Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, in the dangerous border region between Mexico and Texas, in the year 2008, outlaws from Mexico were caught smuggling marijuana into the United States, and they were caught by the Border Patrol agents.

Border Patrol Agent Jesus Diaz's actions later have resulted in him being sentenced recently to 2 years in a Federal penitentiary. On October 20 of this year, District Judge Ludham sentenced Diaz to 24 months in prison because the agent is alleged to have been too rough in his handling of one of the drug smugglers who was arrested; and, also, Diaz allegedly later lied about the incident to investigators.

Now, what Diaz is accused of is pulling the suspect's handcuffs back and pushing the suspect to the ground while pressing the suspect's back with his knee in order to get him to comply with the Border Patrol agent's orders. Prior to the incident the suspect had illegally crossed into Texas by boat with a large shipment of marijuana, and he was accompanied by a member of the notorious MS-13 gang.

The U.S. Government had a choice to make: Prosecute the illegal drug smuggler or prosecute the Border Patrol agent. The United States Government chose poorly. The Mexican Government demanded that Diaz be prosecuted by our government, and he was.

To top it off, the suspect was told he would not be prosecuted for illegally coming into the United States or for the marijuana he brought into the United States in return for his testimony against Border Patrol Agent Diaz.

Now, Mr. Speaker, I'm not here today to comment on whether or not Jesus Diaz used proper police procedure when he detained the suspect or whether the jury or the judge made a mistake. Those issues will be dealt with on appeal. However, it seems to me that this case should not have been prosecuted as a crime. It should have been dealt with and handled administratively within the U.S. Border Patrol, and the drug smuggler should have been prosecuted.

The U.S. Federal Government had its priorities wrong. The National Border Patrol Council, which represents 17,000 of our Border Patrol agents, our border protectors, they agree. They argue that a situation like this should have been handled administratively and did not rise to the level of criminal conduct. But millions of taxpayer dollars and thousands of man-hours were expended to obtain a 24-month sentence and a conviction for Diaz, who had already spent 8 months in custody.

There is more. An internal investigation by the Department of Homeland Security's Office of Inspector General and U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement Office of Professional Responsibility both cleared Agent Diaz of any wrongdoing in the 2008 incident.

But Mexico would have none of this and demanded and got its way.

The U.S. Attorney's Office went after Border Patrol agent Jesus Diaz. And his case was tried in the western district of Texas, a jurisdiction that has a history of, in my opinion, unfairly targeting border protectors for prosecution. You remember, this is the same jurisdiction that prosecuted Border Patrol agents Ramos and Compean for allegedly shooting a drug smuggler as he ran away from the agents while they tried to apprehend him. It took a Presidential commutation in 2009 to finally end the persecution of these two agents, and millions of Federal dollars were wasted on this case.

Then there's a similar case where Deputy Sheriff Gilmer Hernandez was prosecuted for firing his weapon at a fleeing vehicle that had tried to run him over. Same jurisdiction.

But the question we must ask ourselves is why the Federal Government is spending time and money to prosecute our Border Patrol agents who put their lives on the line every day down there on the border of the U.S. and Mexico instead of spending time and money and resources to enforce immigration laws in this country.

When ICE Director Morton and Secretary Napolitano from Homeland Security recently testified in front of the Judiciary Committee, they both said they just didn't have the money or the resources to fully enforce immigration laws. They, in essence, in my opinion, granted amnesty or parole to thousands of illegals in the United States. But they have the money to go after Border Patrol agents.

Maybe they should use some of that prosecutorial discretion they're so proud of to prosecute people who cross the border into the United States with drugs over prosecuting Border Patrol agents.

In this case, the United States Government is on the wrong side of the border war. The U.S. Attorney's Office should quit being the voice of Mexico and be the voice of America. We should secure the border and keep the drug smugglers from having their way, and don't give them a get-out-of-jail-free card. It's time to get our money and our priorities straight. Let's stop going

after the good guys and spend time and money going after the bad guys.

And that's just the way it is.

Mr. Speaker, when the coach messes up, blame the team. This policy occurred yesterday.

Yesterday, in an attempt to divert attention from the Attorney General, Assistant Attorney General Lanny Breuer took one for the head coach and testified about Project Gunrunner. He claimed that he knew about the practice of ``gun walking'' but still tried to punt the ball by placing blame on Team ATF for not stopping Fast and Furious. But the Department of Justice oversees the ATF, and apparently the Justice Department knew about Fast and Furious. So why didn't they stop it? Mr. Breuer said that he had talked to the ATF about it, and so he thought he didn't need to tell the Attorney General. So now it appears the dysfunctional Justice Department is responsible for this disaster.

Bottom line: Nearly 2,000 semiautomatic weapons were blindly sent into the hands of criminal narcoterrorists in Mexico, and people died because of this operation, at least two Americans and who knows how many Mexican nationals. Thousands of guns are still unaccounted for in Mexico.

