[Congressional Record Volume 151, Number 145 (Friday, November 4, 2005)]
[Senate]
[Page S12399]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                   FOREIGN OPERATIONS APPROPRIATIONS

  Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. President, first, I want Senator McConnell and his 
staff for all the heavylifting and hard work to complete this important 
bill. As a committee chairman, I know how difficult it can be to pass 
legislation.
  I am pleased that the House-Senate conferees considering the State 
and Foreign Operations appropriations bills have included language 
which withholds taxpayer dollars to those countries which refuse to 
extradite violent criminals to the United States for prosecution. While 
this is a positive step, I must express disappointment that the 
conferees saw fit to provide for the continued flow of tax dollars to 
these countries upon a mere certification by the Secretary of State 
that a cutoff would not be in the national interest of the United 
States. My original amendment, which passed the Senate on July 20, 
2005, by a vote of 86 to 12, contained no such loophole. The earlier 
passage of my original amendment and the House passage of a similar 
amendment by Representative Nathan Deal of Georgia, by a vote of 294 to 
132, sent a powerful message to those countries which refuse to 
extradite murderers and other violent criminals. The passage of these 
earlier amendments represented a victory for law enforcement, for 
victims of violent crime, and for simple justice and the rule of law.
  When an individual is charged with a crime and flees to a foreign 
country, it is the responsibility of the U.S. Department of State to 
seek extradition of the fugitive.
  In some instances, countries refuse to extradite even defendants 
charged with violent crimes when the evidence is overwhelming. Some 
refuse when the defendant faces the possibility of the death penalty in 
this country and this issue represents a particular challenge to our 
ongoing relations with other countries.
  However, even in instances in which the defendant does not face the 
death penalty, some countries have still refused to extradite--some for 
the articulated reason that they do not extradite their own nationals. 
Others--Mexico, Costa Rica, Spain, Venezuela and Portugal, for 
example--have refused to extradite because the defendant faces a 
possible life sentence if convicted in the United States.
  Of course the possibility of life imprisonment reflects the 
seriousness of the offense and should result in a greater, not lesser, 
justification for extradition. Such policies stand common sense on its 
head.
  These unjust policies by some countries came into sharp focus in 
connection with the brutal murder of the son of David Fulton, who is a 
constituent of mine in Hampton, GA.
  On December 21, 2002, Mr. Fulton's son, CPL Joshia Fulton of the U.S. 
Marine Corps, was murdered right here, on the streets of Washington, 
DC.
  At the time of his murder, CPL Fulton was a member of the elite 
Presidential Protection Program called Yankee White, an assignment 
through which he had the honor of traveling abroad with the President 
of the United States.
  Corporal Fulton was awaiting assignment for service as a guard in the 
West Wing of the White House when he was murdered.
  After an investigation by the DC Police Department, a criminal 
complaint was filed charging a suspect named Carlos Almanza with the 
murder of Joshia Fulton.
  Almanza, however, fled the United States to his home country, the 
Republic of Nicaragua, where that country's constitution prohibits 
extradition of its citizens. And so the person charged with this 
heinous crime is free to kill again and to live the good life while the 
family of his victim endures the cruel consequences of their loss day 
in and day out, without justice and without closure to their suffering.
  If a country refuses to turn murder suspects over to U.S. authorities 
so they can be brought to justice in the United States where the 
heinous crime occurred, then that country should not receive any 
financial aid from the United States under the appropriations bill now 
before the Senate. A country's constitutional ban on extradition of its 
citizens who are fugitives from justice is unacceptable. Quite simply, 
that law needs to change if they want to continue to receive American 
aid.
  While I am disappointed in the final wording in the conference 
report, I take comfort that my amendment has already gotten the 
attention of these countries. Following passage of my amendment in 
July, I and my staff met with representatives of various countries, as 
well as representatives of the Departments of State and Justice. While 
we worked diligently to craft language to address legitimate concerns 
of these countries and our own Government, the final conference 
language, in my view, falls short of reflecting America's resolve to 
put a stop to refusals to extradite.
  As I stated during debate on my original amendment in July, the 
intent of this language is not to deny aid to any country, but rather 
to provide a substantial incentive for recalcitrant countries to reform 
their extradition laws so that suspected criminals can be brought to 
justice in the United States. I hope that this experience will be a 
wake-up call to the State Department to redouble its efforts to 
encourage all countries to extradite murderers and other violent 
criminals to stand before the bar of justice. I will continue to work 
for the extradition of Corporal Fulton's killer.

                          ____________________