Tim Walberg

Mr. WALBERG

Mr. WALBERG. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Roe), the immediate past chairman of the Subcommittee on Health, Employment, Labor, and Pensions.

Mr. WALBERG. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume, and I rise today in strong support of H.J. Res. 66, a resolution to protect retirement savers. During the final days of the Obama administration--in fact, the final hours--the Department of Labor created a regulatory loophole that threatens the retirement security of working families. We are here today to use Congress' authority under the Congressional Review Act to close that loophole by blocking a misguided regulation from taking effect. The regulation paves the way for States to force certain employers to automatically enroll their employees into government IRAs. States would be allowed to skirt Federal law and deny workers important protections designed to safeguard their retirement savings. The Obama administration's action is somewhat perplexing. The Employee Retirement Income Security Act, ERISA, has enjoyed strong bipartisan support for decades. As President Ford said when he signed the law, the American people have ``greater assurances that retirement dollars will be there when they are needed.'' Yet, over 40 years later, the same administration that frequently touted the importance of consumer protections moved to exempt States from ERISA. The question is why. To facilitate the creation of government-run plans that would lack basic protections for retirement savers? As a result, workers and retirees would have nowhere to turn if their savings were mismanaged. Let's be honest about what this regulation is really about. It is part of an assault on small business retirement plans that began under the Obama administration. First, small businesses were hit by the fiduciary rule that would make it harder for them to access the financial advice they need to set up retirement plans for their employees. Then the Obama administration created a last-minute regulatory loophole that could discourage small businesses from offering retirement plans in the first place. As a result, many families could soon realize, If you like your 401(k) plan, you may not be able to keep it. Because of this loophole, taxpayers also are at risk. Many of the States leading the charge on these government-run plans have a long history of mismanaging public employee pensions. Today there is an estimated $5 trillion in unfunded State pension promises--$5 trillion. That figure is completely unsustainable. It begs the question: Will taxpayers or retirement savers foot the bill if these government-run IRAs are similarly mismanaged? However, we are not here today to debate the merits of State policy. To be clear, States should be free to experiment with new retirement options, and more options are certainly needed. It is up to the voters in each State to hold their elected officials accountable. The point of this debate is that States should not be exempt from a law that has, for decades, provided important protections for retirement savers. If States want to come up with new ways to help workers save for retirement, they can. But they should follow the law in the process. The goal of this resolution is simple. It is to uphold protections Congress--including Members of both parties--have long afforded retirement savers. Today we can close a regulatory loophole that would be detrimental to the retirement security of hardworking Americans, and we can ensure retirement savers in every State continue to have the same protections under Federal law. I urge my colleagues to support strong protections for retirement savers by voting in favor of H.J. Res. 66. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. WALBERG. Mr. Speaker, I guess the point that I would make again is not the fact that we are trying to stop States from doing this. In fact, this CRA does not do that at all. It just simply says we express our concern that States would be allowed as a result of what was put through in midnight fashion that exempted States from having to come under the same protections of ERISA that we would expect to be covered for all retirement plans. That is the challenge. We want to make sure that retirees' incomes are protected in a secure, safe way, and that is the value of ERISA. This proposal or the rule that was put through did not cover that, and that is our concern, again, protecting retirees. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. WALBERG. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I want to make note that, as we discuss this here today, there have been points made about businesses wanting this change, they want to work with the States, and they are concerned about liabilities. Well, if that were the case, we wouldn't have endorsements of this coming from the Chamber of Commerce, Air Conditioning Contractors of America, American Benefits Council, NFIB, just looking through, the Small Business and Entrepreneurship Council, National Federation of Independent Business, National Electrical Contractors Association, National Black Chamber of Commerce, and I could go on and on, businesses and the business associations and groups that deal with this and have concern about their employees, their retirees, having a good and safe mechanism by which to have their retirement savings protected, supporting our efforts here to take back what took place under the cover of darkness, as it were, which took retiree savings off the benefit of ERISA. I just want that to be made clear. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. WALBERG. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. We are certainly willing to work with the States and would concur that there ought to be a laboratory. But again, our concern, and basically the only concern, that this resolution deals with is that they be managed in such a way that they come under the protections given under ERISA. And why do we say that? Well, we look at, for instance, Illinois' unfunded liability. We are looking at $114.8 billion at the end of fiscal year 2016--a State plan managed by, yes, an outside manager--but $114.8 billion under. We look at California Public Employees' Retirement System, CalPERS, which has a $228.2 billion shortfall in funding. Oregon's unfunded actuarial liability of the Oregon Public Employees Retirement Fund, again, managed by someone for Oregon, of $21.8 billion. If we looked at it all put together, we have over $5 trillion unfunded liability for State plans managed by some outside source. That is where our concern comes from--this rule that was put through--that takes people out of the protections of ERISA. So we are saying: Have at it, States, but do it according to the rules and the protections that are there. That is all we are asking. We want retirees' savings to be protected for the purposes that they planned for and not come up short some day because of a lack of care and the coverage of ERISA on their plans. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. WALBERG. Mr. Speaker, we are not opposing voluntary plans. We are not opposing States setting up plans that will encourage retirement. We are not opposing that. We are just saying we want to make sure they are protected under the same requirements of ERISA that all other plans are. We want to make sure that those dollars are there when the people need them. That is all we are saying. We are not opposed to voluntary or plans for retirement. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Roskam), my colleague and good friend, the chairman of the Ways and Means Subcommittee on Tax Policy.

