The Department Of State, Foreigh Operations And Related Programs Appropriations Act, 2008--Continued

Floor Speech

THE DEPARTMENT OF STATE, FOREIGN OPERATIONS AND RELATED PROGRAMS APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2008--Continued -- (House of Representatives - June 21, 2007)

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. POE. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the gentleman from Colorado for offering this amendment with me. I'll be brief because I don't think many Members here need to be convinced that we need our Government agencies to enforce the laws we give them and that they aren't arbitrary.

Section 243(d) of the Immigration and Nationality Act allows the State Department to discontinue the issuance of visas to nations who fail to take back their nationals who have been ordered removed by our Government.

Unfortunately, this step by our Government has never been taken. Why? The gentleman from Colorado and I joined on a letter to the Secretary of Homeland Security and the Attorney General to ask this very question. The chart I have here indicates the response we received and I quote:

* [End Insert]

Department of Homeland Security Response: ``While visa sanctions under Section 243(d) of the Immigration and Nationality Act may be an effective tool in obtaining repatriation cooperation, the severity that makes them potentially effective also has the potential to negatively impact other U.S. foreign relations objectives if not used judiciously. When considering the use of 243(d) sanctions, DHS must consider the potential repercussions to U.S. foreign policy. Because the United States is pursuing a number of initiatives with China on foreign policy issues, implementing Section 243(d) sanctions could have counterproductive effects.''--Donald H. Kent, Assistant Secretary, U.S. Department of Homeland Security, January 10, 2007.

* [Begin Insert]

Mr. Chairman, how this reads to me is that our trade with nations like China is more important than providing for the safety of the American people. Many of the people who we are trying to remove are hardened criminals, violent felons that we want off our streets. Because of two recent Supreme Court decisions, our government is limited in the length of time we can hold them in our jails while working to remove them. If we can't remove them in 6 months, they are to be set free. Now how many are we talking about here? As this chart shows, here are the top offending countries and the number roaming America:

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

According to a Department of Homeland Security Inspector General audit in April 2006, ``The difficulty that ICE is experiencing removing illegal aliens with final orders has, in effect, created a mini-amnesty program for tens of thousands of illegal aliens that are subject to removal from the U.S. It also encourages individuals from non-cooperating countries such as China, India, and Iran to make attempts to enter the U.S. illegally.

So let me close by again saying this amendment that I and the gentleman from Colorado are offering just says to enforce existing law. Unless these nations believe that they will not obtain a visa in the future, nothing is ever going to change.

* [End Insert]

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. POE. Mr. Chairman, as a former prosecutor and felony court judge in Texas, I tried a lot of cases where the victims of homicide were peace officers. Like any victim, these officers came from all ages and all races. The murder of a peace officer is one of the most serious crimes that can occur in any community.

Unlike other victims, Mr. Chairman, peace officers carry the daily burden of protecting their communities from crime, everything from petty theft to the most violent and vicious of crimes. Every day these defenders of our cities put their lives on the line. They have asked to be in harm's way, and then when one is killed in the line of duty, their loss is deeply felt by the entire community.

There are cases, however, when peace officers are killed and their killers happen to be immigrants from foreign countries, some legal immigrants, some illegal. And there are many cases where the home countries of these immigrants refuse to send them back to the United States to face their charges once they are requested to be extradited to the United States from their home country.

In 2002, a Los Angeles County sheriff was murdered by a Mexican citizen who was illegally in the country. However, the Mexican government refused for 5 years to extradite him to the United States to stand trial, and it only occurred this January when the charge was reduced.

The same occurred in Denver in 2005 when a police officer by the name of Donnie Young was murdered, and only after the charges were reduced was the killer extradited back to this country.

Killing police officers seems to also be a popular pastime for a few immigrants in Texas. In my hometown, a Houston police officer by the name of Rodney Johnson was shot four times and killed by an illegal immigrant in September of 2006. In fact, the last three law enforcement officers shot in Harris County, Texas, were shot by people who were illegally here in the United States.

Fortunately, each of these killers were captured before they fled to their home country, and they will have their day in court. But what about the ones that don't get caught and flee to some other country? This problem is only increasing in States that border Mexico, where travel across the border is easy; and now violent drug cartels rule the area and certainly have no qualms about shooting at American peace officer.

So this country should not be spending money toward admitting immigrants to the United States from any country that refuses to allow the United States to try police killers by harboring those killers in their country.

I ask my fellow Members of Congress to join me, along with the Fraternal Order of Police that has endorsed this amendment, to support limiting funds in this bill to be used for issuing visas to nationals or citizens of countries that have notified our State Department of their refusal to extradite to the United States an individual indicted for killing a peace officer in this country. We owe this to our peace officers and their families.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. POE. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I understand the chairman's concerns about this amendment, but it will be an effort to, of course, get those people back in the United States who are charged with the specific crime of killing a peace officer.

Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. POE. I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Mr. Chairman, this bill increases funding in the Foreign Operations bill to foreign countries almost at 10 percent. And as already stated, most Americans did not get a 10 percent increase in their income last year, but yet we are going to spend money in foreign countries. And much of this money is waste, total waste that Americans should not be funding at all. It gives money also to nations that constantly and consistently vote against us in the United Nations.

It's important to note, however, none of this funding decrease will affect aid to our strongest ally to the Middle East, Israel; money that is well spent for the security of not only Israel, but the United States.

So, increasing funding in this Foreign Operations bill is not acceptable. All we're doing in the gentleman from Ohio's amendment is to put in it at last year's level, and that's a good idea.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source