MY ADVICE TO THE PRIVILEGED
ORDERS AND THE CRIME KING CONTINUES TO BE KING
132 Cong Rec H 9895 Friday, October 10, 1986
Congressional Record -- House
Friday, October 10, 1986
99th Cong. 2nd Sess.
132 Cong Rec H 9895
REFERENCE: Vol. 132 No. 140
TITLE:
SPEAKER: Mr. GONZALEZ
TEXT: The SPEAKER pro tempore
(Mr. Abercrombie). Under a previous order of the House, the gentleman from Texas
[Mr. Gonzalez] is recognized for 60 minutes.
Mr. GONZALEZ. Mr. Speaker, I wish to advise the Speaker as well as some of my
colleagues who may be listed as following me that it is not my intention to
utilize 1 hour. In fact, I believe that no more than 15 minutes should suffice
for me to discuss the matter that impels me to seek this special order.
For about more than 2 years I have spoken out on what I generally label as
"King Crime." The reason was that things happened back in the district
that I felt also transgressed the purely local or parochial situation, but
rather reflected a national, a greater issue that was permeating the entire
Nation, and that was the insidious, pervasive presence of the most sophisticated
organized crime and criminal activity, much of it, if not that
which was the most powerful and richest, so sophisticated that with otherwise
legitimate business fronts, very, very few, even some officers of corporations
that fronted or in effect were owned by organized crime
themselves were not aware first to anticipate what just in a matter of 1 year
and a half became a national energy crisis. It seems to me that our communities
are small, but nevertheless vital links in this chain of either strength or
weakness, and as has long been said, no chain is any stronger than its weakest
link and our Nation is really not that strong, but what it is brittle and
susceptible to very grave social dislocations and the presence of this pervasive
kind of pattern of illegality which eventually leads to such things as this
out-of-control traffic in drugs, murder, homicide, prostitution, which are all
tied in and are natural consequences of what we have allowed to happen in our
country, and even in the case of what happened just a few years after I
initiated my concerns, spoke out, at the time I spoke here on the forum, not
only here but back home, I had critics who said, "What's this all about?
Why do you want to importune the Congress about this?"
Then of course things happened in the intervening years, culminating in the
attempted assassination or murder of the assistant district attorney for the
Federal judicial district in western Texas, which is part and parcel of that
western district that comprises my own district.
Then, following that, I spoke to the House continuously, demanding that that
attempted murder of the assistant Federal district attorney be really
investigated, that the culprits and those behind them particularly be rooted
out, prosecuted vigorously, and punished in accordance with the magnitude of the
crime, only to find that even there I received criticism.
Then, when this same assistant Federal district attorney, who had been the
object of this try, not now in that part of the county that is in my district,
but which at one time was, because my district comprised the entire county, I
nevertheless raised my voice, because I predicted that this was only the
beginning of more serious attempts.
I felt that the issue was the intimidation of the third branch of our
Government, the judiciary, at least in those areas in which the feeling was
secure on the part of these powerful, powerful criminal masterminds and these
criminal corporate heads of the syndicate who felt so brazen that they thought
such could be done, and in fact they did.
We had a period of about 2 years in which the judiciary and all of the employees
in the judiciary were in effect compelled to have U.S. marshal surveillance and
custody or care or some kind of security, until I was informed on the occasion
of the visit of the assistant district attorney who came, of all things, to
Washington to receive a commendation from the Justice Department, and for the
first time called, and I met him.
I was very much apprehensive when he said that the Federal district judge that
worked mostly in that area, in the El Paso area of the western judicial
district, had said that he was going to remove his U.S. marshals, and in fact
had done so just a few weeks before.
I urged the district attorney to go back and plead with the judge to recall the
marshals, because I felt that the threat was very present. To me it was very
present. To me it was very clear. Sure enough, the very Tuesday following, on
May 28, to be precise, 1979, to be exact, the judge was murdered -- the first
kind of crime against the judiciary of this kind in the entire history of the
American judiciary.
So I then took the floor, and for 2 years, and sometimes meeting absolute
obstruction, I imposed on the then President, who went so far as to send his
special assistant, who brought his DEA liaison man at the White House and sat in
my office and said, "Well, what is it you want?"