Mr. WALBERG. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. WALBERG. Mr. Speaker, I just make one comment that, when my colleagues on the other side of the aisle had both Houses and the White House and the opportunity to do these reforms, they weren't done. Yet, now, when we stand with great concern because of a midnight rule that was put through that takes away the security of retirees in programs that will be, as I said earlier, foisted upon employers to automatically enroll their employees into government-run IRAs--allowing the same States to skirt the Federal law of ERISA--and deny workers important protections, we are pushed back on. I have some concern about that. When the opportunity to do what they say they want to be done could have been done with both Houses under control of the same party and the White House, this was not undertaken. Yet we are called out and told that we are hurting retirees when, in fact, we are giving assurances to retirees that you will come under the same protections regardless of where you go, and we expect that to be the case because it has worked. That is decried. I find that less than objective in its honesty. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. WALBERG. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. WALBERG. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. In response to the gentlewoman from California, I would just say that much of what we have been doing for the past 4 weeks on the floor, including today, is trying to give a shot in the arm to our economy, to our workers, our workforce, our retirees, and savers to take off some of the traps that have been put in place that have frustrated this economy and the growth of this economy for 8 years. There is a reason for what took place at the ballot box. And the expectation is that we move to take some of the clamps of the Federal Government off the private sector, the States, the local communities, and, more importantly, the citizens of this country. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. WALBERG. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. WALBERG. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time, and I express appreciation for the full-throated debate that went on here. It is good to do that. It is good for the opportunity to make it very clear that retirement security is a significant challenge facing this country. We have said that. I am glad that on the floor of the House today both sides of the aisle indicated concerns for that. Far too many men and women are struggling to save for their retirement years. Unfortunately, in recent years, we have seen regulations like the fiduciary rule that will make it harder for low- and middle-income families to save for retirement. And we have seen a regulation that would strip away important protections for retirement savers. As policymakers, we must do more to expand retirement options for workers. That is a given. That we can agree on. However, the regulatory loophole created by the Obama administration is clearly not the answer. I want to remind my colleagues that this resolution does not prevent States from coming up with new retirement options for workers. That is not what this resolution is about, and simply reading it will assure you of that. This resolution is about ensuring every American has strong protections for a secure retirement. I urge my colleagues to protect retirement savers by voting in favor of H.J. Res. 66. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. WALBERG. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on H.J. Res. 66.

