Tim Walberg

Mr. WALBERG

Mr. WALBERG. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 2747, and I yield myself such time as I may consume. With our Nation facing difficult challenges at home and abroad, it is important we continue the work the American people sent us here to do. That includes pursuing commonsense reforms that will make the Federal Government more efficient and a better steward of taxpayer dollars. The legislation we are considering today is a small, yet important, part of that effort. Approximately one out of every five workers is employed by a Federal contractor. Drawing on the strength and expertise of the private sector workforce to complete Federal projects has helped deliver better results at a more competitive price for taxpayers. A number of laws govern the wages workers on Federal projects receive. For example, the Davis-Bacon Act requires Federal contractors to pay workers the local prevailing wage. Additionally, the Contract Work Hours and Safety Standards Act ensures these workers receive 1\1/ 2\ times their basic rate of pay for hours worked in excess of 40 hours a week. Both laws have played a central role in Federal contracting for decades. However, both are plagued by inefficiencies. The Department is responsible for enforcing these laws; yet the Government Accountability Office has long been a middleman in an overly bureaucratic claims process. Here is how the current process works: Mr. Speaker, the Department of Labor first determines whether workers have failed to receive their proper wages, and it calculates the amount of pay they are due. Next, the Department forwards to GAO a report that states the names of underpaid employees and the amounts they are each owed. Funds from the relevant contracting agencies are delivered to GAO, which then deposits the money into an account at the Treasury Department. Based upon claims forms submitted by affected workers, GAO transmits payment requests to Treasury, which disburses directly to workers their unpaid wages. It should be noted that GAO has no authority to overturn or to even challenge the Department's judgment in this area. As a result of this lengthy back and forth between numerous Federal entities, workers can experience delays in receiving their correct wages, and taxpayers are forced to support an unnecessarily complex process. I think we can all agree we can do better. H.R. 2747 is commonsense and bipartisan legislation that would transfer GAO's administrative duties under these two laws to the proper Federal agency, which is the Department of Labor. GAO has requested this relief and believes it will encourage more efficiency within the Federal Government. Furthermore, it will free up time and resources at GAO that can be better spent fulfilling its central mission of investigating waste and abuse in the Federal Government. By moving wage claims adjustments for federally contracted workers to the Department of Labor, we can ensure workers receive their pay in a timelier manner while providing greater efficiency. Quite simply, Mr. Speaker, this legislation is a win for workers and for taxpayers. I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 2747, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. WALBERG

Mr. WALBERG. Madam Speaker, I rise to support the First Amendment as well--as a patriot, as a pastor, as a Member of Congress. Joseph Stalin, an enemy of America, once said it this way: America is like a healthy body and its resistance is threefold: its patriotism, its morality, its spiritual life. If we can undermine these three areas, America will collapse from within. President Eisenhower, a patriot, said it this way in October of 1954: Atheism substitutes men for the Supreme Creator, and this leads inevitably to domination and dictatorship. We must jealously guard our foundation in faith, for on it rests the ability of the American individual to live and thrive in this blessed land and to be able to help other less fortunate people to achieve freedom and individual opportunity. These we take for granted, but to others they are often only a wistful dream. ``In God We Trust,'' often have we heard the words of this wonderful American motto. Let us make sure that familiarity has not made them meaningless for us. We carry the torch of freedom as a sacred trust for all mankind. We do not believe that God intended the light He created to be put out by men.

