Floor Statements

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, we have a spending problem here in the Congress of the United States. We know it. All the Members here know it, and certainly the American people know it as well. Over the past few years, we have run deficits of over $1 trillion each year, and we have driven our national debt to over $14 trillion.

On November 2, 2010, the American people spoke out in a very loud and clear voice: Stop the reckless spending. The Republican majority elected on November 2 heard the call of the American people, and we will start the spending cuts today by cutting our own budgets by 5 percent.

You know, since my election to Congress, I have always tried to be a good steward of the money that is appropriated to my budget to serve my constituents. In the last Congress, I returned, actually, about 11 percent of the money that was allotted. In 2009, I returned nearly 8 percent to the Treasury, and in 2010, I expect that return to be almost 14 percent. I am sure that many Members can make similar claims here.

A cut of 5 percent for Members, for leadership offices, and for committees is a very important first step in getting our spending under control. Some may say that 5 percent doesn't cut nearly enough, but certainly, it is a welcomed change, and we are going in the right direction rather than in the wrong direction of increasing these Members' allowances that we have seen for too many years.

If we cannot cut our own budgets, how can the American people expect us to start cutting spending?

I urge all of my colleagues to join me in sending this important message to the American people that we are very serious about cutting spending. We get it. We heard what the American people said in this last election, and we are starting here, right now, with ourselves.

Madam Speaker, on rollcall No. 664, had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

I yield myself as much time as I may consume.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to speak about S. 3243, which will require Customs and Border Protection, the CBP, to begin polygraph testing for all new applicants for law enforcement positions before being hired and to initiate periodic background reinvestigations for all of its law enforcement personnel.

First, I would like to sincerely commend the work that the Border Patrol agents and the CBP officers across the Nation do each and every single day. These brave men and women stand on the front lines. They endure hardships. They face dangerous and heavily armed drug cartels along the southern border. And agents like Brian Terry, who lost his life, actually, last week and is an agent from Michigan who, I believe, is being laid out at a funeral parlor in the city of Detroit as we speak, lay down their lives to protect our border and our Nation. And, of course, the challenges faced by CBP agents, as well, along the northern border are also being met.

The important work being done by our Border Patrol and CBP officers to control the legal flow of both people and goods while deterring smuggling has made them a target of these drug cartels and other criminal organizations who want to recruit them to help smuggle drugs and money across our borders.

Corruption amongst border agents, unfortunately, is not a new problem. But as our enforcement efforts along the border have grown, so have the number of corruption cases. Since 2003, 129 CBP officers have been arrested on corruption charges. Last year alone, there were 576 allegations of corruption.

CBP's internal affairs office has stated that less than 15 percent of applicants receive a polygraph test, despite agency policy that requires that all applicants are supposed to take this test. CBP procedure also requires periodic background reinvestigations for employees to occur at least every 5 years. However, Madam Speaker, there is currently a backlog of over 10,000 cases, which could increase to 19,000 by the end of this fiscal year. This bill will make it mandatory for all CBP applicants to be prescreened with a polygraph examination and will require CBP to clear the backlog of reinvestigations within 6 months.

This bill will go a long, long way to preventing people like Margarita Crispin from becoming a CBP agent. Ms. Crispin, as an example, was hired by CBP in 2003, at which time she had already been recruited by the Juarez cartel. Almost immediately after completing her training, she began helping drug traffickers smuggle narcotics into the U.S.; and by the time she was arrested in 2007, she had allowed more than 2,200 pounds of marijuana to cross over our border.

Ms. Crispin was, unfortunately, not unique among CBP officers. In recent years, we have seen the Vilareal brothers, who helped smuggle an untold number of Mexicans and Brazilians across the border before quitting CBP and then fleeing into Mexico.

Perhaps most disturbing, however, as an example, was the case of Michael Gilliland, who was a highly respected 16-year veteran of CBP who was arrested on corruption charges in 2007. Mr. Gilliland became involved with a woman who belonged to a smuggling organization and before long began taking bribes to help smuggle people and narcotics into the United States.

