Floor Statements

Madam Speaker, the President announced to this Congress that he would freeze all domestic spending. But this week we heard the administration say it wants to spend billions of dollars for more high-speed rail. And that's not all. The administration wants to give wireless to everyone in the country at taxpayer expense.

It sure would be nice for all Americans to ride on fast choo choos throughout the fruited plane while reading the news on their wireless iPads, but the country's out of money. Our national debt has risen over $1.7 trillion since last year.

We need to focus on getting ourselves out of this crisis by cutting spending, not more spending. Ask the 44 million people living under the poverty level if they want their taxes to go to the administration's Federal Polar Express.

We need to cut spending, cut borrowing, cut the taxes, and cut the size of government. We are long overdue to stop subsidizing the government's special projects for its special people with money that does not exist.

And that's just the way it is.

I thank the chairman for yielding.

Madam Speaker, the Nation is overregulated. You talk to any business owner, small or big, one of the first things they will talk to you about is the massive amount of Federal regulations that are imposed on them, many of them making no sense but costing

them money. Of course, that cost is always transferred down to the consumer, the American citizen.

I have tried to find out in the last few days how many regulations there are. Nobody knows. We can't find anybody in Washington that can give us an exact number of how many. One person that I trust said that there are over 300,000 Federal regulations that have punitive fines for failure to abide by that regulation. That's a lot of regulations.

It seems to me--and this is just my opinion--that down the street where the bureaucrats work in those offices--and we don't know who those people are--they get up every morning; they go into a room; they sit around a big conference table, drink coffee, and they say, ``Who can we regulate today?'' And they write out another regulation and pass it down to the fruited plain and make the American citizen comply with that regulation.

Some regulations are probably pretty good. Some probably are not so good. And it's our duty as representatives of the people to control and regulate the regulators. That is our job. I believe that is our constitutional requirement since we allow these agencies to exist in the administration.

It seems to me the Federal Government should help business, not get in the way of business. And we should start our job of doing away with burdensome regulations that don't help the country.

This law allows Congress to review, by means of an expedited legislative process, Federal regulations issued by the government agencies and by passage of a joint resolution to overrule a regulation. We should have oversight over those regulations.

The health care bill is probably a pretty good example of this overregulation. Regardless of where we are on that issue, it brings about new massive, expensive regulations. Section 906 of H.R. 3590 will require business owners to submit a separate 1099 form for every single business transaction that they have with another business that totals more than $600 a year. What that means, you've got a business and they deal with other businesses. If they deal with them more than $600 a year, which many businesses do, they've got to file a 1099 form.

It's expensive regulation that makes no sense. Why should all this paperwork be sent up to Washington so bureaucrats can review it? I don't understand the logic. It makes no sense. It costs money.

But the bill also requires 16,000 new IRS agents to oversee the individual mandate requirement that every person must comply with. I think that mandate is unconstitutional. The Supreme Court will eventually decide. But why do we need 16,000 new IRS regulation agents under the health care bill? I think that's overregulation. And, in fact, the Congressional Budget Office, as my friend, the chairman from Texas, said, Director Elmendorf yesterday testified that the health care bill will cost 800,000 jobs for Americans. He said that yesterday. So the bill is not going to help the economy. It's not going to help get jobs. It's going to cost us 800,000 jobs.

These are some reasons why I think Congress has the obligation to review the regulatory process and to get our house in order and probably eliminate a few of those 300,000 expensive regulations that are imposed upon businesses and on citizens.

And that's just the way it is.

Mr. Speaker, American missionaries Nancy and Sam Davis ran a charity in poor villages in Mexico. Recently, Nancy and Sam were driving home to Texas from Mexico when they were ambushed near the border by a roadblock of masked gunmen who opened fire on them. Nancy was shot in the back of the head. Sam bravely raced against oncoming traffic to the border while Nancy sat in the passenger seat bleeding to death. Nancy did not survive and died in McAllen, Texas.

The Mexican government has already said they will not investigate this homicide, and the American government must hold Mexico accountable. The narcoterrorists continue to murder Americans in lawless Mexico, and they will continue their terror on our side of the border if they are not stopped. They are international bandits. Meanwhile, our Federal Government continues to whistle by the graveyard of victims while the people in the border towns live in constant fear and danger. But it is just another day on the Texas border.

And that's just the way it is.