Mr. WALBERG

Mr. WALBERG. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 116, I call up the joint resolution (H.J. Res. 67) disapproving the rule submitted by the Department of Labor relating to savings arrangements established by qualified State political subdivisions for non-governmental employees, and ask for its immediate consideration in the House.

Mr. WALBERG. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on H.J. Res. 67.

Mr. WALBERG. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I rise today in support of H.J. Res. 67, the second of two resolutions the House is debating today to ensure strong protections for retirement savers. There are two parts to the regulatory loophole we are seeking to close today. First, the Obama administration created a sweetheart deal that would allow States to deny important protections for retirement savers. Then, a second regulation was issued to extend that sweetheart deal to cover certain cities and counties. The resolution we are debating right now would block the second regulation and ensure retirement savers in every city are afforded longstanding protections under Federal law. It would also ensure employers continue to have clear rules of the road for retirement plans. The last thing employers, who are trying to provide benefits for their employees, need is a confusing patchwork of rules that vary across cities and counties, even in the same State. As I mentioned during the earlier debate, States and cities should be free to experiment with new ways to help workers save for retirement. All this resolution says is that they must follow the law and provide retirement savers strong protections. That is a commonsense idea that we should all get behind. I urge my colleagues to support H.J. Res. 67. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. WALBERG. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Again, I just--for matters of accuracy about the legislation that is in front of us, I think it ought to be clear that both sides of the aisle can agree that we ought to encourage retirement savings and we ought to be willing to look for choices, opportunities, variety, all of that, and allow States, local communities, cities, to be creative, to look for a means by which we can foster increased retirement savings. All this legislation is doing, though, is saying that we want those approaches to be protected for the retirees. That is all we are saying. We are not opposing States. We are not opposing cities. We are not opposing counties, municipalities, from establishing plans. But we want them to come under ERISA, the same requirements that other people come under, and make sure that people aren't sold a bill of goods that they lose in the future. That is all we are saying. Mr. Speaker, I just want to make that clear. None of the proposals or the statements that are being made that what we are trying to do is stop people from having retirement options is accurate. We just want them to be protected. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. WALBERG. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. WALBERG. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. WALBERG. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. Mr. Speaker, again, I appreciate the full-throated debate that went on here in the discussion of a most important issue. I am grateful that ERISA was in place for my father, a tool and die maker, a machinist. He didn't have pensions, but he was able to, as a result of making little- by-little allocations to a retirement savings plan, set aside money to make sure that, most specifically, my mother was taken care of--and she was--as a result of protections that were put in place, requirements that were put in place, and a savings plan for retirement outside of any pension. Her basic needs were cared for until the end of her life. So I certainly resonate with the desire to make sure middle-income, middle class families, and everyone has the opportunity for secure retirement savings. We all support creating new options for retirement savers. Unfortunately, the regulatory loophole created by the Obama administration is not the answer. Every American, regardless of what city or State they live in, deserves strong protections and secure retirement. That is why, for over 40 years, the Employee Retirement Income Security Act has been the law of the land. Denying those longstanding protections to certain workers is a completely backwards approach that undermines the retirement security of working families, and I know my colleagues on the other side of the aisle don't want that to happen. We agree on that. I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of H.J. Res. 67 to ensure workers and retirees in every city across the country continue to have the legal safeguards they need to retire with security and peace of mind. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. WALBERG

Mr. WALBERG. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding and for introducing this legislation and sponsoring it. I rise today in support of H.J. Res. 37. We all agree that bad actors who deny workers basic protections and violate the Fair Labor Standards Act should not be rewarded with government contracts funded by taxpayer dollars. However, the Department of Labor's rule effectively blacklists Federal contractors for alleged violations and would require contractors to defend themselves against these allegations without being entitled to a formal hearing. The Federal District Court has already ruled that the Department of Labor rule violates contractors' due process rights. Additionally, this rule is unnecessary because the Department of Labor already has significant oversight and investigation capabilities to assess contractor compliance with Federal labor laws. This rule supersedes agencies' existing authority to hold contractors accountable under the current suspension and disbarment system. My question is why don't they use it? Misguided regulatory policies, like the blacklisting rule, don't stop bad actors, but they do end up adding new layers of redundant bureaucratic red tape, harming employers and older workers, disabled workers, female workers, minority workers, and workers, in general, alike. I urge my colleagues to support the resolution of disapproval and roll back this duplicative and unnecessary rule.