Mr. WALBERG

Mr. WALBERG. I thank my friend from Virginia and, Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to speak on an issue of ultimate importance tonight, the First Amendment liberties. We go back to those brave men whose shoulders we stand upon, and here in the Chamber today, people like Jonathan Witherspoon, who said: A republic once equally poised, must either preserve its virtue or lose its liberty. Congressman Forbes, we are standing for that virtue today. We are standing for that virtue in a country that, sadly, has walked away from accepting it out of hand. And assuming that there will be differences-- there will be theological differences, there will be religious differences--America was known from its inception as a place where we could be free to have those foundational principles. Benjamin Franklin himself said: This will be the best security for maintaining our liberties. A Nation of well-informed men who have been taught to know and prize the rights which God has given them cannot be enslaved. It is in the religion of ignorance that tyranny begins. And so I went to some statements that were made in the constitutions of our States--specifically, those States that were our 13 colonies--to look at what our Framers and Founders, those back in the States that said we want a Federal Government, but we want a Federal Government that comes under the control of the States. What did they say about religion and those First Amendment liberties? I picked out three. I picked them out related to the highest offices of our land. The first was New York. Our Attorney General, Eric Holder, was born, raised, and educated in New York. In its constitution, New York State says: The free exercise and enjoyment of religious profession and worship, without discrimination or preference, shall forever be allowed in this State to all humankind. That was New York. I went then to the State of Delaware, the State of our Vice President. And in that State, the preamble to the constitution starts out by saying: Through Divine goodness, all people have by nature the rights of worshiping and serving their Creator according to the dictates of their consciences. That's Delaware. And so then ultimately I went to the last State that I looked at. And I went to that because our President comes from Illinois. But that wasn't one of the 13 colonies, my friend from Virginia will inform me. So I went to Massachusetts, where he was educated at Harvard Law School. Article II in that constitution says: It is the right as well as the duty of all men and society, publicly, and at stated seasons to worship the Supreme Being, the great Creator and Preserver of the universe. And no subject shall be hurt, molested, or restrained in his person, liberty, or estate, for worshiping God in the manner and season most agreeable to the dictates of his own conscience. Mr. Speaker, I would say those are the foundational principles that led to the adoption of our Constitution and, ultimately, the First Amendment. And so a danger comes when we come to areas like prayer, where we have a municipality like Greece, New York, that is fighting in the case Greece v. Galloway for the opportunity to continue their tradition of opening with prayer. Patrick Henry said: An appeal to arms and the God of hosts is all that is left us. An appeal. Isn't that a prayer? An appeal to God? An appeal to arms and the God of hosts is all that is left to us. But we shall not fight our battle alone. There is a just God that presides over the destinies of nations. The battle, sir, is not to the strong alone. Is life so dear or peace so sweet as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? And then he appeals to God again. A prayer: Forbid it, almighty God. I know not what course others may take, but as for me, give me liberty or give me death. So today we come to a situation in our country where we have people who are saying, basically, the same thing: give me liberty or give me death. Give me the opportunity to pray. Give me the opportunity to worship without Big Government collapsing on me. Mr. Speaker, there are enemies of our freedoms. And they have somehow caught it right. Joseph Stalin said: America is like a healthy body and its resistance is threefold: its patriotism, its morality, its spiritual life. If we can undermine these three areas, America will collapse from within. He's right: we are collapsing, to our detriment and to those who yearn for freedom. I end with this. A patriot, a President, a believer in prayer, a believer in the First Amendment. President Eisenhower stated in 1954: Atheism substitutes men for the Supreme Creator and this leads inevitably to domination and dictatorship. He went on to say: We must jealously guard our foundation in faith. For on it rests the ability of the American individual to live and thrive in this blessed land and to be able to help other less fortunate people to achieve freedom and individual opportunity. These we take for granted, but to others they are often only a wistful dream. In God we trust, our motto. Often have we heard the words of this wonderful American motto. Let us make sure that familiarity has not made them meaningless for us. We carry the torch of freedom as a sacred trust for all mankind. And then President Eisenhower concluded: We do not believe that God intended the light that He created to be put out by men. I thank my friend for allowing me these statements tonight. And may we stand firmly to the point that ultimately our First Amendment liberties--and even more than that--the God-blessed opportunities that come from His truth will be applauded in this land.

Mr. WALBERG

Mr. WALBERG. I thank the gentleman. Mr. Chairman, as a review, my amendment would reduce funding of the Afghanistan Infrastructure Fund by $79 million to a total of $200 million--the level adopted by this House during last year's Defense appropriations bill. SIGAR has found that the projects which are under way right now are behind schedule and years away from completion and raise serious concerns about whether some of the projects may run counter to our goals and the COIN strategy. Finally, Mr. Chairman, additionally, as the end of operations in Afghanistan draws near, the Afghan people will need to bear the responsibility of building and maintaining their own infrastructure, to say the least. The Afghan Government has often not been a reliable partner in these projects. They have often had little role in designating these projects--designing them, carrying them out, power lines, roads, and building projects that ultimately will not be used. The Department's own budget justification states that because not all fiscal year 2012 and 2013 projects have been awarded, the fiscal year 2014 budget estimate is based on ``limited actual cost data.'' At a time when often difficult choices need to be made, we have a concern that as Congress is being asked to support funding and projects, that they really have limited cost data involved. I ask for support for this amendment. I believe that the dollars can be used, indeed, to grow an economy for ourselves and ultimately deal with infrastructure projects here in our own country. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. WALBERG. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would like to yield at this time 1 minute to my good friend, the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Cohen).