Clearly, the Department of Justice needs a new head coach, and a special counsel should be appointed to investigate Fast and Furious.

And that's just the way it is.

Mr. Speaker, once again the Department of Justice is using taxpayer dollars to sue States for a job the government refuses to do.

The Federal Government won't or can't enforce immigration laws, so South Carolina has been forced to take matters into their own hands to protect their citizens. We've heard this tale before about the Federal Government suing States like Arizona and Alabama.

In this case, the administration says that the South Carolina law will interfere with and undermine the Federal Government's control over relations with foreign governments. The Federal Government is more concerned about not hurting the feelings of other countries like Mexico than it is about protecting our country.

The Attorney General has made it clear that he will continue his crusade against the States who try to crack down on illegal entry. Next up on the list? Utah and Georgia. For what? Upholding the law. Meanwhile, sanctuary cities get a pass from the Federal Government.

We hear the rhetoric that illegals are here to do jobs that Americans won't do. Now, South Carolina is getting sued for doing a job the American government won't do--protecting the security of this Nation and enforcing the law.

And that's just the way it is.

I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I thank the gentleman from Virginia for introducing this resolution.

``In God We Trust'' is an important part of American history, and this resolution is necessary to ensure that it remains a part of our history.

Today, some individuals argue that the Constitution says that America cannot have any mention of God in a public atmosphere. These folks argue that Americans must be censored when they talk in public about God or even

religion. I strongly disagree with that contention, the Supreme Court disagrees with that contention, and using the writings of our Founding Fathers as a guide, I believe they would also disagree with that contention.

What makes us unique, Mr. Speaker, is the way we started as a Nation. We had this concept in the Declaration of Independence that we are worth something as individuals, and that we are worth something as individuals not because government gives us rights or men give us rights, but the Declaration of Independence says that we are all endowed by our Creator with certain inalienable rights. In God we trusted then and in God we must continue to trust now.

The truth is that our Constitution says that we are guaranteed freedom of religion, not freedom from religion. And having the word ``God'' in our national motto does not establish an official religion for the country; it just simply recognizes the role that faith and religion have played in our history.

I believe, as many other Americans do, that America is a special place, a chosen place, and even an exceptional place. And America is more than just another country on the globe, as some say. Throughout our history, we've served as a beacon of light in an often dark world. And one reason is because in God we trust. As it has been said: Unless the Lord watches over the city, the watchmen watch in vain. I agree with that, and we should affirm it.

And that's just the way it is.

I thank the gentlelady for yielding. And I appreciate the chair and the ranking member for relentlessly pushing this issue to the House floor as fast as it was possible and to the good folks down at the Senate, Senator Boxer and Senator Isakson, who are the initial sponsors of

H.R. 2337 on which we will, here today, vote on in a bipartisan way.

This legislation is bipartisan because it deals with victims of crime, American victims of crime. And victims are not a partisan bunch; they're just victims. And when someone picks out a victim to commit a crime against, partisanship doesn't play any part in it. And it's good to see that partisanship doesn't play any part in this legislation in opposing it, but it's a bipartisan piece of legislation.

Mr. Speaker, there's a group of Americans; they are really special people. I call them the American ambassadors abroad. They are young people. A lot of them are young females right out of college. It started with a concept that President Kennedy had many years ago, and it's called the Peace Corps, where these American angels abroad leave their homes in the 50 States and they go to remote parts of the world where many of us would have to look up on a globe or an atlas or the Internet to find out exactly where they are. We've never heard of these places. They are in third-world countries, primarily. They go out where many times the first Americans these folks have ever seen in this country are those Peace Corps volunteers that show up, and they show up for the sole purpose to make life better for these people overseas, sometimes in very small villages. They go and they work in very primitive conditions and live very difficultly, trying to do something really important to make the world a better place. And they do. They are remarkable people.

When they go overseas, as they have done for the last 50 years, and all over the world, sometimes crimes are committed against them. Sometimes they are very serious crimes. Sometimes that includes sexual assault, rape. And it occurs for a lot of reasons, but it does occur. Unfortunately, the Peace Corps back home for a long time ignored some of these crimes and some of these victims, and they just weren't treated right when they were trying to cry out, saying, Hey, this happened to me over there; take care of me when I come back home.

But now this legislation that has been very carefully drafted will fix that problem. It will move us to a direction where we are going to take care of these Peace Corps volunteers because what they do is important. What the Peace Corps does is important. We just want to improve it so that more and more people go and join the Peace Corps, but yet they feel safe in what they do.