Mr. Speaker, I want to follow up on what my friend has just said about cutting Federal spending. I agree, cutting $400 billion is really not much of a cut, especially in these times when Congress continues to spend more and more money. So let's talk about some specific areas where we ought to reconsider putting taxpayer money, and maybe it's time to reconsider our foreign aid that we send to countries throughout the world.

There are about 192 foreign countries in the world, give or take two that sometimes exist and sometimes don't. So there's 192 countries, and we give foreign aid to over 150 of them. Now, this map over here to my left shows the world, and most of it is in red. All of those countries that are in red on this map receive American taxpayer foreign aid. The countries in green receive military aid from the United States, which is almost all of the countries in the world. There are a few countries in Europe and one part in Africa that are in blue that receive no American aid. But the vast majority receive American money, and we just keep sending it and sending it and sending it, and we send it to countries that many Americans don't even understand why we send it to those countries, and I'm going to address some of those.

But here's how it works, Mr. Speaker, and this rule needs to be changed. When a country wants foreign aid, all of the foreign aid that America gives is put into one bill. In other words, when we write a check, we're writing a check on one bill. For example, we don't separate the countries one at a time and vote up or down on whether they ought to get American money. I think if we did that, most of these countries in red wouldn't be seeing any American money. With the way the rule works, we put all 150-plus countries in one package, and we vote for all of them.

Now, I personally think it's good for the United States foreign policy that we support Israel, that we send them foreign aid and military aid. We ought to keep doing that. But if we want to continue to send aid to Israel, we've got to send it to other countries like Egypt and Pakistan and some others.

Right now in the crisis in Egypt, maybe it's time that we reconsider sending aid to Egypt. You know, if the Muslim Brotherhood takes over that country of Egypt, the world's in a lot of trouble. And we've all seen on television those tanks going up and down those highways and the city of Cairo. Those are American tanks. They came from American taxpayers. It would be a tragedy if those tanks and other foreign aid ends up in that radical group, the Muslim Brotherhood. Take over the government. We don't know. Time to reconsider Egypt.

But, you know, we also give money to Pakistan--Pakistan is on the border with Afghanistan--and it's given in the name of helping that country. Pakistan doesn't support us, I think, adequately in our war on terror in Afghanistan, but yet we continue to give them money.

But here is something that most Americans may not know about. We give money to Venezuela. Why do we give money to Chavez and Venezuela? He hates the United States. He defies our President, makes fun of our Nation. We don't need to give him any foreign aid.

We give $20 million to Cuba. Why do we give money to Cuba? Americans can't even go to Cuba. It's off limits. It's a communist country. But we're dumping money over there.

And we even give foreign aid to this massive country over here, Russia, that used to be called the USSR.

And the zinger of them all, this country. Even though we are in debt $45,000 per American, and most of that debt is owned by the Chinese, this Nation gives foreign aid to our good buddies the Chinese.

Why do we do that? It doesn't make any sense, and it's time to reevaluate our foreign aid policy. It's a time to reconsider. And let's start voting up or down on every one of these countries that want our aid.

And last thing I want to say is most of these countries we give money to, they don't even like us. There was a poll done by FOX News yesterday that said 82 percent of the people in Egypt don't even like Americans. Well, why do we keep giving them money? We don't need to pay them to hate us. As my friend Louie Gohmert from Texas says: ``We don't need to pay them to hate us. They can do it on their own.''

So it's time we reconsider foreign aid and save American taxpayers money. We are at war in two countries now. This debt is tremendous. We have a lot of issues in this country, and we need to start taking care of America before we start sending American money to countries throughout the world. It's a time to reconsider foreign aid.

And that's just the way it is.

I thank the gentlelady for yielding and sponsoring this legislation.

Madam Speaker, it seems fairly simple to me: The American taxpayers have overpaid the U.N. The U.N. didn't tell anybody about it. The Heritage Foundation found out about it and published it last year; and all of a sudden, the U.N. admits, Oops, yes. We have $180 million of American money that was overpaid. The State Department has intervened in a letter today by saying that we not only have intervened, but we have kind of told the U.N. to spend $100 million of that money on security in New York.

Now, no question about it, New York probably needs more security around the U.N. That's a different issue. This issue is basic honesty. It's an overpayment by taxpayers. The U.N. got caught, and they should return the money to the United States. And the United States should decide if we want to appropriate more money for security around New York City or the U.N. That is a different issue. But this is an issue of honesty.

