Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, after years, literally years, of growing government and increasing spending beyond all reason, it is now long past time to bring fiscal sanity to Washington and to put America on a path to prosperity.

Mr. Speaker, our national debt has increased. Today it exceeds $14 trillion. Our debt has increased by almost $4 trillion, which is more than $120 billion a month in new debt just since President Obama has been in office. That is $120 billion each and every month with this new President.

Government has grown so large that it now spends nearly 25 percent of our annual economic output, a level not seen since World War II. That has crowded out private sector growth and new jobs and opportunities that Americans need and are demanding.

This plan puts forward real cuts to spending; no smoke, no mirrors. It enforces discipline with real caps on spending and a balanced budget amendment. And it gives the President the increase in the debt ceiling he is seeking if the balanced budget amendment is sent to the States.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this commonsense reform.

I certainly thank the gentlelady for yielding some time to me.

I hate to rain on this bipartisan parade. I know that there's a bipartisan effort here, but I think this program needs to be eliminated, not to be reformed, and I would start with this basic premise:

Why in the world is the Federal Government in the flood insurance business?

If you read the Constitution, what does it say? Actually, in the preamble, it says the first and foremost responsibility of the Federal Government is to provide for the common defense. I can't find anywhere in that Constitution that says we're supposed to be in the Federal flood insurance business. I just can't find it. I'll tell you what. I know we're trying to reform what, I think, is an unnecessary boondoggle, ridiculous program, but rather than reforming it, as I say, I think it needs to be eliminated.

This program started in 1968, and we started writing policies in 1972. The FEMA administrator just recently testified, I believe before the Financial Services Committee, and said this Federal Flood Insurance Program is in debt. As has been mentioned here, it is almost $18 billion in debt. We have to raise the debt ceiling for the Federal Flood Insurance Program to about $25 billion, and the FEMA administrator is telling us that it is always going to be in debt-- forever--massive debt.

The biggest issue facing Congress today is what we are going to do about the $14 trillion in debt we are currently faced with and raising the debt ceiling for that. So, as we are struggling with all of this, it is almost ludicrous to me that we are talking about raising the debt ceiling on a program that the Federal Government should not be involved in. One of the reasons it's not doing particularly well is--guess what? big surprise--the Federal Government is probably not the best insurance agent in the world. I mean, when you see that 1 percent of the policyholders is getting 40 percent of the claims, something is seriously wrong.

I am going to be offering amendments shortly to eliminate this program, and I'll speak more to it at that time.

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. Chairman, today I am offering an amendment that would end TV and radio ads that I believe to be a total waste of taxpayers' dollars. Over the past 2 years FEMA has actually spent over half a million dollars on the production of what they called ``Home Personified flood insurance commercials.'' These slick commercials sort of depict actors with roofs hovering over their heads talking about the need to

obtain flood insurance, and about the fact that one in four homes are in a high-risk flood zone, and they pitch to contact FEMA for a free brochure about the program.

These commercials between April of 2010 and April of 2011 cost over $7 million in airtime to broadcast all across the 50 States, and they are slated to be aired for an additional year at least. Seven million dollars spent on promoting the National Flood Insurance Program, which is a federally mandated flood program, which has been mentioned all across the day here, is already almost $18 billion in debt. I would say, why not spend that $7 million to pay back the American taxpayers? Or better yet, to begin paying off the program's $18 billion in debt?

Mr. Chairman, last year in the election in the fall, the American people sent a very clear message to Washington. And I don't think the message to Congress here was urging us to spend millions of dollars of taxpayers' money on TV commercials asking them to put money into a failing, bloated, and completely unnecessary government program. No, they were demanding that we get a grip on government spending, on out- of-control government spending, and they were asking us to end programs where the government is trying to fill a role best done by the private sector.

Shortly, Mr. Chairman, all of us in this House, in the Congress, in both Chambers, are going to be asked to raise the national debt limit because we have not been able to get our fiscal house in order. And this week, here we are being asked to renew a Federal program that is over $17 billion in debt currently, all of which falls on the backs of the American taxpayers, and we need to raise the debt ceiling of the flood insurance program, as well, to almost $25 billion. Who cares? I guess it's just taxpayers' money.