These crimes against our Peace Corps volunteers came to light really at the end of last year, the beginning of this year. One reason it came to light was because of an ABC ``20/20'' special that aired on January 14, outlining the plight of individual Peace Corps volunteers and how they were treated--first the crime, and then sometimes continuing to be criminalized. In some cases, our volunteers were treated like the criminals and they weren't treated like victims--the offender sometimes was treated like a victim of a crime--and those days need to end.

Mr. Speaker, I have been around a courthouse most of my life down in Texas as a prosecutor, as a criminal court judge, and I tried a lot of bad, serious cases. One of those cases that comes to the courthouses throughout our country is the crime of sexual assault, or rape. That is a unique crime because, you see, many times when the offender commits that crime against primarily a female, it has nothing to do with sex; it has everything to do with power and the destruction of that person's identity. These offenders in some cases try to destroy the soul of that victim, destroy their identity. And that is why, when the crime is committed, we treat those victims with special respect, as they rightfully deserve.

This legislation does that. It improves the Peace Corps. It makes it a better institution. But it tells our young people that when you go somewhere in the world to represent America, to do something good, just to do something good for somebody else with no other motive, that we are going to do everything we can to protect you, and then we are going to hold people accountable for what they do to you. And we are going to do everything we can, as Americans, to take care of you if a crime is committed against you.

In the last 10 years, Mr. Speaker, the Peace Corps has witnessed over 100 sexual assaults a year against its volunteers. That's 100 too many. We want to bring it down to zero.

As the chairman has mentioned about this legislation, it does several things:

It creates and requires the Peace Corps to follow best practices in training volunteers and responding to assaults against these young people;

Second, it creates a system of restricted and unrestricted reporting so victims have control over their own information and can report only as much as they are comfortable with; and

Third, it sets up an advisory council to help the Peace Corps develop programs. It helps the Peace Corps' sexual assault policy and implements it.

I do want to thank the 87 cosponsors in the House for signing on the legislation that I have sponsored. I do want to thank the chairman again for the legislation she has sponsored; both passed, as she said, the House Committee on Foreign Affairs unanimously in a bipartisan way.

And I do want to thank the Puzey family, sending their daughter overseas and having dealt with the murder of their own child. None of us want to ever see our children die before our time. I have got four kids. Three of them are girls. I've got nine grandkids. And as parents, we don't want to see that happen.

But their ability to come forward to tell that story and the story that others have told, Peace Corps volunteers who are here today, Jess, Karestan, Carol, and Liz, they were willing to come before the Foreign Affairs Committee and testify about what happened to them and the consequences of that. I want to thank them for being willing to be here today and also to testify.

But I also want to thank the Members of Congress for moving this as fast as we can. With all that we're doing and going on and the economy and all of this, it's important that this legislation pass today.

I do believe these young people are America's angels abroad. Sometimes because of the economy and other reasons, we forget the greatness of America. This is a great land. And one of the reasons, one of the reasons it's great is because of the people who are here. One of the reasons those people are great is because they do things for other people. They go to lands they have never been to and they do things for people they don't even know. And those are the Peace Corps volunteers.

I appreciate the time to speak on this. I hope that it passes unanimously and sends a message to those Peace Corps volunteers: We support you. We support the Peace Corps. We want it to live 50 more years, and this bill helps those American ambassadors abroad.

Sarah Lee, Current Volunteer from Texas

A woman, let's call her Sarah Lee, who is serving in the Peace Corps in a foreign country right now contacted me. Sarah Lee loves her job and the organization, but can't get past the fact that she feels completely unsafe.

``Throughout my service,'' she writes, ``I have witnessed the sorry manner in which volunteers are regarded, treated, and protected by Peace Corps. It is patently false that volunteers in X country could ever be regarded as `safe.' ''

Last year, Sarah Lee was assaulted by another person that was old enough to be her father. They were staying at another volunteer's house and she fell asleep on the couch. She was awakened in the middle of the night by the assailant inappropriately touching and kissing her.

She reported this to national Peace Corps staff, and talked to several members of the executive staff, as well as the Peace Corps Medical Officer. She was told to not leave her village. Another volunteer came to stay with her because she was having anxiety attacks and insomnia and didn't want to be alone.

While Peace Corps was investigating, the accused volunteer was traveling the country, staying at overnight PC houses in bedrooms occupied by female volunteers.

The investigators assigned to her case were terrible. Because she was from Texas, they asked if she didn't have more ``conservative'' notions of propriety than the perpetrator--as if this was just a violation of her southern sensibilities and the perpetrator had every right to assault her. They also told her she was attractive, so she must be assaulted like this a lot. When she asked about pressing charges, they discouraged her. They said a case like this had never been tried before, that it would be

a precedent setting case, and that if she failed, it could hurt future cases.