Madam Speaker, this illustrates how important it is that CBP not only give polygraph exams to new applicants, but to also clear their backlog and reinvestigate their employees every few years.

Our efforts to secure the border since 9/11 have made it more difficult for criminal organizations to smuggle people and narcotics into our country, but this has only made them more desperate. It is important to ensure that the outstanding work being done by our Border Patrol agents isn't tarnished by a few corrupt individuals who could be screened out before they have the opportunity to do harm.

With the passage of this legislation, we can close this loophole and ensure that only the most trustworthy agents are employed by CBP.

Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, it is my pleasure to recognize the dedicated public service of Lapeer County Board of Commissioners Chairman David Taylor. On December 31, 2010, David will retire after 14 years as a Member of the Board. He has been Chairman since 1999, leading Lapeer County for over an entire decade. Despite the various challenges and economic difficulties across the State of Michigan, Chairman Taylor has remained resilient and has kept the county on the right path--always working to serve the best interests of the people he has had the privilege to represent.

David's decision to run for County Commissioner came in 1997. But before this, he brought with him a unique background and perspective to help in his new role as leader of the Board of Commissioners. Chairman Taylor was born in Pontiac; he worked on his family farm in Dryden. Later, he was employed for 30 years at the General Motors Pontiac Truck Plant. He then moved on to Metamora Township and served as the Zoning Administrator and was a delivery man for Champion Bus and Truck.

During his time as an elected official, Mr. Taylor has filled numerous committee spots and other posts to help move Lapeer County forward and to create a brighter future for the next generation to follow. He has been a shining example of strong leadership and has provided solid vision for Lapeer County.

It has been my privilege to work with him on a vast array of issues that are vital to Lapeer County during my role as a federal legislator. David has been a tremendous partner, friend and asset to my office. He is always looking to improve the quality of life for all residents and discovering new ways to make Lapeer County a wonderful place to live, raise a family and work.

I commend Chairman Taylor for all his efforts and personal sacrifice during his tenure on the Board. I know David will always have Lapeer County's best interests at heart which is evident by his charity work. We fully know and understand that we are not doing our job if we do not provide a better future for our children . . . and their children. David's work with the Shriners International and their Motorcycle Drill Team is just one of the many examples of how Mr. Taylor is committed to his community and those who will eventually take the reigns as leaders.

Therefore, Madam Speaker, I want to extend my best wishes to David Taylor on this special occasion. He will be severely missed on the Board, but his presence will still be felt by those who continue to serve. I hope he enjoys doing the things he loves most like spending time with his family, hunting, snowmobiling, volunteering and traveling. His service to the citizens of Lapeer County, the State of Michigan and our Nation is officially recognized and greatly appreciated.

Mr. Speaker, since WikiLeaks has begun releasing American top secret information that it obtained illegally, there has been a debate about how our Nation should respond to this. I believe that the actions of WikiLeaks provide material support to our terrorist enemies, so it should be treated as a terrorist organization. Others have argued that WikiLeaks is simply a media organization and, therefore, it is protected under the First Amendment.

Well, consider for a moment the most recent statements by Julian Assange, the founder of WikiLeaks, which I believe show exactly what he is--a terrorist. Assange has spread across the world an encrypted document which he claims has even more vital national secrets that he is going to release. Assange calls this file his ``insurance'' file, and he has threatened to release this information if he is captured or if he is charged with any violation of law. Those, Mr. Speaker, are not the actions of a journalist. Those are the actions of a terrorist.

Even President Clinton recently said that lives will be lost because of the release of this information. But still, Mr. Speaker, we still have not heard anything on this issue from our current Commander in Chief, President Obama. The silence from President Obama, our Commander in Chief, is absolutely baffling.

Madam Speaker, I rise today in support of S. 1421, The Asian Carp Prevention and Control Act.

This bill bans the importation of bighead carp, more commonly known as ``Asian carp.'' These fish have voracious appetites and can grow to weigh more than 100 pounds while eating everything in their path. Making them yet more dangerous is that when agitated by sounds such as boat engines, these fish leap out of the water and have been known to harm boat passengers, resulting in broken bones or worse.

