6:36 PM EDT

Jim Kolbe, R-AZ 8th

Mr. KOLBE (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the remainder of the bill through page 29, line 12, be considered as read, printed in the RECORD, and open to amendment at any point.

6:37 PM EDT

Bill Jenkins, R-TN 1st

Mr. JENKINS. Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order against what was left unprotected by H. Res. 341 in section 565 that begins on page 113, line 26, through page 114, line 10, for the reason that it violates rule XXI, clause 2, which prohibits legislative language in a general appropriations bill.

6:38 PM EDT

Bob Beauprez, R-CO 7th

Mr. BEAUPREZ. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Chairman, I want to first of all acknowledge the hard work and dedication of the chairman, the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Kolbe), and the ranking member, the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Lowey), for their dedication and the construction of a very, very good bill.

But I rise tonight with an amendment, and the intent of this amendment is very, very simple. It is to return cop killers back to the United States to stand trial in our country, the same country in which they committed their unthinkable crime.

The problem was brought to my attention last month after Denver Police Detective Donnie Young was allegedly executed by Raul Gomez-Garcia. After killing Detective Young and shooting and wounding his partner, Gomez-Garcia fled to Mexico, where he was tracked down and arrested weeks later. The Mexican Government now refuses to extradite him back to the U.S. if there is any chance he could spend life in prison without parole. Detective Young's widow and his two children now face the further tragedy

of either partial justice or no justice at all being served to her husband's killer.

In another case, in 2002, a convicted felon who had been deported three times allegedly shot and killed a Los Angeles County sheriff following a routine traffic stop before fleeing to Mexico, where he remains today, essentially escaping justice.

The U.S. should not be forced to plea bargain with other countries in order to try criminals, especially cop killers, in our own courts. As a good neighbor, Mexico should live up to their end of our extradition treaty. Killing a police officer is one of the most egregious crimes, and we should have the right to seek justice for the families of the slain officers.

The U.S. is not obliged to give foreign aid, and we should not reward nations giving safe haven to cop killers. I ask my colleagues to vote for this commonsense amendment that will bring help and peace and justice to those who deserve it most.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. McHenry).

6:40 PM EDT

Patrick McHenry, R-NC 10th

Mr. McHENRY. Mr. Chairman, I certainly appreciate the gentleman's leadership in the State of Colorado and here in Washington, D.C. on this issue, about fighting to protect our law enforcement officers.

There is a growing problem in this Nation where criminals will commit violent crimes, including murdering law enforcement officers, and flee to nations that refuse to extradite to the United States those criminals because of our tough sentencing laws, including mandatory minimum sentences.

This amendment is simple: it will not allow taxpayer funds to go to nations that refuse to stand with us against the vile act of murdering law enforcement officers.

Law enforcement officers across this country are bravely fighting crime, responding to emergencies, and protecting our rights. We have an opportunity to stand up for them with this amendment here today. When countries do not extradite their criminals, it actually creates a twisted incentive to be even more violent in their crimes. The more violent the crime, the tougher the sentence here in the United States; and the tougher the sentence, the less likely they are to be subject to extradition.

The Beauprez-McHenry amendment will apply the pressure that usually gets the best results, and that is withholding tax dollars to those countries. I, for one, think it is prudent and just that we require nations to extradite cop killers before receiving aid through this appropriations process.

Again, I applaud my colleague, the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Beauprez). I certainly appreciate his representation of his constituents in Colorado, I thank him for his leadership and friendship, and I urge my colleagues to vote for the Beauprez-McHenry amendment when the time comes and protect our law enforcement officers across this Nation.

6:42 PM EDT

Jim Kolbe, R-AZ 8th

Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Chairman, I do rise in strong opposition to the gentleman's amendment that would cut off assistance for U.S. programs in Mexico, and let us make it clear that Mexico is the country we are talking about today, no other.

The amendment is based on the wrong assumption that U.S. foreign assistance to Mexico is only in Mexico's national interests. I am here to say that the funding in this amendment prohibits the United States' national interest, so I would urge my colleagues to vote ``no''.

President Bush and his Office of National Drug Control Policy are fully supportive of the assistance we provide in this bill for the country of Mexico. The bulk of that assistance takes the form of international narcotics and law enforcement, roughly around $40 million. There is another $11 million in ESF funds that support democracy and the rule-of-law programs. Around $22 million supports child survival and development programs. All of these resources are central to the U.S. national interest.

This amendment could directly cut off $40 million in resources that are essential for our counternarcotics assistance, law enforcement assistance, and border securities. We do not, in other words, with this amendment, gain any kind of leverage over the country of Mexico.

I highlight the fact that this assistance is more for us than Mexico because the objective of this assistance is to increase U.S. national and border security, something I am acutely aware of, living along the border. Cutting off these funds would be very shortsighted and would serve to hurt U.S. interests, not the interests of Mexico.

For decades, the U.S.-Mexico relationship was one of acrimony, distrust, and a lack of good working relationship to meet the challenges of the enormous border relationship between our two countries.

Only with the passage of NAFTA, 10 years ago, were we able to write a new chapter in U.S.-Mexico relations. We started down a path of deeper cooperation in order to spur development in Mexico, secure our shared borders, and fight the flow of illegal drugs across our territories.

[Time: 18:45]

Passage of this amendment could have a devastating impact on that effort to stop the flow of drugs.

I would point out that Mexico has offered tremendous cooperation in improving border security and counterterrorism efforts. Let me cite just a couple of things. During the threat to aviation security at the end of 2003, Mexico worked closely with the U.S. Government canceling some flights, Air Mexico flights to Los Angeles and stepping up passenger screening. They stopped those flights in direct response to our request. At the commencement of the war in Iraq, the Government of Mexico implemented

a plan and its military assumed a higher state of alert for potential targets of international terrorism, including key infrastructure sites and centers of tourism. Third, multilaterally, Mexico is party to all 12 United States conventions and protocols against terrorism and has hosted several conferences on security.

I believe this amendment would undermine the spirit of cooperation and the degree of cooperation that we have achieved, and I do not think this amendment reflects the priorities of the national interest of the United States. I would urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on it.