Eventually the Peace Corps flew Sarah Lee back to the United States, but her counselor was just as bad as the investigators. While she was sobbing, the counselor kept asking her how she felt. Because a Peace Corps Volunteer can only be kept on medical hold for a certain amount of days, she was rushed back to her country even though she did not feel ready and was still suffering from panic attacks and insomnia. When a fellow in-country volunteer urged her supervisor to give Sarah Lee more counseling, they let her talk to a counselor twice on the phone before telling her to just email--even though she has to drive to the next town for Internet access.

In the end, the perpetrator quit rather than face being fired. Nothing will appear on his record. Peace Corps never did give Sarah Lee information on how to press charges.

Sarah Lee also talks about how male teachers at the school she teaches at have repeatedly raped her students, but she can't tell anyone. The Peace Corps still has not provided a mechanism through which volunteers can report crimes without the fear of reprisal.

Mary Joe, Mozambique 2007

Mary Joe always wanted to help people. After she graduated from Seattle University, she worked for a year at a non-profit that tutored low-income housing kids.

She joined the Peace Corps the next year because she wanted to help people abroad and, given Peace Corps' reputation, thought this was the safe way to go.

In 2007, she was sent to Cambine, Mozambique to teach English to high schoolers.

One night in the fall she went to dinner in the next town over with some fellow volunteers. While at the restaurant, her drink was drugged by a man the group had met there. The next thing she remembers is being in a car with a man sexually assaulting her. A fellow Peace Corps volunteer saw what was going on and pulled her from the car. Mary Joe blacked out again until the next morning, when she woke up and called the Peace Corps medical officer, who told her to come to the capital and get checked out.

When she arrived the next day, she was denied a rape kit by the medical officer, who said she was drunk--not assaulted. In fact, before he would give her medicine to fight against possible AIDS exposure as a result of the assault, the medical officer made her write down that she was drunk and not raped. She was told to come back in a month to find out if she had AIDS.

With no further care, it was clear that Mary Joe was not okay. Back at her post, she was startled by and had crying fits over the littlest things, couldn't sleep, was depressed, didn't want to leave her house, and had terrible nightmares. Mary Joe was disoriented and couldn't think clearly for months, yet she was asked to make big decisions. She needed someone intimately familiar with her case who could advocate on her behalf. After 2 weeks, she finally called her country director, who put her in touch with a Peace Corps psychologist in Washington, DC. The psychologist had her medevaced back to her hometown in Tucson on Halloween in 2007.

While in Tucson she was given 3 sessions with a counselor and 3 sessions with a psychiatrist. Following her counselor's recommendation, Mary Joe was medically separated from the Peace Corps.

Because she was no longer with the Peace Corps, she had to go through the Department of Labor to get her medical care. She was never told that she had to have a psychologist or psychiatrist sign her workers compensation claim, so when she submitted it with her counselor's signature, it was denied. By the time she was able to see a psychologist, it was too late to appeal the claim. She never received any more care from the Federal Government for her PTSD.

Billie Jo, Romania 1993

Billie Jo served in Romania from 1993 to 1995. From the day she arrived until the day she left, she was constantly harassed physically and verbally.

She couldn't walk out of the house without hearing cat calls. She was spit on, punched, had chestnuts and rocks thrown at her, and her life threatened. She was fondled so much while riding public transportation that she finally gave up and walked everywhere.

Peace Corps knew sexual assaults were happening to all volunteers and even talked about it in training, but they didn't take it seriously, she said. No legal recourse was offered and when a young man exposed himself to Billie Jo and her friend on the beach, the Peace Corps country director told her to ``stay out of harm's way.''

Eventually, Billie Jo requested a new location, Peace Corps staff refused. ``No one seemed to care,'' she explained.

When she got back to the U.S., Billie Jo had to get counselor services through her own health care insurance because Peace Corps didn't provide any help.

Billie Jo warned Peace Corps staff not to send women to her post, but they did anyway. The young Jewish woman that came after her returned home after only a few months into her service when swastikas were drawn on her building wall.

Jess Smochek, Bangladesh 2004

Jess Smochek joined the Peace Corps in 2004. Her first day in Bangladesh, a group of men groped and kissed her as she walked towards her host family's house, but no one did anything to stop them.

She told Peace Corps staff over and over again that she felt unsafe, but again, no one did anything.

Months later, this same group of men kidnapped her, beat her up, and sexually assaulted her.

They left her unconscious in a back alley.

The Peace Corps did everything they could to cover it up because they were more worried about what the officials in Bangladesh might think than caring for her.

The Peace Corps blamed Jess for the attack, saying she shouldn't have been walking alone after 5pm and forced her to write down all the things she had done wrong that caused this to happen.

Rape is never the victim's fault. Ever.

When she finally got to return home, she was to tell volunteers that she was having her wisdom teeth pulled out.

Mr. Speaker, during the Texas War of Independence, the enemy tried to remove a cannon from the town of Gonzales. The defiant Texans flew a flag which stated ``Come and Take It.''