The real nightmare, however, Madam Speaker, is the impending devastation these fish can potentially wreak over the Great Lakes fishery. Asian carp eat up to 40 percent of their body weight every day, and would likely out-compete native species in this $7 billion fishery. This would result in the decimation of recreational and commercial fishing in the Great Lakes, which is currently known worldwide for its plentiful perch, walleye, whitefish, salmon, and much more.

While I'm happy to vote today in favor of S. 1421 to prevent more Asian carp from being imported into the country it will do nothing to stop the carp already here from entering the Great Lakes.

The fact of the matter is that the Federal Government's response to Asian carp has been woefully inadequate. What is really necessary is an ecological separation of the Great Lakes from the Chicago Waterway System, which is the waterway by which bighead carp are making their way toward the Great Lakes. Bighead carp DNA has already been found in Lake Michigan, and this separation must occur before it's too late and the fish get into the lake and take hold. I urge the President to move faster to address this threat as well as passage of more comprehensive legislation that would do more to prevent this dangerous invasive species from entering the Great Lakes.

The bills I sincerely wish we were voting on today, H.R. 4472: Close All Routes and Prevent Asian Carp Today Act of 2010 and H.R. 5625 Permanent Prevention of Asian Carp Act of 2010, both sponsored by my colleague from Michigan, Dave Camp, and of which I am a proud co- sponsor, which would enact a much stronger attack against the Asian carp which poses an imminent threat to our magnificent Great Lakes.

I urge passage of the Asian Carp Prevention and Control Act.

Mr. Speaker, we saw again this week the organization WikiLeaks release hundreds of thousands of classified documents which threaten to undercut American foreign policy as well as our national security.

The person who has been accused of releasing this sensitive information is an American PFC, who is now facing charges that could lead to 52 years in prison if he is convicted. These penalties are too lenient because this PFC has not just violated orders; he has committed treason.

I think that WikiLeaks and its founder, Julian Assange, should be facing criminal charges; and his Web site, which he uses to aid and abet our terrorist enemies, should also be shut down to defend our national security.

Attorney General Eric Holder held a press conference the other day, proudly announcing that the Federal Government had shut down several Web sites for selling knock-off purses and other items. Well, I have an idea for Attorney General Holder: shut down WikiLeaks, which represents a far greater threat to our national security than the sale of fake Louis Vuitton bags.

It is time that the Obama administration treats WikiLeaks for what it is--a terrorist organization, whose continued operation threatens our security.

Shut it down. Shut it down. It is time to shut down this terrorist organization, this terrorist Web site, WikiLeaks. Shut it down, Attorney General Holder.

I thank the gentleman for yielding me time.

Mr. Speaker, on Election Day, the American people sent a very clear and unmistakable message--that it is time to reduce the size of government and to cut spending. In fact, they have been demanding that we take these steps for some time, but unfortunately the leadership in this Congress has been unwilling to listen.

The Republicans in this House have heard the calls of the American people and earlier this year began a YouCut program in which the American people actually get to choose specific spending cuts that we attempt to bring to the floor. We understand the need to change the culture around here from one of spending to one of fiscal discipline, cutting spending and ending the practice of piling a mountain of debt onto future generations.

Today's YouCut looks to end the practice of wasteful spending by eliminating the mandatory printing of all congressional bills and resolutions by the Government Printing Office, potentially saving over $35 million over the next 10 years. Certainly that is something that we can all agree is a commonsense cut.

I would urge my colleagues to join me in voting ``no'' on the previous question so that we can have the opportunity to bring this commonsense spending cut to the floor. If they do not intend to join us in the effort to end the spending now, American taxpayers can rest assured that our new Republican majority will bring this cut and many, many others, Mr. Speaker, forward in the next Congress as we endeavor to get America's fiscal house in order.