If we want to stop adding to our national debt, we should not continue the Federal flood insurance program--and I'm going to be offering an amendment to that in a moment--nor should we continue to spend millions each year on TV commercials for a program that constituents in many, many States, most of the States across the Nation, are wondering about, at a minimum, and many of them are outraged. I certainly hear from my constituents back in Michigan who are looking for some relief. These hard-pressed taxpayers from my State are asking for less spending, for less government, for lower taxes and less government intrusion into their lives. They're certainly not asking us for wasteful government programs to be shoved down their throats on television with television ads.

My amendment today, Mr. Chairman, to end unnecessary spending on TV commercials for the National Flood Insurance Program will be a downpayment on the relief that we owe to the American taxpayers who are concerned about these commercials that seem to be on repeat all across the airwaves in all of the States across our Nation.

Mr. Chairman, I would ask that my colleagues support this amendment today and vote in favor of saving money, taxpayers' money, for the American taxpayers.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I would simply observe that, for the most part, the reason that folks, property owners, get national flood insurance is because the Federal Government holds a gun to their heads and says that you cannot get a federally backed mortgage unless you buy Federal national flood insurance through the National Flood Insurance Program. So I don't think we have to spend millions and millions of dollars to convince them to do something that, in my mind, I question whether it is even constitutional that we are forcing people to do this kind of a thing; but I certainly don't think we need to spend millions of dollars to notify them of something that we are mandating for them.

Certainly if you live in a flood-prone area, you probably know it. And with everything going on in the Nation, I just can't believe we're wasting money like this. And I would certainly urge my colleagues to support this amendment.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk made in order under the rule.

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

I would begin by asking a very fundamental question: Why in the world is the Federal Government in the flood insurance business? Really, I do not understand it.

I don't think anyone should be surprised to learn that the Federal Government is not a very good insurance agent, that they run a terrible insurance program, as evidenced by the $18 billion in debt that the NFIP, the National Flood Insurance Program, has racked up over the years and will probably never repay. I don't think they'll ever repay it. If you don't believe me, you can consider the testimony that the administrator of FEMA made before the Financial Services Committee. In congressional testimony, he said the program will likely always be in debt, massive debt.

Congress set up the NFIP to ostensibly be an insurance company, but it is not held to the same standards as private insurance companies. Instead of holding cash reserves, the NFIP has a bottomless pit of money that it shamelessly taps into. That money pit is also known as the U.S. Treasury, or the American taxpayers. If the NFIP were a private insurance company, it would have gone bankrupt years ago, or it would have been in need of a Federal bailout. In other words, when this government-authorized Ponzi scheme runs out of money, it simply gets more by dipping into the pockets of taxpayers. Mr. Chairman, I would say that this is a program that would make Bernie Madoff blush.

The American people are fed up with bailouts, and this bill is just that: another bailout for another broken program. If we want to stop adding to our national debt, we should not continue the Federal flood insurance program.

My home State of Michigan is just one of a majority of States that is actually disadvantaged by this Ponzi scheme. The State House of Representatives has recently passed a resolution condemning the NFIP as fundamentally flawed and unfair, and I would expect the State Senate to follow suit shortly. So there is an entire State. I don't think that's radical.

My amendment would actually end the program at the end of this year and allow States to work together to form a regional coalition to shape insurance policies that meet the needs of their particular State. There is no way that a one-size-fits-all insurance program that dramatically subsidizes rates in some of the most flood-prone areas of our Nation while at the same time forcing those in less flood-prone areas to pay much higher rates can be sustained. States like mine will simply become fed up and opt out, which is what's going to happen, so that they can better protect their citizens. Then, of course, it would force this program even deeper into debt. It is time to end this program now.

My amendment would also, and perhaps more importantly, allow the private market to get into the flood insurance business without the Federal Government's unfair competition of politically based premiums, which would allow premiums to be set based on actual risk.

If you want to get a handle on out-of-control Federal spending and start eliminating government programs that do nothing except enforce bad policy and recklessly spend the taxpayers' money, I would ask my colleagues to support my amendment.

A Resolution To Memorialize the Congress of the United States To Make

Significant Reforms to the National Flood Insurance Program

Whereas, Under the National Flood Insurance Program, most

property owners must purchase flood insurance if their

property is located within a mapped floodplain; and

Whereas, The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) has

recently revised existing floodplain maps in Michigan that,

in many cases, have increased the amount of land within the

floodplain without adequate explanation of perceived

additional flood risk. Flood insurance for buildings within

redrawn areas is a significant added expense. These revisions

amount to a penalty that will be felt far into the future,

especially as the market value of impacted properties suffers

needlessly; and

Whereas, The revised maps exacerbate disparities between

the premiums paid by Michigan residents relative to claims

received. Michigan residents have paid nearly five times as

much in flood insurance premiums than they have received back

in claims over the last 30 years. The remaining funds from

these premiums goes to subsidize flood insurance claims in

higher risk areas of the country; and

Whereas, The National Flood Insurance Program is operated

without transparency to the public in rate-setting methods.