Now, in Montana, an intolerant radical anti-religious group wants a statue of Jesus taken down from a mountain. The Forest Service is under pressure not to renew a lease for the 58-year-old statue. The statue is more than a religious symbol. It was erected as a memorial and a tribute to Montana freedom fighters during World War II for their bravery, dedication, and patriotism.

What's next? Is the anti-religious crowd going to demand the government chisel off the crosses, the Stars of David, and other religious symbols on the tombstones of our war dead at Arlington Cemetery? The Constitution protects free speech and freedom of religion. As those early Texas settlers

were successful in preventing the enemy from taking that cannon and the right to bear arms, I hope the people of Montana are successful in keeping the anti-religious bunch from taking the Jesus statue.

And that's just the way it is.

Mr. Speaker, right now, there's probably a group of folks at a large oak table in a marble palace down the street nibbling on their $16 muffins, drinking their lattes, and dreaming up new expensive, ineffective regulations to impose on the rest of us. They are the regulators. The very term brings fear and trepidation to the hearts and souls of people who work for a living. Meanwhile, 14 million Americans are sitting at their old kitchen table drinking coffee from their Mr. Coffee pot with no job on the horizon.

In a Gallup poll this week, small business owners said that complying with government regulations was the biggest economic problem they face. Some businesses pack up their bags and even move to places like China. Meanwhile, the U.S. reckless regulators are putting businesses out of business.

The REINS Act will finally bring some accountability to the regulatory bureaucrats by requiring a vote on any regulation costing $100 million or more. Congress must pass this bill now. Cut redtape, clamp down on the renegade regulators, and create jobs. America can't wait.

And that's just the way it is.

Mr. Speaker, there's been a lot of talk about immigration, border security and all of the problems in between. But let's talk about one part of the immigration issue that has maybe slipped through the cracks and we don't hear much about it. There are some illegals in the United States that are just criminals. They have been convicted of crimes from everything from stealing to killing, including rape, robbery and murder.

The Bureau of Prisons says that 27 percent of all the prisoners in Federal prisons are foreign nationals that are illegally in the United States. That's astonishing, that over 25 percent of our Federal prisons house illegals, all at the expense of Americans. These criminals serve their sentence in one of our State or Federal prisons. Then after they serve that sentence and they are ordered deported, here's what happens: many of their native countries refuse to take back their deported criminals.

Why would they take them back? They've got enough criminals of their own.

Since they won't take back all of their own citizens that are convicted criminals after they serve their sentence, that nation tries to pawn off the remainder on the United States. These thugs get a get- out-of-jail-free card in the United States because we do not permanently detain them in jail after they have been ordered deported and their country of origin refuses to take them. That means that they are released on the American streets. They are criminals without a country.

So how many people are we talking about? Well, according to an ICE report earlier this year, we're talking about 138,000 illegal aliens who are pending deportation--either in jail or out on the streets. Some of these are never taken back to their home countries.

Now, who are these offending nations? Well, Cuba, Iran, Pakistan, and, yes, China. Our good buddies the Chinese are the second worst offenders, with 35,000 convicted criminals pending deportation. Imagine that--Chinese criminals in the United States. Who would have thought?

Well, we already have a law on the books that says that the Department of Homeland Security is supposed to report to the Secretary of State any countries that do not accept or unreasonably delay taking their citizens back. Then the Secretary of State is supposed to discontinue granting visas to citizens of that country. That sounds good, but the problem is Homeland Security doesn't always enforce the rule of law. Homeland Security has the obligation to follow the law and ship these criminals back to where they belong. It's simple: If you come to the United States illegally and commit a felony, you go home after you are lawfully deported.

It's time we offer a proper incentive for these uncooperative nations--like China--who freely take money from us--like our debt--and turn around and disrespect our laws. There needs to be a punishment for any nation that refuses to take back lawfully deported

criminal aliens. We should not be issuing visas to diplomats of other nations that refuse to cooperate with our government. There should be consequences for countries whose citizens illegally enter the United States, harm our citizens, go to prison, and the host country disrespects the law of the United States and doesn't take back their malcontent citizens.

So how do we make sure that these disrespectful foreign governments take back their citizens? Today, I introduced the Deport Convicted Foreign Criminals Act. This bill is simple. First, if a country does not take back their criminal aliens after 90 days of being given proper legal notice, diplomatic visas will be withheld. Then, if the country still refuses to take back their criminals, these sanctions will be expanded to include other types of visas.

Our government needs to be more concerned about the rule of law, the security of our Nation, and the cost to the American taxpayer than it is about hurting the feelings of some foreign country. Immigration is a complicated issue. But this part is simple. Foreign convicted criminals need to go back home. Their homeland should take them whether they want them or not. The United States cannot be a halfway house for foreign criminals.