Mr. Speaker, at the same time that job providers and workers across this great Nation have sacrificed in this very difficult economy, the Federal Government has exploded in growth. And the cost of this growth in Federal employment has been passed along to those very same hard-pressed taxpayers and job providers through higher taxes as well as increasing our national debt.

This week's YouCut proposal calls for overall Federal employment to be reduced to 2008 levels. And this is for civilians only. It does not include military or Homeland Security or Veterans Affairs. This very simple step would save taxpayers $35 billion over 10 years.

Mr. Speaker, each and every week House Republicans have asked the American people through the YouCut program to bring to the floor literally tens of billions of dollars of spending cuts. And today we stand up here yet again asking our colleagues across the aisle to join with us to answer America's call to put an end to out-of-control Federal spending.

Today's cut will end the influx of more civilian government workers on the taxpayers' dime, and it will reduce the expansion of Big Government. And that, Mr. Speaker, is what the American people are asking for.

However, while the Democratic leadership continues to pile more debt, more and more debt on our children and on our grandchildren, Republicans, however, have been very specific by bringing specific spending cuts to the House floor in an effort to restore fiscal sanity. Unfortunately, our Democratic colleagues have absolutely refused to join us in this effort. And we ask our colleagues once again to join us to reduce this out-of-control Federal deficit and cut Federal spending now.

Mr. Speaker, House Republicans have been listening to the American citizens, and I ask my Democratic colleagues to do the same.

Madam Speaker, the American people are very concerned about out-of-control Washington spending, and they are demanding action.

Over the last several months, the Republican Conference has engaged the American people in this effort through our YouCut program, and we have offered literally tens of billions of dollars in cuts, and all of those cuts have been rejected by the Democrat majority.

Today we are going to offer another cut, and this one is so rife with abuse that it has even been identified by a Democrat working group as a commonsense cut that will help to reduce the deficit.

The Democrat leadership has not offered an opportunity to make this cut, but the Republican Conference will. Here is a chance for many of our Democrat friends to stand up and put their votes where their rhetoric has been.

Today they are either going to hide behind their leadership on procedural grounds and oppose this commonsense cut that many of them have publicly supported, or they are going to stand with the American people and join us in beginning the process of bringing this deficit under control.

The proof is in the vote. No hiding, no excuses, no more rhetoric. We are calling their bluff.

Vote ``no'' on the previous question and let's start cutting this out-of-control Federal deficit and Federal spending.

Mr. Speaker, about a year ago, both General Motors and Chrysler went through a government orchestrated bankruptcy in an effort to save these iconic American manufacturers. I firmly believe that the survival of these companies was then and is today vital to our national economy as well as to our national security.

While I am very thankful that these companies are coming back strong, I do have serious questions over steps that were taken, most importantly, the shuttering of thousands of car dealerships across the Nation and the elimination of countless jobs that were produced in those auto dealerships. I didn't understand, when these bankruptcies were moving forward, how the elimination of thousands of dealerships, who are really the customers of the auto companies, would help to provide any savings to the bottom line for General Motors or Chrysler. I also did not understand how the arbitrary elimination of thousands of profitable small businesses and the elimination of tens of thousands of good-paying American jobs were in the best interest of our Nation or in line with the stated desire of this administration to protect and to create jobs.

Based on a recent report that was just released this past Sunday, it seems now that the inspector general of the TARP program, the Troubled Asset Relief Program, is also asking these same

questions, Mr. Speaker. That report found that the Department of Treasury did not show why the elimination of dealers was either necessary for the sake of a company's economic survival or prudent for the Nation's economic recovery.

The report went on to say that Treasury made a series of decisions that--and they say--may have substantially contributed to the accelerated shuttering of thousands of small businesses, and that those decisions resulted in adding tens of thousands of workers to already lengthy unemployment rolls, all based on a theory and without sufficient consideration of the decision's broader economic impact.

These findings seem to back up what many of us were saying at that time, Mr. Speaker. The elimination of customers for the auto companies is counterintuitive to the financial well-being of these companies, and the government's aiding and abetting the elimination of tens of thousands of jobs--of good jobs--is certainly abhorrent at any time but particularly at a time of economic difficulty when such jobs are already in very, very short supply.