Rebuilding within a floodplain has continued in higher risk

areas of the country where multiple recent flood events have

occurred, contributing to the $20 billion in debt of the

National Flood Insurance Program. Rebuilding in very high

risk areas would be avoided if flood insurance was set at

actuarially sound rates; and

Whereas, The National Flood Insurance Program is

fundamentally flawed and unfair. Year after year, the program

takes money from property owners in most states and uses that

money to rebuild in only a few states. Congresswoman Candice

Miller has introduced legislation (H.R. 435) to eliminate the

National Flood Insurance Program in 2013 and to authorize

states to work together to provide flood insurance as they

deem appropriate; and

Whereas, Congresswoman Judy Biggert has introduced

legislation, the Flood Insurance Reform Act of 2011 (H.R.

1309), to begin the process of modernizing and reforming the

National Flood Insurance Program; now, therefore, be it

Resolved by the House of Representatives, That we

memorialize the Congress of the United States to make

significant reforms to the National Flood Insurance Program;

and be it further

Resolved, That copies of this resolution be transmitted to

the President of the United States Senate, the Speaker of the

United States House of Representatives, and the members of

the Michigan congressional delegation.

Adopted by the House of Representatives, June 21, 2011.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Higgins).

Mr. Chairman, I would simply reiterate that I don't think this is something that the Federal Government should be involved in. If you are truly a friend of the taxpayers, and believe me, I appreciate the bipartisanship and the hard work about reforming this program. I understand the need to reform programs, but I also understand the need to get a handle on the Federal debt and deficit; and one way to do that is to eliminate unnecessary programs, not just nibble around the edges, which is what I think we are doing here today.

I certainly urge my colleagues to support this amendment.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Speaker, for the last 2\1/2\ years, President Obama and his allies in Congress here have been on a spending spree which has led to annual deficits of $1.4 trillion and a national debt that now exceeds $14 trillion.

The Republicans have drawn a line in the sand and said enough. We've changed the culture here in Washington from how much more are we going to spend to how much are we going to cut. We've passed a responsible budget which focuses on getting economic growth going and on new jobs, a budget that would put us on the path to prosperity and also to fiscal sanity. And today's anemic job report with unemployment rising again now to 9.2 percent shows that we have so much more to do. And the idea of job-killing tax increases is absolutely a nonstarter.

I'm proud that our Republican negotiators that have been in the negotiations with the President and the Democratic leadership are standing strong over increasing the debt limit with a strong focus on jobs. And I hope that the President and the Democrats will finally join us in getting our fiscal house in order. And for the sake of the American people, Mr. Speaker, let's get the job done.

I thank the gentleman for yielding. I actually live in Harrison Township. I appreciate that, though.

I certainly rise to support this rule, Mr. Speaker, but I am strongly, strongly opposed to the underlying bill, the National Flood Insurance Program. And I would start with this basic premise: Why in the world is the Federal Government even involved in the flood insurance business? Is that our core purpose of being the Federal Government? It's ridiculous.

This program was started in 1968, and the government began writing policies in the early seventies. And no great surprise, the Federal Government is doing a lousy job of being in the insurance business. This program is currently over $17 billion in debt, and now we need to raise the debt ceiling on this program to about $25 billion. And recently, the FEMA administrator testified to Congress that the flood insurance program--no great surprise--is likely to stay in debt, massive debt forever. And it's easy to understand why--because this program is not actuarially sound and because the Federal Government can be treated, apparently, as a bottomless pit of money. So we don't need to base the premiums on any normal risk evaluation, which is a matrix that private sector insurance companies have to do. In fact, we actually encourage people to build in flood-prone areas that repeatedly flood.

And just consider this one statistic: Only 1 percent of the properties in this program are considered to be repetitive losses, 1 percent; yet that 1 percent accounts for 40 percent of the claims because they repeatedly flood and the Federal Government subsidizes them to reconstruct.

At a time of extreme financial distress for our Nation, the Federal Government is subsidizing flood insurance. Why? If it's so great, why don't we start a fire insurance program? How about a wildfire insurance program? How about an earthquake protection insurance program? The truth is, Mr. Speaker, if we have a natural disaster in our country, this Congress, Americans, will always stand up and help that part of the country, that area of the country that is suffering. We will always help our fellow Americans.