And that's just the way it is.

Mr. Speaker, last week I met with over a dozen community bankers in my congressional district. They are concerned for ``the tsunami of regulations'' coming out of Washington, D.C.

Now, these are not Wall Street bankers, these are small town bankers. They told me, ``Washington regulators have their feet on the throats of small community banks who did not cause this economic downturn.''

The real life consequences of Dodd-Frank on our community banks impact our local small businesses, our communities' job creators. The reason is simple: Paying more money to comply with complicated, costly, meaningless regulations means fewer loans out the door for small businesses.

Higher costs for compliance is why Main Street Bank in Kingwood, Texas will close three branches this week. It simply costs too much money to stay in the community banking business these days.

When community banks close there are fewer opportunities for small business owners to access capital. I often hear small business owners say they can't get loans. This is why. These are the real consequences of burdensome, costly, ineffective Federal regulations.

And that's just the way it is.

I thank the gentleman for yielding and thank you for your leadership on this issue. I appreciate you, Congressman Green. We've known each other a long time. Thirty years ago we both started as young buck lawyers at the Harris County Courthouse in Texas and tried cases against each other, you as a defense lawyer, me as a prosecutor. You continued to work in the defense category until you assumed the role of a judge in Houston. And so it's good to see you again, and I appreciate your leadership on this very important issue.

Some people may not know but Judge Green and I, we disagree on some political things, but on some basic human rights issues we're very strong advocates and work together. And I appreciate your civility and ability to work together on important issues such as domestic violence awareness.

This is an important issue, Mr. Speaker, and it's good that we recognize the importance of understanding how domestic violence occurs in our country and how we should recognize the important people that are involved as victims of domestic violence.

I, too, remember the days when domestic violence was not a case where the police really got involved. Certainly, as a former prosecutor, we never saw those cases. Society's attitude about domestic violence was, It's not our problem, it's not a crime, it's their problem, it should stay in the family situation. Thank goodness, after many, many years of that, really, philosophy in this country and other countries who still have that philosophy, in the United States that's not the philosophy of our culture any longer; that in the family situation, spouses have the legal responsibility and the moral responsibility to treat each other with the dignity that they deserve as another human being.

The most important person in my life has always been my grandmother. She lived to the age of 99. She told me a lot of things that I understood. She kept it in a simple way. Congressman Green, you'd be glad to know that she never forgave me for being a Republican. She actually said I'm not sure you can go to heaven being a Republican. I think she meant it. That's unfortunate.

But anyway, she said something that was true then many years ago that's true today. She said, you never hurt somebody you claim you love. And that's true. We should have that attitude in this country. And in family situations, people should not hurt people in that family they claim to love. But that happens, and it happens on a regular basis.

Congressman Green's given a bunch of statistics, especially from our home State of Texas, where this dastardly crime behind closed doors occurs every day in the United States. And we, as a society, cannot tolerate it. And I commend all the various victims rights groups, the women's groups who are continuing to make us aware of this problem and how to help solve this problem.

You know, the Violence Against Women Act is something that this Congress needs to reauthorize. The VOCA funding should be reauthorized, Violence Against Crime Act. This legislation started way back with President Reagan. It's a novel idea.

Here's the way it works, Mr. Speaker. Criminals who go to our Federal courts and are convicted of a crime, the Federal judge, many times, will order them to pay into the Crime Victims' Fund. That is a fund of money that goes to crime victims, and that fund is important for these services that help these victims' service groups throughout the country.

I understand that today there's almost $6 billion in the Crime Victims' Fund. Now, let's make it clear. This is not taxpayer money. This is money that criminals pay to help the people they've hurt. It's kind of like paying the rent on the courthouse, make them pay for the crimes they created. And it's a great idea.

But every year, and not only under this administration, but previous administrations, we have the same problem with the bureaucrats. They want to take that money that belongs to crime victims and use it for other purposes, and it doesn't belong to other purposes. And it's our duty, as Members of Congress, to make sure that fund is sufficient and the fund goes where it's intended, and that's to crime victims, not for some other purpose, even paying off the debt, because it doesn't come from taxpayers.

After spending 22 years on the criminal bench in Houston hearing felonies, everything from stealing to killing, there were a lot of people who came down to the courthouse, other than defendants, that didn't want to be there, and many of those were crime victims. But they were picked, many of them, spouses, they were picked by someone who claimed they love them, and they were hurt. Sometimes they didn't have the ability to live through the injuries that they sustained. They were murdered by a spouse. And we cannot tolerate that.

That's one of the reasons, when I got to Congress, along with Jim Costa from California, bipartisan, we started the Victims Rights Caucus, a caucus made up of both sides of the aisle to focus on the importance of crime victims and making sure that we take care of them.