First of all, the State Department didn't have the authority to go ahead and say, Keep a little of that money--$100 million of it--and spend it on security. They didn't have that authority. And now there is only $80 million left.

So I submit, we should pass this legislation. We should expect that the U.N., like everybody else, deal in basic honesty. If you make an overpayment in your private personal business, whoever you sent that money to owes you that money. Somebody else can't come in and say, Go ahead and spend it on security or something else because they overpaid the money. The money returns to that individual, just like this taxpayer money should return to the American public, and we should decide whether we want to spend more on the U.N. or not spend it or send that $180 million someplace else.

So I am somewhat dismayed that the State Department has taken a position against basic honesty in saying that money should go ahead and stay in the U.N. because it's already spent. Somebody needs to return the $180 million.

If the State Department spent part of it without authority by Congress, then they need to fork over another $100 million and we get our $80 million back from the U.N., because it's an issue of basic honesty. Then we will deal with the issue of security. And if we need more security around the U.N., then let's have legislation to deal with that and let Congress pass that legislation or vote on that legislation one way or the other. But it's simply not the U.N.'s money.

Give us back our money. It doesn't belong to the United Nations.

U.S. Department of State,

Washington, DC.

Hon. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen,

Chairman, Committee on Foreign Affairs, House of

Representatives.

Dear Madam Chairman: I write to express the Department of

State's strong opposition to House passage of H.R. 519, the

``United Nations Tax Equalization Refund Act of 2011''.

The Department agrees with the goal of reducing the fiscal

burden on Americans during difficult economic times and has

been working with the United Nations to ensure that the UN

improves its methods for estimating U.S. assessments and that

UN credits attributable to U.S. contributions are applied in

a fiscally responsible manner. The

approach taken in this bill, however, would undermine those

efforts and thus, we oppose passage of the bill.

Contrary to assertions in the bill, the UN Tax Equalization

Fund (TEF) balance attributable to U.S. contributions is now

approximately $80 million. The Administration believes that

these credits should be used as offsets against future

assessments for UN activities, thereby reducing the need for

appropriated funds to meet vital U.S. foreign policy

interests.

As the Department of State notified the Congress in

December 2010, the United Nations advised the Department of

its intent to apply up to $100 million of previously existing

TEF credits attributable to United States assessed

contributions to fund critical security enhancements at the

UN Headquarters complex in New York. New York City and the

New York City Police Department had requested such

enhancements given the increasing threats the United Nations

has come under globally, and given the obvious potential

impact of these threats on the United States, as the UN's

host country, and on its citizens. The Department notified

Congress of its view that upgrades are the only practical

means to mitigate potential threats emanating from the public

streets surrounding the UN complex to protect the safety and

security of staff, visitors, delegates, and senior U.S. and

foreign officials present there every day, and that the

United States and the UN have a strong shared interest in

having increased security against threats emanating from

public rights of way along First Avenue and the FDR Drive.

Additionally, the Department of Justice advises us that

subsection 3(b) of the bill, which purports to declare the

``policy'' of the United States with respect to the TEF

overpayment, implicates the President's exclusive authority

to determine the time, scope, and objectives of international

negotiations or discussions and therefore would be construed

by the Executive Branch as declaring the sense of Congress

but not imposing binding obligations on the conduct of the

President's diplomatic efforts.

Thank you for the opportunity to present our views. The

Office of Management and Budget has advised that there is no

objection to the presentation of this letter from the

standpoint of the Administration's legislative program.

Sincerely,

Richard R. Verma,

Assistant Secretary,

Legislative Affairs.

Mr. Speaker, Christmas is supposed to be the happiest time of the year, especially for children. But it wasn't for an 8-year-old girl who was raped by an outlaw in her own home. Her rapist was Salvador Portillo-Saravia, a known criminal who was illegally living in the United States.

In 2003, Portillo-Saravia was an MS-13 gang member. He was arrested and deported back to El Salvador. But since we have open borders, the child rapist was able to come back into the United States very easily and unnoticed.

In November of 2010 he was arrested for public intoxication in Virginia, but rather than be held in jail and deported, he was released back into the streets of America because his illegal status was not discovered by a computer system. One month later, Salvador Portillo- Saravia raped an innocent 8-year-old girl. This disgusting crime would have been prevented if we really secured our borders, we deported criminal aliens and then kept them from returning to the United States.

Tell the parents of this 8-year-old girl that our border security plan is working.

And that's just the way it is.