Fortunately, Congress took action that required an arbitration process for dealers, which has led now to the reinstatement of over 700 auto dealerships, but this is very little consolation to the tens of thousands of workers who have lost their jobs or to the communities that have lost very good taxpayers and excellent corporate citizens.

These types of outcomes also further erode the confidence of the American people in the idea that Federal intervention in our economy will bring about positive results. Because of the actions taken last year by this administration, thousands and thousands of our fellow Americans are today searching for jobs. American citizens are being victimized by an inept Federal Government plan that went wrong.

This administration needs to understand that the American people do not want further Federal intervention into our economy. They simply want the government to get out of the way and to allow the entrepreneurial spirit of this Nation to, once again, take flight and to lead us back to prosperity.

As President Ronald Reagan said so well 30 years ago, ``Big government is not the solution to our problems, it is the problem.''

It is long past time for this administration and this Congress to focus like a laser on how we create jobs instead of devising plans that actually destroy jobs, Mr. Speaker. Too many American auto dealers and the workers who lost their jobs have paid a very dear price as a result of this administration's actions. Let us be determined now that we in Congress will conduct our proper oversight responsibilities to get to the bottom of how this happened and to make sure that it never happens again. American auto dealers, Mr. Speaker, deserve no less from this Congress.

Mr. Speaker, last week, President Obama was in Holland, Michigan, announcing the award of an economic stimulus grant to a Korean Company: 300 jobs, $150 million, all at a cost of $500,000 per job, all financed by the American taxpayer.

Every Republican in this Chamber voted against the stimulus because we don't think that having the Federal Government pick winners and losers is a way back economically. We don't think borrowing over 40 cents for every dollar that we spend is the way to create jobs. We don't think that this out-of-control spending and piling mountains and mountains of debt on future generations is the kind of America that our Founding Fathers envisioned.

But then the President, while accepting our State's gracious hospitality and respect for his office, chose to take a cheap, partisan, political shot at Congressman Pete Hoekstra, whose district he was in. President Obama is proving himself to be the most partisan President in our Nation's history, and instability will not create jobs. Instead, it's politics as usual. It is certainly not change that we can believe in.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to ask that the Iran Refined Petroleum Sanctions Act, which was signed into law on July 1 by President Obama, be implemented in an expedited as well as a rigorous fashion.

This law, Madam Speaker, requires the President to impose sanctions on any entity that provides Iran with refined petroleum resources or engages in activities that will contribute to Iran's ability to import such resources.

The Government of Iran must verifiably suspend and dismantle its nuclear weapons program, stop all uranium enrichment activities, and comply with their commitments under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.

There can be no doubt that Iran poses a significant threat to the United States and our allies in the Middle East and elsewhere, and it is proceeding with an aggressive nuclear weapons program, despite its claim that the Iranian program was designed for peaceful uses.

Madam Speaker, this law provides a powerful stick to force the Iranians to take decisive and concrete action to end their illicit nuclear weapons program. The time for Iranian delay, denial, and deception is over.

Mr. President, I urge you to begin the implementation of these sanctions without delay.

I thank the gentlelady for yielding me some time.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this program and to this bill, and I would once again remind my colleagues that this program is a very, very bad deal for my constituents in the great State of Michigan, the Great Lake State. In fact, it's a bad deal for most all the States that are in the Great Lake States.

As an example, my constituents in Michigan are paying very high flood insurance premiums, yet we rarely receive any claims, and I will give you examples. Since we've instituted this flood program in the Nation since 1978, in Michigan we've received $44 million in claims; however, we've paid in over $200 million during that time in premiums. This year alone, in Michigan, our citizens are going to pay $19 million in claims, which means that in just 2 years of paying premiums, we will have covered all of our losses for the last 32 years. In fact, the GAO report on this program that was published in April found that one in four property owners are paying subsidized rates for their flood insurance that do not reflect the full risk of their flooding.

