-based underwriting company, has financed 42 state and county owned correctional facilities. “One of the questions I have for Congress is whether Municipal Capital Markets made $3 million out of Willacy County,” Guerra said. “That’s a lot of money.”

The PFC Corporation set up to sell the bonds had Armando Rubalcaba, the county auditor, as president. The federal prison opened two years later, with the county getting $2 per diem per inmate.

Guerra said that in June 2003, Parkey, representing Corplan, appeared before Willacy county commissioners with a similar project. This time, Willacy County would build the jail and contract with the federal government to house federal inmates.

The project was estimated to be about $8 million, again with a no-bid contract. “The same players were involved except that Larry Spence, our local sheriff, would manage the prison, not MTC,” Guerra said. “Again, Rubalcaba was named president of the PFC Corporation. The facility opened about two years later.”

Guerra began his own investigation in January 2004, after learning that Rubalcaba had issued a second credit card in the name of the corporations for his own personal use. On February 26, 2004, Rubalcaba w
as i
ndicted by Guerra. He plead guilty and was given ten years probation with the condition that he cooperated with law enforcement officers looking into a kickback scheme involving some county commissioners. The Assistant U.S. Attorney assigned to the case was McAlister.

On January 4, 2005, Tamez and Jimenez pled guilty to accepting $10,000 each in kickbacks for awarding Corplan the prison contract. “They were both offered light sentences if they cooperated with McAlister on who gave them the kickback money,” Guerra said.

On March 25, 2005, Cortez pled guilty to giving kickback money to Tamez and Jimenez. “He was also offered a light sentence if he cooperated with McAlister on who gave him the kickback money to give to Tamez and Jimenez,” Guerra said. “Who gave Cortez the money to give to Tamez and Jimenez? Why wasn’t Loya indicted. There are lots of unanswered questions.”

Guerra said his notes show that on June 19, 2005, Parkey visited Willacy County to discuss another prison contract, worth about $60 million.

“This project was explained to Willacy county commissioners by Harling as a ‘top secret’ project that was coming all the way from the top man, President Bush,” Guerra said. “The project was to be built within six weeks and was again a no-bid project. It was the same individuals and companies – Corplan, Hale Mills, Municipal Capital Markets, Harling and Lucio.”

This time the commissioners court comprised Salinas, still the county judge, Loya, Emilio Vera, Aurelio Guerra (Juan Guerra’s brother) and Ariel Cantu. Salinas, Loya, and Vera voted for the project.

“This time the kickback was a promise to the commissioners that the county would get about $8 million within the first seven months, by March 1, 2007” Guerra said. “To date the county has not seen a single penny of that money.”

On November 21, 2006, Tamez was sentenced to six months imprisonment for accepting bribes. Jimenez had died of cancer a few months prior.

Guerra said McAlister encouraged him to continue the investigation. “As soon as I started my investigation, my problems started. I have been arrested twice on false charges. People in high places are trying to derail my investigation,” Guerra said.

On December 6, 2006, Corplan came to Willacy county commissioners’ court to talk about yet another prison project. Guerra said the latest project is estimated at $40 million and is another no-bid contract. “The commissioners were skeptical to move forward due to the total outstanding bonds that the county now owes. It’s about $100 million.”

Mervyn M. Mosbacker, a former U.S. Attorney for the Southern District, believes it is Guerra who should be investigated. Mosbacker assisted Guerra’s political nemesis Gus Garza when Garza was appointed a Special Prosecutor by State District Judge Migdalia Lopez. Garza has run against Guerra many times in the past.

In an April 9 letter to J. Manuel Banales, the presiding judge of the Fifth Judicial Administrative District, Mosbacker requested a new grand jury to review and investigate “allegations against Mr. Guerra and others.”

Mosbacker said he believed it would be “in the best interests of justice if a new grand jury, independent of the original process that led to the indictments in question, were to look at the evidence of possible wrongdoing with a set of fresh eyes.”

Guerra said Congress ought to ask why Mosbacker is “obsessed” with Willacy County matters.

“Mosbacker used to be DeGabrielle’s boss and even recommended him as U.S. Attorney for the Southern District. DeGabrielle is McAlister’s boss. Gonzales went to the ceremony when De Gabrielle was appointed. Congress ought to ask just who Jim McAlister answers to,” Guerra said.

June 30, 2007

Dear Friends:

I have spoken with my husband, Ramsey, and he has
arrived at El Reno, Oklahoma, which is a high security
medium Federal Correctional Institution (FCI). Due to
certain factors and circumstances that we will discuss
at a later time, his transfer to Oklahoma has created
tremendous hardships for the family, attorneys, and
individuals who are involved in the reopening of his
immediate case.

This change will have a tremendous impact on me personally,
because I was visiting Ramsey weekly. Three Rivers is
90 miles away from Corpus Christi, and the drive to
Three Rivers is 1½ hours. Now I must travel 800 miles
and drive 15 hours to reach El Reno, Oklahoma.

Those who are interested can write to Ramsey at the
following address:

Ramiro R. Muniz – 40288-115
FCI El Reno
Federal Correctional Institution
P.O. Box 1500
El Reno, OK 73036

Within a reasonable period of time the national legal
committee to have Ramsey transferred back to Three Rivers
(or another lower security Texas institution) will exchange
legal strategies, contacts, and if necessary take this matter
to federal court. Please be so kind as to share this information
with your congressman and senator, and let them know that you will
continue to send them information regarding this case.

I have made contact with organizations. Their representatives
are extremely upset and are ready to do what is necessary. We
were honored to be in contact with Jaime Martinez, who
expressed his concern for Ramsey. Mr. Martinez is the Founder,
Chairman, and Organizer of the Cesar E. Chavez March in
San Antonio, Texas. He is President of the Labor Council for Latin
American Advancement – San Antonio Chapter, and serves as
National LULAC Labor Advisor and Treasurer.

I am making plans to visit my husband as soon as possible.
Know that I will continue to communicate information and keep
everyone informed about appropriate steps taken.

Thank you for all the support that you have provided.

Sincerely,
Irma Muniz

KXAN learned Wednesday the alleged misconduct that resulted in the firing of a guard at the T. Don Hutto detention center in Taylor was sexual in nature.

The center is one of only two in the country that detains children and families for non-criminal immigration violations.

The Immigration and Customs Enforcement Agency, or ICE, officials gave the media a look inside earlier this year, but this week Williamson County investigators took a closer look.

In a statement issued Wednesday the sheriff’s office confirmed they investigated a report of officer misconduct, and it was sexual in nature.

It went on to say their findings would be turned over to federal investigators, because the misconduct did not fall under local or state statute.

“Technically, you’re not looking at people who are convicted of crimes, and this isn’t an entity that’s subject to the sort of state and municipal control as other detention facilities should be,” said attorney Wayne Krause of the Texas Civil Rights Project. . . .