This program may have been well-intentioned at the beginning, but it has evolved into something that is unrecognizable anymore. And if we ever truly want to downsize, to right-size the Federal Government, we just can't be nibbling around the edges of reforming a program that is ridiculous at its very core. We can't be reforming useless government programs. They need to be eliminated. And I believe that the National Flood Insurance Program is a waste of taxpayers' dollars, it is a boondoggle, and it needs to be eradicated.

So, Mr. Speaker, again, I do support the rule, but I obviously am very, very opposed to the National Flood Insurance Program. That is not the business of the Federal Government. We need to get out of that business.

Mr. Speaker, it is my distinct privilege to recognize a special achievement recently accomplished by the St. Clair High School Saints Baseball Team. St. Clair capped off a remarkable and extremely memorable 2011 season by taking home the Michigan High School Athletic Association (MHSAA) Division II Team State Title! Forty-Eight years have passed since St. Clair won their last state high school championship which was in boys' gymnastics, so this was truly a time for celebration and jubilee. The St. Clair High School Baseball Team exhibited true-grit, determination and solidarity to reach the pinnacle of this historic season.

With ``Skipper'' Bill McElreach leading the charge, the Saints played strong fundamental

baseball focusing on the basics: error-free defense, smart base-running and simply putting the ball in play. The Saints were able to keep the pressure on their opponents and force them to commit untimely mistakes which they were able to capitalize upon.

This was true in the state finals when the team scored two runs on wild pitches en route to a 4-1 victory over Grand Rapids Christian. The Saints consistently exhibited the intangibles like heart, discipline and a positive attitude. They were never afraid to get their gloves and jerseys dirty to make a play.

In addition, the Saints also complied an impressive final record of 33 wins and only one 1 loss, with 31 wins coming straight in a row. I applaud the entire coaching staff for their efforts to prepare this team both mentally and physically for competition.

Here I think it is worth mentioning our hometown Detroit Tigers who are posthumously honoring former Manager Sparky Anderson by retiring his Number 11 jersey this season. I think Sparky put it best when he said, ``Baseball is a simple game. If you have good players and if you keep them in the right frame of mind then the manager is a success.'' I am sure Coach McElreach would echo that same sentiment.

In commend the Saints for staying energized and hungry each time they crossed the white chalk to face-off against their opponents. This is an extremely difficult task, considering the various pressures and distractions high school student-athletes face on a daily basis.

Mr. Speaker, I wish to recognize the hard work and sacrifices displayed by all the members of the 2011 St. Clair High School Baseball Program. I congratulate the coaches, staff, teachers, parents, students and fans for their assistance in making this a season no one will ever forget.

Despite the hardships, set-backs and obstacles, the Saints showed they had the skills, will power and fortitude to rise to any challenge and accomplish their ultimate goal--a State Championship! Teamwork, perseverance and friendship all contributed to this title as well. I know the City of St. Clair, St. Clair County and the East China School District take great pride in what these young men were able to accomplish.

In closing Mr. Speaker, I share that same pride and express my personal congratulations and best wishes. All the accolades, awards and trophies won by this team are rightfully deserved. This baseball squad exceeded expectations and established a tradition of winning for future teams to follow. Way to go Saints!

Mr. Speaker, I intend to vote ``no'' on this resolution.

We just voted on a resolution on whether or not to authorize in Libya, and this House overwhelmingly voted ``no,'' no to authorizing that. I have been opposed to this action in Libya. I have not been persuaded that the U.S. has a vital interest there. And by the way, we were not attacked by Qadhafi.

I spent 2 hours in a tent with Qadhafi in 2003. We were the first congressional delegation in over 38 years to be there. In fact, we were there because he was voluntarily giving up his nuclear arms. I will say that there probably are few dictators who are going to do that again after watching what is happening over there. He is a bloody dictator; but one of the things I learned, he hates al Qaeda.

I also think that this action vividly demonstrates the weakness of NATO, quite frankly. It is a great organization. We appreciate their partnerships, of course. They are our allies. But it is an antiquated organization. The United States is paying 75 percent of the cost of NATO, and NATO can't even take out a two-bit dictator like Qadhafi. Why? Because we have enabled our allies, providing their defense for them for decades. And instead of spending money on their defense, as they said, 2 percent of their GDP, they are spending their money on their social programs; they are spending their money on lower corporate tax rates, et cetera.