I said:
What do I want? It's not what I want, it's what I think we owe the American
people, and that is that at least on the Federal level, you have some
coordination of effort between the Federal agencies and the State and the local
agencies. But I'll settle if you can just coordinate your Federal agencies.
In the meantime, another mysterious crime, which to this day has been relegated
to the dust of history, took place, and that was the mysterious lingering death
or coma and eventual death of the Drug Enforcement Administration man in the
Mexico City bureau, who had been arrested in a San Antonio hotel for bribery
under very peculiar circumstances, and then immediately transported about 80
miles north to Kerr County for security purposes until his lawyer complained
that he did not have access, and they brought him back to the county jail in
Bexar County, in San Antonio. He had not been there 1 day before he was given a
peanut-butter-and-jelly sandwich, went into a coma, never got out of that coma,
and died 6 months later. The man never had a chance to have his day in court on
any kind of an accusation.
Nevertheless, the case was closed as if he had been guilty.
Who would think that one would choke up on a peanut-butter-and-jelly sandwich
and go into a coma and die 6 months later, that that was strictly a normal,
natural occurrence. Well, if anybody believes that, of course, they are ready to
believe in the tooth fairy.
The reason that I am bringing this up is that afterspeaking for 2 years,
finally, to me the biggest satisfaction was having 1 day, a Friday, in my
hometown, in my home, a phone call from Washington from the Director of the FBI,
Mr. Webster, who said:
We're calling you because we give you credit, more than anybody else, for having
helped us at least resolve this, and we're giving you a little advance
information that in about 4 hours, we will announce the first indictments in
this case. I am happy about all of that.
I then, after that, did not speak out.
I now speak because, rather than having closed out this case, the fact remains
that to me it still remains very much unsolved. I must also remind everybody
interested that the attack and the attempted killing of the assistant Federal
district attorney has not been resolved. However, there is no question about it,
it was connected.
Then we had the trial of some of those that were indicted. However, I am firm in
my opinion that those above those that were apprehended -- the hit man was
finally flushed out -- but those who made the contract with the hit man were in
my opinion middle. There are higher and more powerful forces behind.
What was the issue? The issue was what I had anticipated in going before the
grand jury and speaking out in the local press about the existence of the
opening of what became known later as the brown heroin trade. when the French
Connection was closed, much due to the efforts of Santa Barrio, the DEA agent
that died as I said after a coma, after eating a peanut-butter-and-jelly
sandwich, which I think ought to disturb all mothers who are accustomed to
giving that to their children -- it is their usual fare -- that we better look
out here and see, maybe we should have some nutrition expert investigate all of
this.
Nevertheless, the point remains that a pattern has continued. The bombing, for
instance, or the blowing up of an automobile belonging to a colleague of mine
not too far from the area in which I reside naturally was a matter of concern.
This followed not too long after the FBI had reported a contract on my life for
$35,000, and then refused to give me a report.
I had to go through the Freedom of Information in order to glean something, and
discovered to my amazement that not only had that been one time, the one that I
was asking information about, but that the FBI had knowledge of three prior
threats that had been made but never once had been reported to me.
And what is more important, they had a most interesting dossier ever since I had
been in the State senate. So when the bombing of this Congressman, a colleague
of ours from Texas who does not represent a district in the immediate vicinity
of mine, but the bombing having taken place right in the heart of my district, I
naturally made sure that there would be some Federal presence, and I requested
the San Antonio Police Department, at that time the head of the homicide
division, who had been a long-time friend, our friendship going back to when he
started his career and I was the chief juvenile probation officer for Bexar
County, so that when some officers and some administrators and some people say,
"Well, what is your source of information," well it goes back to the
day that I was in law enforcement, and that is part and parcel of it.
In the case of this gentleman who headed the division on homicide and who has
since retired, I ask him to please make sure that the Federal agents and
agencies who have a presence under the responsibility of the code, as amended by
title 18. However, that case disappeared into the dust of history, but it did
not from my mind.
Then comes the incident just a few weeks ago in which a very bizarre homicide
was recorded, one San Antonio policeman killing another policeman and the
circumstances surrounding. So I then wrote Director William Webster a request
that he please have the Federal Bureau of Investigation look into the
circumstances surrounding this pattern of behavior because I felt that
constituents who belonged to a certain segment of my society had been exposed by
the actions of this particular police officer and some in his association.