That same report found that repetitive losses represent only 1 percent of policies but over 25 percent of all of the claims. In short, we keep paying over and over and over again claims for some Americans to live in flood-prone areas, and it is no wonder that this program is $19 billion in debt.

Unfortunately, the Rules Committee didn't make one of my amendments in order that would have addressed this problem of repetitive losses, and this is a case in so many properties. They just keep rebuilding and refiling their claims over and over and over again, and I just don't think that's fair to the rest of the Nation. If you insist on rebuilding, then you should assume the risk.

Mr. Chairman, quite frankly, my home State of Michigan feels like the ATM machine for this flood debt program. I think this program is very, very unfair. One thing I would say, in Michigan, we actually look down at the water. We don't look up at the water. And we are very sympathetic, Mr. Chairman, very sympathetic to areas of other parts of the country that are prone to floods, that are prone to hurricanes, et cetera. We appreciate the challenges that they face, but I don't think it's fair that citizens in a State like Michigan have to pay for those kinds of things.

I think we need to have a national catastrophic fund that establishes more fairly the burden on this rather than looking for States like Michigan. I'm not opposed to redigitizing the maps and using the state- of-the-art technology that's happening. I think that's very important. We want to know the proper elevations. You can use it for planning. Local municipalities need it, et cetera. But in Michigan, I can tell you tens of thousands of properties that are now being included in this floodplain that have never been included previously, that have no history of flooding. In the last couple of years, the Great Lakes have had historic lows.

I'm going to be voting against this. I urge my colleagues to vote against this bill, Mr. Chairman.

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

Mr. Chairman, my amendment calls for a GAO study to study the ways that the private insurance market can contribute to insuring against flood damage; to further study the impact on the National Flood Insurance Program if communities decide actually not to participate in this program; and to study the feasibility of recognizing the National Flood Insurance Program and ensuring that there's no cross-subsidization between the regions.

The United States, Mr. Chairman, is actually the only industrialized nation that uses our form of government to administer flood insurance. In every other industrialized nation this is done by a private insurance company. Even in Canada or the U.K., they use the private industry to do so. And I believe that the role of the U.S. Government in terms of flood insurance certainly is the creation and maintenance of accurate flood maps, and to have those that live in flood-prone areas, though, pay their own freight by purchasing private flood insurance.

Since Congress established the NFIP, we have engaged in subsidizing our fellow Americans who do live in flood-prone areas, essentially creating a moral hazard. And as a result, more than half of the U.S. population now lives in coastal watershed counties or flood plain areas.

My constituents in Michigan, that's the reason I offered this amendment, Mr. Chairman, are paying very, very high flood insurance premiums; and yet we rarely receive claims. I mentioned this during general debate, but I'll mention it again: since 1978, Michigan residents have actually received about $44 million in claims from the flood insurance program. However, this year alone our premiums in the State are going to be almost $20 million, which means that in 2 years of premiums we have covered all of our losses since 1978, in other words, paid over $200 million in premiums, yet we've sent more than $150 million to other States since '78. And I would guess that all of the Great Lakes States, all of the States that are in the Great Lakes basin would have similar experiences.

So my constituents and the residents of my State, I think, are unfairly carrying a very high burden, given their relatively low risk. I think it's a very vivid demonstration when you see that the average premium for flood insurance in Michigan is $764 and yet in Louisiana it's $647.

I think, Mr. Chairman, again, we need to have a national catastrophic fund. We are very sensitive and very sympathetic to folks that live in States that flood, that are flood-prone, that have hurricanes, et cetera. But I don't think it is fair for property owners in areas that don't have this high risk to keep paying so much money for other areas. I think we should try to share the burden among the entire States.

I would also ask that the GAO would look at regionalization of the National Flood Insurance Program as a means to correct this balance. Currently, FEMA has 10 separate regions, and I believe that if you did this amongst those regions, perhaps that would be a good way to reorganize the flood insurance program. And so each region would then, ideally, have actuarially sound premiums that are reflective of the risk of that region. And I think, under that plan, States like Michigan again would not be forced to subsidize other parts of the Nation that have substantially higher risk than we do.