So I would say, yes, Qadhafi is a bloody dictator. He is a terrorist. He did not attack us. And by the way, let us remember who let the Lockerbie bomber out way early as well.

We need to get out of Libya, Mr. Speaker.

Offered By: Mrs. Miller of Michigan

Amendment No. 27: Page 12, line 17, insert after the dollar

amount the following: ``(increased by $144,000,000)''.

Page 31, line 17, insert after the dollar amount the

following: ``(reduced by $144,000,000)''.

Offered By: Mrs. Miller of Michigan

Amendment No. 28: Page 8, line 2, insert after the dollar

amount the following: ``(reduced by $449,901,000)''.

Page 161, line 12, insert after the dollar amount the

following: ``(increased by $449,901,000)''.

Mr. Speaker, it is my distinct privilege to properly acknowledge a special event occurring in the 10th Congressional District. On Sunday, June 5, 2011, St. Patrick Catholic Church of Lapeer County in Clifford, Michigan will celebrate a significant and historic milestone--its 125th Anniversary Celebration. This achievement will begin with a 1 p.m. Celebration Mass presided by special guest, Archbishop Allen H. Vigneron of the Archdiocese of Detroit. Following mass, the celebration will continue with an open house and reception for all to enjoy. Although I will be unable to personally attend this festive occasion, I certainly wanted to recognize this extraordinary accomplishment and offer my heartfelt congratulations.

Mr. Speaker, I believe it would be fitting to share some history about St. Patrick Chapel. However, first let me start with the Archdiocese of Detroit which was formally established in 1833, but can trace its Catholic lineage back to 1701 when the first French traders arrived in the region. The history of St. Patrick Chapel shares a similar story in that the Church was first built in 1886, but Father Clement Krebs started offering masses inside the homes of local residents in 1879--seven prior to the church being constructed.

Despite lacking an official diocese or church, both stories exemplify a Catholic presence and influence which exceeds the creation of physical infrastructure. It is a testament to an often repeated adage which states that the people inside the church are the church; a church without people is just an empty building.

St. Patrick Catholic Church has been an important resource for Michigan's Thumb Region, and has always worked to improve the community. It has always answered the call of service and almsgiving. And despite the struggles and obstacles faced along the way, St. Patrick has remained steadfast and resilient exhibiting its core values and trust in God.

Currently, over 1.4 million Catholics embody the Archdiocese of Detroit and St. Patrick Church has been a strong part of its history and the history of Lapeer County. Parishioners can be extremely proud of this keystone anniversary and have every reason to celebrate. Reaching this notable achievement is a strong reflection of the faith and commitment of the people who attend religious services and worship every Sunday.

Lastly Mr. Speaker, I commend the leadership, parish staff, event coordinating committee and everyone who had a helping hand in seeing this day come to fruition. Their hard work is recognized and greatly appreciated. I extend my best wishes to St. Patrick Catholic Church on a successful and wonderful celebration.

Mr. Speaker, we just heard from a leader of a nation that is one of America's greatest friends and allies: Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu of the nation of Israel.

The Prime Minister was correct in saying that in the often shifting alliances in the Middle East, only Israel stands as our unwavering ally. And his message for peace and security should not be heard just in this Chamber but across the world.

Many in the world often like to scapegoat Israel as the cause of instability in the Middle East and the reason why a Palestinian state has not been created. And nothing can be further from the truth.

As the Prime Minister said, the conflict has never been about the establishment of a Palestinian state; it has always been about the existence of a Jewish state.

It is time for the Palestinian President, Abbas, to stand before his people and state that he is ready to accept peace and live side by side with the Jewish State of Israel. Only then can peace be achieved.

Until that time and on into the future, the people of the world should know that the United States of America will always stand strong with the nation of Israel.

Mr. Speaker, during the past several years, the domestic auto industry has undergone an incredibly painful economic transition. Quite frankly, this industry was on its knees, and many people didn't think that either General Motors or Chrysler would survive. These naysayers said it would be best if they were just left to, in the case of General Motors, go into a chaotic bankruptcy, and in the case of Chrysler, certainly a complete liquidation.

For my great State of Michigan, my beautiful State of Michigan, which has suffered the worst economic depression certainly in my lifetime, if that would have happened, as bad as it has been for us, what would have happened if those companies would have gone bankrupt and liquidated would have been unimaginable--the loss of tens of thousands of more jobs either directly or indirectly through the supply chain and all the businesses that rely on the spinoff from the domestic auto industry.