Mr. Speaker, liberals loathed him. Conservatives idolized him. The middle overwhelmingly loved him. He charmed America. His knack to connect was unmistakable. And although many have tried to replicate his charisma and appeal, no one has ever come close to being Ronald Reagan.

He made us laugh when we didn't think we could, or should. He always had a way to comfort us in the midst of tragedy. He could disarm the press with a one-liner; and get a chuckle from even his fiercest opponents.

The first time I saw Ronald Reagan was at the 1968 Republican Convention in Miami Beach. Much to the dismay of my dyed-in-the-wool Democrat grandmother, I was there as a proud Texas College Republican delegate.

He lost the nomination to Nixon, but I was sold on Reagan from that moment on.

Of course, I instantly like him for his automobile of choice--a jeep. I drove the same kind and still do. He appealed to me and other renegade conservatives my age, particularly those of us in the yellow- dog South, because we were a herd without a shepherd. Back then, it was taboo to be a Republican in Texas. But then, along came Reagan. We were Reagan Republicans.

Reagan cut the class warfare. He transformed the ``country-club GOP'' image, and brought conservatism out of the shadows. It was cool to be a conservative. He represented what Americans wanted--Democrats and Republicans alike. He wasn't the Grand Old Party leader; he was the people's president.

Reagan's tenure in the White House saw some of the most historic events in our country and the world. His line, ``Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall,'' will probably resonate for time immemorial.

Although criticized by his foes for being a Hollywood actor, Reagan masterfully engineered a feat that so-called political experts had little confidence could be accomplished--the end of the Cold War.

Within minutes of his swearing in, news broke in one of the most widely followed situations of that time. President Reagan announced the Iran hostage crisis was over. The Americans were coming home. Make no mistake--the significance of his election was an intimidating and influential factor in their release.

When the entire country was devastated by the Challenger tragedy, Reagan addressed a grieving nation by giving one of his most memorable and touching speeches. His ability to heal the brokenhearted was more than an admired political attribute. He never talked above the people-- always to the people. It was what made him one of us.

And of course, there is his most beloved legacy. He single handedly made the jelly bean a national treasure.

Reagan never took himself too seriously. Even when his own life was on the line, the leader of the free world was cracking jokes. On his way into emergency surgery after the 1981 assassination attempt, he looked up at the surgeons and said, ``I hope you are all Republicans.''

While he was a one-of-a kind politician--the Everyman of our time. He was a ``pull yourself up by the boot straps'' kind of guy.

From union halls to country clubs, everyone felt like Reagan was one of them. Being an American meant something to him. He was unabashedly unapologetic for our country's success.

He was the great defender of capitalism. Reaganomics was hailed ingenious by the supply-side, pro-growth economists and harshly criticized as ``voodoo'' by the big government crowd.

Reagan proved that lower taxes and leaner government stimulates growth, spurs private enterprise, inspires harder work and enables more savings and investment.

The American people got it then, and they want it back now.

As we celebrated the 100th birthday of President Reagan this Sunday (or the 61st anniversary of his 39th birthday; he never missed a chance to poke fun at his own age), we should learn from The Great Communicator.

Americans want to be talked to again, not pushed aside by a government that talks above them. In Reagan's inaugural address he said, ``It is time to check and reverse the growth of government which shows signs of having grown beyond the consent of the governed.''

The Gipper was right then, and he is right now. Happy birthday, Mr. President.

And that's just the way it is.

Mr. Speaker, Juarez, Mexico, is one of the most dangerous cities in the world, experiencing a fierce turf war between drug cartels. More than 3,000 people were murdered there in 2010 alone. Three triple homicides occurred just this past weekend. Also, two American teenagers, Carlos Bermudez and Juan Echeverri, were brutally murdered in the weekend shootings.

Juarez, across from El Paso, Texas, as well as the rest of the border, is a lawless war zone controlled by the violent drug cartels. Despite the continued loss of American life, the United States Government refuses to admit that there is a war on the southern border. This violence is a lethal cancer and is spreading quickly into the United States. The narcoterrorists do not recognize international lines. This is a matter of national security, and it is the responsibility of the Federal Government to protect the border.

Meanwhile, the administration has proposed a whopping $53 billion in high-speed rail subsidies. Instead of more choo-choo trains, that money should go to the national border security defense.

And that's just the way it is.