And in lieu of that, the last part of the study for the GAO would look at the impacts of communities to actually opt out of this program.

Mr. Chairman, several years ago I actually wrote a letter to our Governor asking her to consider having Michigan, our entire State, opt out of this program because we are so unfairly disadvantaged. And although that has not happened yet, I'm going to continue to press that because I do think if we self-insured and got out of this program, it would be much, much, much better for the State of Michigan to do so.

So, again, my amendment asks the GAO to look at I think several commonsense ways to fix a very severely flawed program. And I would ask that my colleagues consider my amendment and support its adoption as well.

I reserve the balance of my time.

I would certainly just say that I am very appreciative of the gentlewoman's acceptance of my amendment. I do think it will help the Nation lead us forward

on a path to fairness and equity in this issue of flood insurance.

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

Madam Speaker, I rise today to acknowledge a special anniversary celebration for an important organization headquartered in my district in the Charter Township of Shelby. In September 2011, the Detroit Sportsmen's Congress, DSC, will mark its 75th Anniversary. This group has already started preparations to properly recognize this historic achievement. The organization traces its inception back to the year 1936 in the City of Detroit. And over time, it has grown into perhaps one of the nation's most distinguished conservation and sportsmen's groups.

The Detroit Sportsmen's Congress has demonstrated an unwavering commitment to preserve the natural treasures and pristine resources we are so blessed to live with in the State of Michigan. The DSC has offered a variety of educational programs for adults, children and the community at-large and has exhibited a strong record promoting conversation and safety. As a Member of the Homeland Security, I also want to applaud the group for offering its training facilities to local, state and federal law enforcement agencies. This is just one of the many examples of how the DSC is serving the people of Metropolitan Detroit.

The Wolverine State abounds with so many wonderful opportunities and recreational activities like hunting, competitive target shooting, fishing, and boating. From the ATV trails to the banks of the magnificent rivers and all across this splendid peninsula, you can find people enjoying some type of leisure and pleasure in the great outdoors. These activities provide a tremendous boost to our quality of life and allow families to spend time together. Building memories with loved ones and handing down family traditions to the next generation are some of the most priceless moments we can hold dear and cherish.

I would be remiss if I did not acknowledge the financial contributions these activities offer to the local and state economy. It is absolutely vital we protect and enhance our environment for not only future preservation, but also the benefits they offer to individuals who depend on them for their livelihoods and careers.

Madam Speaker, I am a water enthusiast and grew up sailing the Great Lakes. In fact, I have made the Great Lakes one of my principle advocacies since being elected to office. Therefore, I appreciate the hard work exhibited by the DSC and its membership both past and present.

Moreover, I am always reminded of my oath to defend the United States Constitution, so safeguarding the Second Amendment is something I take very seriously. That is why supporting legislation which protects law- abiding citizens ability to keep and bear arms is something I will continue to fight for as long as I have the privilege to serve in this Chamber.

Madam Speaker, I applaud the Detroit Sportsmen's Congress for their dedicated efforts to educate people about our rights, our heritage and our environment. The DSC and its affiliates are providing a vital service to the community and continuing what is the strong tradition of sportsmen residing in Michigan.

It is here I am reminded of the words of our nation's 26th President, Theodore Roosevelt, who once said, ``To waste, destroy our natural resources, to skin and exhaust the land instead of using it so as to increase its usefulness, will result in undermining in the days of our children the very prosperity which we ought by right to hand down to them amplified and developed.'' I too would agree we have an obligation to leave the next generation with improved natural resources and even more opportunities in life than what we inherited. This is the ultimate goal and the reason we go to work each day.

Once again, I extend my best wishes to the Detroit Sportsmen's Congress on its upcoming 75th Anniversary. It is my distinct honor to represent this organization in the United States House of Representatives and to commemorate this notable achievement. Happy 75th Anniversary to the Detroit Sportsmen's Congress.