Mr. Speaker, tomorrow, Chrysler Company at the Sterling Heights Assembly Plant--also known as SHAP, which is in my district--will be announcing that they will be paying back the Federal Government loans in their entirety 4 years ahead of schedule. This is the same plant, Mr. Speaker, that just recently put on a third shift, actually saving in that plant well over 2,000 jobs.

I am very proud of everyone who has supported the domestic auto industry, and certainly it is proof that the best automobiles in the entire world are, indeed, imported from Detroit.

Mr. Speaker, it is my distinct pleasure to recognize the dedicated service of Clinton River Watershed Council, CRWC, Community Outreach Director Dan Keifer. On May 18, 2011, Dan will retire after 10 years on the job with the watershed. Prior to the CRWC, Dan founded the Friends of Clinton River Trail, and remains an active member of the Oakland Land Conservancy and Challenge Chapter of Trout Unlimited.

Without question, he has been a tireless advocate and supporter of water quality issues throughout Macomb and Oakland County. Despite the challenges, Dan has remained a vital team member of the CRWC, facing any problem head-on. He has done an exceptional job promoting the Clinton River, Lake St. Clair and supporting waterways in the area. He has successfully undertaken a public awareness campaign properly informing the people about the history and unique story of the watershed. His work has highlighted the importance of this wonderful natural resource and the urgency to protect and revive this pristine treasure which is literally in our backyards.

After joining the CRWC in 2002, Dan's devoted efforts have played a key role in getting people to take advantage of the numerous recreational opportunities available to them like kayaking, canoeing, fishing, hiking, biking, swimming and much much more. And he has been on the frontlines to maintain and enhance the bountiful habitats of the various species of fish and wildlife that call the watershed home by setting up countless cleanup events. These initiatives have helped improve the quality of life for residents and the overall environmental health of surrounding communities. Furthermore, a vibrant and clean waterway also has a tremendous economic impact on local businesses which depend on the watershed, like golf courses and apple orchards, just to name a few.

Mr. Speaker, Dan has also been a strong leader by forming new relationships among various partners and stakeholders involved with the watershed. Whether it is the public or private sector, there is now a desire to open the line of communication to accomplish a common goal. His work has certainly advanced the mission of the Clinton River Watershed Council, which is to protect, enhance, and celebrate the Clinton River, its watershed, and Lake St. Clair.

As a lifelong boater and someone who has lived on the water my entire life, I have witnessed firsthand the great work performed by the CRWC. It has been my privilege to work with the CRWC and Mr. Keifer on numerous issues.

I commend Mr. Keifer for all his hard work and achievements during his tenure with the CRWC. I know Dan has always had our community's best interests at heart, which is evident by his lifetime of accomplishments. We are fully cognizant of the fact we are not doing our job if we do not provide a better future for our children and the next generation to follow.

In closing Mr. Speaker, I want to extend my best wishes to Mr. Dan Keifer on this special occasion. He will be severely missed, but his presence will still be felt by those who continue to serve at the CRWC. I hope he enjoys his retirement and I thank him for his service to the citizens of the State of Michigan. His work is officially recognized and greatly appreciated.

Mr. Speaker, due to a clerical error, I ask unanimous consent that the following cosponsors be removed from the permanent record as cosponsors of H.R. 435: Representative Rigell, Representative Adams, and Representative Walden.

Mr. Speaker, nearly 10 years ago, 19 cowardly terrorists, acting on the orders of Osama bin Laden, murdered nearly 3,000 innocents. And yesterday, justice was delivered to Osama bin Laden at the hands of Navy SEAL Team 6 and the incredible professionals at the CIA.

This justice, Mr. Speaker, has been long in coming and is a direct result of the eternal vigilance of our intelligence professionals, the brave men and women in our military, our national security leaders, our President, and the American people.

This Nation will always stand strong and united against our enemies. We will not back down, and we will never surrender.

This should stand as a message to our terrorist enemies. If you choose to stand against freedom and liberty, and if you choose to murder the innocent, no matter how long it takes, we will hunt you down and bring you to the same justice that was received by Osama bin Laden.

Mr. Speaker, today let us all say a prayer of remembrance for those we lost on 9/11 and those we have lost in defense of freedom. And let us say a prayer of thanksgiving for those brave American men and women who have continued to protect liberty, freedom, and democracy around the globe.

God bless America.