Mr. Speaker, I want to address an important issue that has come to light recently. It has to do with the wonderful group of volunteers that serve in the United States Peace Corps.

The Peace Corps was the idea of John F. Kennedy. He went to the University of Michigan way back in 1960, and he started encouraging those college students to get involved in other countries and helping those countries in their social development and their cultural development in the name of peace. A wonderful idea.

When he became President in 1961, President Kennedy signed an Executive order establishing the now important Peace Corps. By 1966, there were over 15,000 young Americans, all volunteers, that were working in the Peace Corps throughout the world.

Since those early days of the Peace Corps, 200,000 Americans, mostly young people, 60 percent female, have volunteered for their 2-year service in the Peace Corps to work in Third World countries on everything from health to farming to small business, just helping other people throughout the world in a way that not only benefits them personally but benefits the recipients in these foreign countries. They really are, in my opinion, along with our United States military, the greatest ambassadors we have from our country to show that we are concerned about the welfare of other nations. And they help build a better life for not only the people that they come in contact with, but their generations and the children that they have as well. I think they are really volunteer angels.

The work that a Peace Corps volunteer does is hard work. It's important, but it's very difficult. They're in a place far from home, sometimes very remote and primitive areas, and yet they, on a daily basis, are working to improve the lives of these individuals.

Like I said, I think it's one of the best things that we do in this country as ambassadors are those young people in the Peace Corps. It's tough work. It's hard work. I wouldn't do it. It's so difficult. And you know, there are people in our country, a lot of them mainly young people who choose that as a calling to help other people in other countries.

I've got four kids, and they're all kind of wanting to save the world, too. They've been to Mexico and lived in orphanages in Trinidad. They've been to Honduras. They've been to Africa and

Zambia, all with that mentality of helping other people.

But the Peace Corps volunteers are people like that who spend at least 2 years in service to their country. And sometimes when they are in those foreign countries, they stick out. They are noticeable by the people who live in that country.

Because of that, occasionally, more often than it should be, they attract crimes that occur against them. That is the issue, Mr. Speaker, I want to address tonight.

Over the last 10 years, 1,000 Americans, mainly women, have been sexually assaulted, raped or assaulted in some other way, in a foreign country representing the United States in the Peace Corps.

Between 2000 and 2009, the Peace Corps themselves say there were over 221 rapes and attempted rapes, almost 150 major sexual attacks, and 700 other sexual assaults. Sexual assault is anything from groping to fondling to conduct that is offensive to that Peace Corps volunteer. Once again, 1,000 crimes against Peace Corps volunteers. Recently, the Peace Corps has announced that there is an average of 22 rapes a year against American Peace Corps volunteers.

This is not acceptable, Mr. Speaker. We are talking about real people. They are real stories and they are real victims, and I want to mention just a few of those tonight in the limited time that I have.

The first of those is a person that I have gotten to know personally. A wonderful person, Jess Smochek.

She joined the Peace Corps in 2004. On her first day as a Peace Corps volunteer in Bangladesh, a group of men started sexually groping her as she was just walking to the home that she was supposed to live in, but no one really did anything. She told the Peace Corps staff over and over again that she felt unsafe in Bangladesh in the situation she was in, but nobody did anything.

Months later, she came in contact with some men who kidnapped her. They beat her and they sexually assaulted her, but they weren't through. They abandoned her and threw her in a back alley somewhere in Bangladesh.

According to Jess, the Peace Corps did everything they could to cover this up because they seemed to be more worried about the officials in Bangladesh and what they thought might happen to their relationship with the United States than they did about caring for this victim of crime. Jess says that the Peace Corps blamed her for the conduct of others. They blamed her for being a sexual-assault victim.

Mr. Speaker, a rape victim is never to blame for the crime that is committed against her. It is the offender that is always to blame. And we need to understand that these precious people who go overseas and represent us, when a crime is committed against them, we take their side. And we don't assume they did anything wrong, because they didn't. They were just a victim of crime, and the criminal is the one that should be held accountable for that conduct. Rape is never the fault of the victim. It's always the fault of the perpetrator.

But Jess got no satisfaction from the Peace Corps, according to her. When she got home, she was told to tell other people that she was coming back to the United States for medical reasons, to have her wisdom teeth pulled out.

Her case and a few others were brought to light recently by ``ABC News'' and ``20/20,'' bringing her story and others. There are more, and I will try to cover as many as I can in the time that I have.