I will place in the Record the letter that I received in reply to my request. My
letter was dated September 4 and the letter dated September 24 which I received
day before yesterday by way of reply from Director Webster, and also my reply to
this letter as of October 9, yesterday, to Director Webster.
The letters referred to follow:
U.S. Department of Justice,
Federal Bureau of Investigation,
Washington, DC., September 24, 1986.
Hon. Henry B. Gonzalez,
House of Representatives,
Washington, DC.
Dear Congressman Gonzalez: I have received your letter of September 4th
expressing your concern regarding recent incidents involving officers of the San
Antonio Police Department and requesting an FBI investigation. We are currently
looking into the matter involving the shooting of Officer Stephen Smith. In view
of your knowledge and interest, we believe it would be beneficial for FBI
representatives to discuss with you the shooting incident and the other matters
you mentioned. I understand my colleagues in San Antonio have been in contact
with your local office regarding such a meeting, and I hope your schedule will
permit you to meet with our representatives at the earliest possible date. I can
assure you that we will diligently follow up on any information which would
indicate a possible violation of Federal law falling within our investigative
jurisdiction.
Thank you for your interest and for advising me of your concerns.
Sincerely yours,
William H. Webster,
Director.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
House of Representatives,
Washington, DC., October 9, 1986.
Hon. William H. Webster,
Director, Federal Bureau of Investigation, Department of Justice, Washington,
DC.
Dear Director Webster: I am glad to know that the Federal Bureau of
Investigation is "looking into" the matters raised in my letter to you
dated September 4. However, my concern is not much assured for I do not have the
sense that the Bureau has given this inquiry the status or urgency it deserves.
Clearly the conduct of Officer Stephen Smith most probably violated the rights
of a large number of individuals. It seems likely that this conduct was known by
others and had been known for some time. Yet as far as I can ascertain there is
no effort to investigate the very broad and grave implications raised by Officer
Smith's strange death, let alone the questions that arise by the appearance that
his activities were known but left undisciplined.
My staff did of course advise me of the request your representatives made for a
meeting. Aside from the fact that my schedule does not now permit me the time to
arrange such a meeting, I do not feel it would be productive. I am asking the
Bureau to use it resources to investigate fully circumstances that suggest
substantial problems in a major police department. I do not have access to the
information and resources that you do. If I do acquire any data that might be
useful I will immediately convey it to you. My request was, and I reiterate it,
for the Bureau to investigate the incident and its implications, so that the
integrity of the San Antonio Police Department can be assured and the people of
the city may have confidence in the professionalism, efficiency and conduct of
their police.
With every good wish, I am
Sincerely,
Henry B. Gonzalez,
Member of Congress.
Mr. GONZALEZ. The point is that what we have reached is a point in our history
that I think is more troublesome than perhaps any other, and that is where a
sophisticated, highly organized crime has been able to gather
such power that it has even greater power than our duly constituted law
enforcement agents because they have infiltrated our Government, they have
infiltrated our political system, they have infiltrated and now have substantial
interests in business that otherwise has very honorable fronts. With this kind
of combination, how can we ask a poor policeman, how can we ask even an FBI
agent? This is the reason why in our society we can have such a thing as the
disappearance and the presumable homicide or death of such a person as Jimmy
Hoffa who still is a sort of a mystery, and the reason is that Jimmy Hoffa was
involved in the highest, the intricacies of involement not only with organized
crime of the highest type but with political forces in our Government
and political parties, and because even our President does not escape the shadow
of suspicion because the first $4 million that President Reagan made in
Hollywood were the result of moneys that enabled him to be received by a going
concern in Hollywood that was heavily infiltrated by organized crime.
It has always been a well-established fact that Hollywood generally has had an
unwholesome pervasive presence of organized crime.
So what I am saying is that I hope that we can have the kind of backing of our
law enforcement agents that can help us in the communities that do not have the
resources to have a comprehensive look into and safeguarding against these very,
very powerful forces that operate intrastate, interstate, and internationally
against which a poor local municipal police force does not have a chance.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.