There were two situations I'd like to mention. We have not far from here, over in Maryland, a wonderful lady by the name of Yvette Cade. Yvette Cade was separated from her husband, and she had gone to represent herself in a court of law in Maryland, and the judge, for some reason, did not extend the restraining order against her spouse that was supposed to stay away from her.

So when that wasn't renewed, she is working, in a video store, and her husband comes in the video store with a jar of gasoline and pours that gasoline over Ms. Yvette Cade, and set her on fire, all caught on video. Thank goodness for some people in the store who did the best they could to rescue her and put out the fire. And it was--and she survived that awful attack on her.

Now, she's a remarkable woman. She's got a spirit that I just do not understand--even though she was burned over most of her body, and it's a person who claims to love another that caused that crime. And we, as a culture need to reach out to people like Yvette Cade, wonderful lady, and make sure that, not only they're taken care of, but there are not more of them.

Another case was one that I heard back in Houston. It was a little girl. Every day--she was a second-grader--she would catch the bus to go to school somewhere in Houston. One day the bus driver pulls up in front of her house, and she would not get off the bus. She would not. She refused to get off the bus.

She's hanging on that seat in front of her, Mr. Speaker. And the bus driver comes back and tells her, says Lily, you need to get off the bus. This is your house. And she's crying, refused to get off the bus. And she finally told the bus driver, I only feel safe when I get on the bus in the morning and during the day, but I'm not safe when I get off the bus.

And that's because behind those closed doors in the silence of horror, she and her mother were assaulted on a daily basis. Thank goodness for that bus driver who intervened. Law enforcement got involved, and the person was prosecuted mainly for what he did to his wife, Lily's mother. And there's case after case after case that occurs like this. And we need to be constantly aware of this situation, this crime, understand it's not only a crime, but it's a health issue. It's a health issue for Americans, for those people that are hurt behind those closed doors.

So I commend the gentleman from Texas, my friend, Mr. Green, and also the gentleman from California (Mr. Costa), the co-chairman of the Victims Rights Caucus, for their leadership on this issue, making sure that we keep Domestic Violence Awareness Month something that we understand and promote and let people know out there in America that we have this tremendous problem, but we're going to stay on top of it and solve this problem.

And that's just the way it is.

Mr. Speaker, the House in a bipartisan way passed five energy bills months ago. These bills will create American energy jobs right here in America. These bills would allow more energy development in the Gulf of Mexico, in Virginia and in Alaska. One bill requires the administration to make a decision about the Keystone XL Pipeline, which would put more citizens to work.

So what's the delay?

These five bipartisan bills are languishing in the Senate with no vote in sight. It's not that the Senate has voted these jobs bills down. The Senate just won't vote.

To my friends down the hallway in the Senate, how about voting on these bills? Doing nothing doesn't create energy or jobs. Doing nothing maintains unemployment and shows an inability to make a decision.

It's time for the Senate to pick a horse and ride it. But pick something. Get in the race. Being a spectator is not an option. The American people need the jobs, and we need the energy. We just can't wait.

And that's just the way it is.

Mr. Speaker, during the hot summer days of August, with daily consistent temperatures over 100 degrees, a record drought over the State and hundreds of wildfires burning the plains and prairies of Texas, a miracle from the Lord occurred: The birth of a new child. Levi Zachary Alexander joined the world on August 13, 2011 in Waco, Texas.

Every time a child of innocence is born, it is a happy event. The first cry brings joyful tears to the eyes of parents, grandparents, and neighbors. It is a happy occasion because we see hope in the freshness of birth--hope for a better world and hope for a better tomorrow.

Levi has the fortune of being born in the most marvelous and free country in history--America. His parents, Kara and Shane, have the most important and hardest job of all jobs. Along with training energetic sister Elizabeth and brother Peyton, raising this new son of America to be of good character, love liberty, and walk in the favor of God and man is the most important responsibility of parents. So, Mr. Speaker, my desire for Levi as his grandfather is that he matures to be strong and courageous, love America, and play football for the University of Texas--and not Oklahoma.

And that's just the way it is.

Mr. Speaker, in the last 2 days, we have been learning some disturbing information about the Nation of Iran and its dictator, Ahmadinejad. It seems as though, with the consultation with Iran and the drug cartels in Mexico, it was the idea that the Iranian Government, through one of its operatives, would commit a crime against the United States. We're learning more and more about this, but it's my opinion that the Iranian Government was in the middle of this attempted assault on American soil.

The idea that the Embassy down the street that belongs to the Saudi Arabians would be attacked, that the Saudi Arabian Ambassador would be murdered somewhere in a restaurant in Washington, DC, with a possible attack on the Israeli Ambassador, with a possible attack on the Israeli Ambassador and the Saudi Arabian Ambassador in Argentina, was being plotted by the Iranian Government against us is something that we should be aware of and conscious of and be very concerned about.