Mr. WALBERG

Mr. WALBERG. Mr. Speaker, I rise to highlight an exciting, new development that builds on Michigan's leadership in the auto industry. Earlier this week, General Motors and Honda announced a joint venture to produce an advanced hydrogen fuel cell system. With an investment of $85 million, this operation will bring new, good-paying jobs, and it will be based at a manufacturing facility in southeast Michigan. This is just the latest example of how Michigan continues to be on the forefront of automotive and technological innovation that has the potential to revolutionize the industry. Mr. Speaker, that is not all. A few weeks ago, GM also announced a plan to invest an additional $1 billion in United States manufacturing, which will create thousands of jobs for American workers. With our State's world-class workforce and commitment to cutting-edge research, Michigan will remain a global automotive leader for generations to come.

Mr. WALBERG

Mr. WALBERG. Mr. Speaker, 44 years ago, because of Roe v. Wade, over 58 million children were taken from the chance to utter the words of the psalmist in Psalm 139 when he said: For you formed my inward parts; you wove me in my mother's womb. I will give thanks to you, for I am fearfully and wonderfully made; wonderful are your works, and my soul knows it very well. My frame was not hidden from you, when I was made in secret, and skillfully, wrought in the depths of the Earth; your eyes have seen my unformed substance; and in your book were all written the days that were ordained for me, when as yet there was not one of them. Mr. Speaker, those lives were lives of children that were created, uniquely formed with a purpose that God only intended. Our Nation did wrong. We can turn from that. We can ask Him to heal our land. And even as the psalmist said: Behold, children are a gift of the Lord, the fruit of the womb is a reward. We can again affirm that and say that they should be given a choice-- that little girl, that little boy--making a choice for life, and who knows what that would do to impact our world for the good.

Mr. WALBERG

Mr. WALBERG. Mr. Speaker, for too long, Washington has spent education dollars by building bureaucracy instead of by advancing opportunities for our children. As a member of the House Committee on Education and the Workforce, I believe we must change the status quo and restore local control in education. We need someone to lead the Department of Education and to work with Congress and leave decisionmaking in the hands of parents and local communities, not in Washington. Betsy DeVos is that person. She has dedicated her life to fighting for children in Michigan. She has been a tireless advocate for giving families choices and for ensuring our kids have access to quality education, including in public schools, regardless of their Zip Codes. She has a heart for children and will be a champion for every student in America. I encourage the Senate to confirm her quickly so that, together, we can get to work on ensuring a high-quality education is within reach for every child.

Mr. WALBERG

Mr. WALBERG. Mr. Speaker, this week kicks off the North American International Auto Show in Detroit. As a car guy all my life, I never missed the world's premier automotive event, the greatest show on Earth. This year there is plenty to celebrate. Just yesterday, Fiat Chrysler announced it would create 2,000 jobs and invest $1 billion to modernize manufacturing plants in Michigan and Ohio. Last week, Ford scrapped plans for its facility in Mexico and instead promised to invest $700 million at the Flat Rock plant. This move will bring 700 new jobs to Michigan. These are exciting developments for our State's economy and good paying jobs for our dedicated and talented workforce. Mr. Speaker, as everyone will see at this year's auto show, Michigan continues to lead the way in car manufacturing. Working together, we can keep Michigan on the forefront of innovation and mobility and keep making the best cars and trucks in the world right in our backyard, the motor capital of the world.