Another woman was sent to Romania, a Peace Corps volunteer. She was constantly harassed, both physically and verbally. She couldn't walk to her house where she was staying without verbal assaults and things being thrown at her. She was spit on, she was punched, and rocks were thrown at her and her life was threatened several times. This took place on a weekly basis. They told her that a young American with blonde hair would stand out, and that she was going to continue to be a victim.

Mr. Speaker, the President's speech last night was long on hope and short on reality.

The administration's answer to America's problems is more investments, which is a fancy word for more spending and more government control.

The administration plans to freeze domestic spending, but domestic spending is already too high. Since last year the national debt has gone up over $1.7 trillion.

Once again, the administration presents an incomplete solution to America's economic problems: A spending freeze is not enough to fix the deficits or the debt. We must go one step further and actually cut massive out-of-control government spending to get us out of this spending madness.

If we cut spending, then we need to also cut taxes. Putting money back in the hands of the American people is the proven way to stimulate the economy. We must cut both taxes and spending to reboot the American economy. We need less spending, fewer taxes, and less government. Congress needs to deal in reality, not hope.

And that's just the way it is.

Mr. Speaker, on Christmas Eve, 2010, about 1 month ago, most Americans were with their families and their friends enjoying the holiday season, the joy and happiness of being together at that special time of the year. But holidays do not come for peace officers; they work all the time, especially on holidays. One such officer was Ann O'Donnell. She was a University of Houston police officer. She liked to call herself ``Unit 429.'' She was on patrol December 24, 2010, about 1 o'clock in the morning. She was the first to respond to a possible kidnapping in the Houston area. She sped to the scene, but her vehicle went out of control and she crashed and was killed.

This is a photograph of Officer Ann O'Donnell, 24 years of age. Her father, Jim O'Donnell, who was close to his daughter, normally talked to his daughter sometime between 2 o'clock and 4 o'clock in the morning those nights that she worked. On this day, this Christmas Eve, he received no such phone call from his daughter.

Ann was a resident of Houston, Texas, and Galveston, Texas. She had been a peace officer for only 13 months. She loved being a Texas police officer, and Mr. Speaker, she was good at it. She is the daughter of Nonette and Jim O'Donnell. Her father, Jim, said about his daughter, ``Ann will never experience the joys of marriage, having her own children to cherish and to grow by her example.'' As a father of four kids, three of them daughters, three of them about the same age as Ann, I understand the close relationship between a father and a daughter. That is a special relationship. But no parent wants to lose their child before their time.

Ann was a compassionate police officer. She not only arrested the bad guys; once she arrested an underage minor for an alcohol offense. Rather than send this child to detention, she called the parents and got the parents involved in this child's life. She was from Ball High School in Galveston, Texas. She went to the University of Houston and Galveston College. In her youth, she learned from the Galveston County police officers about being a peace officer. She wanted not only to capture outlaws, but to help the good people of our community.

Mr. Speaker, police officers are the last strand of wire in the fence between the fox and the chickens, and Officer O'Donnell was one of those officers. They, like Ann, do society's dirty work, and they go and serve and are first responders to public safety. Ann was such a person.

Ann was the 252nd female police officer killed in the line of duty in this country since 1796. Already this year, in 2011, 14 police officers in our country have given their lives for the rest of us. Ann died protecting and serving the people of Texas, and at Ann's funeral 500 police officers paid her honor in the rain. Harvey Rice of the Houston Chronicle said it best about her funeral, ``Officers filed out of the church while the bells tolled `Hark The Herald Angels Sing.' '' The officers re-formed ranks and stood at attention again in the rain as the casket was carried down the steps and placed in a black hearse. At the cemetery, the rain-drenched officers again gathered as a riderless horse followed the casket to the grave site and bagpipes played ``Amazing Grace.'' Officers fired a 21-gun salute, and two buglers played ``Taps.''

Amazing person, this Officer Ann O'Donnell. We admire her and thank her for being a Texas peace officer, and for her life that she gave for the people. We mourn her loss, but Mr. Speaker, we are grateful that such a person as Officer O'Donnell ever lived.

And that's just the way it is.

Mr. Speaker, the government is going broke. Government spends too much. It borrows too much. It taxes too much. One idea is to raise the government credit card limit.

It's like when my four kids went off to college. When they reached the maximum on their credit cards, the credit card company would simply raise their limit. Thus, they could spend more money by borrowing money. However, they all found out how difficult it was to get out of debt until they quit spending money.