Thanks to good law enforcement, this terror plot was thwarted. But what if it had occurred? What if the will of this terrorist would-be to go to Mexico and meet with what he thought was a Zeta cartel member to smuggle explosives into the United States from Mexico that would be used in an attack in Washington, DC, what if that had actually occurred? Certainly, if the Iranian Government was involved in it, we would consider that an act of aggression against the United States.

And it's interesting to me that the Iranian Government was so bold that they thought they could do something like this and get away with it. Did they believe that the United States would not do anything about it? Did they perceive us to be so weak that we would not have shown them consequences for this action against this Nation? We don't know. But the truth is we should show the Iranian Government that there are consequences for an attempted attack such as this by the Iranian Government.

There are a couple of things that I think are important for us to realize. One, we should hold the Iranian Government accountable for this attempted attack on American soil, to show them that you must leave us alone no matter what your political philosophy is. But just as equally disturbing is the fact that this operative--that I believe was dispatched by the Iranian Government--had the wherewithal to go to Mexico, our neighbors, and try to work with the drug cartels down there, and working in unison to come into the United States to commit a crime. Now, granted, the person that he was working with was not a Zeta cartel member. It was one of our own law enforcement officers. But the person thought he was working with the drug cartels. And the reason he was working with the drug cartels is because they, too, are at war with the United States, and they have easy access into the United States.

On a daily basis, the Zeta drug cartel--which I think is the worst of the worst in Mexico--comes into the United States and brings drugs and people, traffics humans, anything for money. And on a daily basis, they go back to Mexico and they take that money and they take weapons because they have access to our porous borders. If you want to get into the United States, hook up with one of the drug cartels and they'll get you in the U.S. And that's obvious what this Iranian operative was trying to do was to hook up with them. The drug cartels, for little money, will do anything, including commit murder in the United States.

So that should tell us that the border is still porous, Mr. Speaker. We hear that it's not, it's safe. It is porous, Mr. Speaker. There are portions that are safe, but the portions that are not safe are where the drug cartels go back and forth.

So, two lessons we should be learning are that the Iranian Government has it in for the United States--at least some people do in their government; two, that the border is porous, and we need to protect the national security of the United States' southern border.

So what are we going to do about it? We've heard that, well, we're going to impose some more sanctions to try to isolate Iran. Historically, sanctions have never worked any time countries have tried to use them. It is true that we could actually have some sanctions that would do some good, such as keeping Iran from having refined gasoline going back into the country, and maybe keeping crude oil from going out of Iran, but that doesn't solve the problem long term.

The long-term solution in Iran is a regime change. And let me make it clear, that regime change should be by the people of Iran who live in Iran and people who support the freedom fighters in Iran.

It's time that the regime of Iran be removed by the good folks who live in Iran. And the United States' policy publicly should be that we support those dissidents to get rid of the rogue regime of Ahmadinejad.

And that's just the way it is.

Madam Speaker, when I meet with businesses across southeast Texas, their message for the Federal Government is clear. Back off.

Over 14 million Americans are unemployed because companies are not hiring. Companies are not hiring because of the uncertainty in the economy.

The Federal Government redtape, high taxes, and unnecessary regulations are crippling job creators and adding to the uncertainty. America has become an unfriendly place to do business, so businesses are either not hiring or they move out of the country.

The Judiciary Committee will soon vote on the REINS Act. I support this bill because it says that Congress must approve every major rule proposed by the executive branch before it could be imposed on the American people and the American companies.

So the EPA's dust regulation, among several, would be no more. It is the responsibility of Congress to rein in the administration's runaway regulators. That is how we get America back to work.

The Federal Government cannot create jobs, but its self-inflicted overregulation is destroying jobs. It's time to end the out-of-control Federal regulation terror on American businesses.

And that's just the way it is.

Mr. Speaker, the House today will vote on a jobs plan that will create thousands of jobs for Americans. I'm talking about the pending free trade agreement with Colombia that has been waiting for years to be voted on.

In my great home State of Texas, new jobs will be created in the exporting sectors like petroleum, chemicals, and machinery. Texas is the number one State that exports to Colombia, but in my district alone, the 22 companies that exported to Colombia last year paid almost $12 million in unnecessary tariffs. When tariffs on these products are removed, United States companies will be able to expand their markets, export more products, and create American jobs; and America will become more of a competitive country in the international marketplace.

I've been to Colombia, and unlike some South Americans, Colombians like Americans. They are a U.S. ally. Free trade with Colombia helps both nations and solidifies our joint interests in South America. This agreement is a diplomatic win to help thwart the influence of dictator Chavez of Venezuela in that region.

Create jobs. Pass the free trade agreement with Colombia. It's good for Americans, and it's good for Colombians.

And that's just the way it is.