Instead of more U.S. debt, why not cut spending? Start with foreign aid. There are 194 countries in the world, and the United States gives to over 150 of them.

Did you know we give money to dictator Chavez of Venezuela, the tyrant of South America? Did you know we give money to Russia?--and the zinger of all--did you know we give money to China? Yes, the country that owns most of our debt gets foreign aid.

This absurdity must cease. No more foreign aid to the likes of Venezuela, Russia or China.

And that's just the way it is.

Mr. Speaker, Jess Smochek joined the Peace Corps in 2004 and went to Bangladesh to help that Third World country. Soon after arriving, a group of local men groped her sexually, however. She reported the improper conduct, but no one did anything. While in Bangladesh, Smochek felt unsafe and continued to report the hostile environment to the Peace Corps. But no one did anything.

Later, a group of criminals kidnapped her, beat her, raped her and abandoned her in an alleyway. And no one did anything. In fact, for political reasons, the Peace Corps did everything it could to ignore and cover up the dastardly deed, blaming the crime on the victim.

Rape is not the fault of the victim. It is the fault of the criminal. And according to ABC News, over 1,000 rapes and assaults occurred in the last 10 years against American women working for the Peace Corps. But apparently no one is listening.

Those days need to end, and it's time for justice for Jess Smochek, because justice is what we do in this country.

And that's just the way it is.

Mr. Speaker, finally Congress says it will rein in out-of-control spending. My neighbors in Texas are a little cynical and say, ``Prove it.'' One suggestion I keep hearing is regarding foreign aid. My friend, Sammy Mahan, a towing service operator, told me to quit giving money to dictators. Well, there's a thought.

There are 192 countries, and the United States gives money to roughly 150 of them. With our economic times, 15 million unemployed and the debt monster looming over us, it's time we reevaluate the citizen money we give away.

Someone has said that ``foreign aid is taking money from the poor people in rich nations and giving it to rich people in poor nations''. And many of these receivers of taxpayer money don't even like us. As my friend, the gentleman from Texas, Mr. Louie Gohmert says, ``We don't need to pay them to hate us. They'll do it on their own.''

We even give money away to China. We should reevaluate the money we give each nation. I suspect Israel and maybe a few others would and should receive U.S. help, but the rest need to go it on their own. After all, we should take care of America first.

And that's just the way it is.

Mr. Speaker, today I am proud to honor businessman and community leader Everett Sanderson and his wife Darla for their efforts on behalf of Southeast Texas, particularly for their assistance to first responders during the critical first days after Hurricanes Rita and Ike.

In the span of three short years, from 2005 to 2008, the upper Texas coast was struck by two monstrous hurricanes that caused billions of dollars of damage and took multiple lives. Countless homes and businesses were destroyed. Debris and downed trees and power lines filled the streets, making travel extremely dangerous. Power and water services were off. It was a dire situation, indeed.

Tens of thousands Southeast Texans evacuated to safer ground, but a handful of individuals rode the storm out in order to start the clean up and restoration immediately. These first responders worked unending shifts with little resources available. A hot meal was difficult to find, until the Sandersons stepped in and opened their damaged restaurant for the brave souls who decided to stay.

Everett Sanderson was born and raised in Nederland, TX. A 1985 graduate from Baylor University Law School, he has practiced in Jefferson County since. He is an active member of the community, serving on the Nederland Independent School Board of Trustees, Jefferson County Bar Association Board of Directors, and the Mid-County YMCA Board of Directors, among many others. He was named Mr. Nederland in 2006. Sanderson and his wife Darla have two children, Jordan and Michelle.

In 2003, the Sandersons found time to open a restaurant in Nederland, Sanderson's Restaurant and Bar. It was an instant hit, serving everything from seafood to barbeque to salads and everything in between. It was here, in the first hours after the hurricanes passed, that they decided to open their doors for first responders from the police, fire departments, Red Cross, FEMA, and other organizations. Pulling in resources from wherever they could, the Sandersons provided food and some peace of mind. One day during the aftermath of Hurricane Rita, they served over 6,500 first responders.

On behalf of the Second Congressional District of Texas, I would like to commend Everett and Darla Sanderson for their hard work and dedication to make the first responders feel at home during this trying time. The Sandersons' hearts are bigger than their chicken fried steak, and if you have seen their chicken fried steak, you would know that is quite the compliment.

And that's just the way it is.