Mr. WALBERG. I have an amendment at the desk, Madam Chairman.

Mr. WALBERG. Madam Chairman, in light of recent events in Benghazi and North Africa, the Pentagon approved the development of the Special Purpose Marine Air-Ground Task Force for Crisis Response to function under United States African Command. This task force is specifically tailored for crisis response in Africa, and in April deployed to Spain and Italy. The unit is capable of responding to a wide range of military operations and will provide limited defense crisis response in support of embassies, support non-combatant evacuation operations, provide humanitarian assistance, and assist with disaster relief operations, search and rescue, and other missions as directed. As this force is ramping up, I believe we need to ensure that this valid and important mission is completely and adequately funded. With the rise of Islamic militant groups in Mali, Nigeria and Somalia, and continued unrest in Egypt, Libya and Algeria, the threat is real and growing. The committee has added funds for sustainment and follow-up deployments in fiscal year 2014, but there are substantial concerns that the need may be higher. Funding for this force was not requested in the President's budget, but was included in the House-passed NDAA. I'm hopeful that in establishing a funding source and signaling congressional willingness to support this mission, the Marine Corps will be better able to assess their needs and provide us with a more exact funding request. To work towards a sure state of readiness, I'm offering this budget- neutral amendment to increase this funding by $10 million while reducing funding to the Operation and Maintenance, Defense-Wide account by $11 million. During consideration of the NDAA last month, an amendment was adopted by voice vote that would increase authorization for the crisis response force by a similar amount. To provide an additional military response in case of another Benghazi-type situation, we must ensure that the special purpose Marine Air-Ground Task Force, Crisis Response can properly respond to threats to our diplomatic posts in an expeditious manner. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. WALBERG. I have an amendment at the desk, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. WALBERG. Mr. Chairman, I rise to offer a bipartisan amendment with Mr. Cohen of Tennessee, Ms. Esty of Connecticut, and Mr. Rigell of Virginia that will go a long ways to ensure American tax dollars in Afghanistan are spent in a wise and realistic fashion. My amendment would specifically reduce funding of the Afghanistan Infrastructure Fund by $79 million to a total of $200 million, the level adopted by this House during last year's Defense appropriations bill. The savings would then be sent to the spending reduction account. We have already spent billions of dollars toward rebuilding the infrastructure of Afghanistan, and Congress has appropriated over $1 billion alone to the Afghanistan Infrastructure Fund since it was created in 2011. As of March 31 of this year, SIGAR, the Special Inspector General for Afghanistan Reconstruction, reported that only $102.9 million of the $1 billion that Congress has appropriated has actually been dispersed for projects. Perhaps even more significant, SIGAR has found that the projects which are under way are behind schedule and years away from completion and raise serious concerns about whether some of the projects may run counter to our goals and the COIN strategy, either because they have created expectation gaps among the Afghan people or that they lack local citizen support. This year, $279 million has been requested for two new infrastructure projects. Now, I know we all look to our commanders in the field for guidance on what they need to finish the job in Afghanistan; but with $400 million in unobligated funds, I ask, Mr. Chairman, why commit to two brand-new projects that we will likely never complete? I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. WALBERG. I request of the Chairman how much time I have remaining.

Mr. WALBERG. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. WALBERG

Mr. WALBERG. I thank my chairman. Mr. Chairman, our children are being held back by an outdated, cumbersome, and overbearing Federal system. It's clearly not working. Statistics show that only 34 percent of our eighth graders are proficient in reading and nearly one in four high school students fails to graduate on time. For the last 40 years, we have not seen any significant improvement in students' math, English and science scores. These results are especially frightening at a time when we are spending three times more on education than we did in 1970. Since then, the Federal Government's arm has extended even further into local school districts, leaving teachers and parents restricted by a growing number of rules and costly requirements. In one of the worst examples of this, the Department of Education has chosen to grant States waivers from a failing policy, but only if those States decided to adopt standards deemed necessary by Washington bureaucrats and not by Congress, let alone their educators. Students and parents need real solutions with freedom and choice, not short-term fixes with more Federal intrusion. We need to get the Federal Government out of the way and instead work with the teachers, parents, superintendents, and State leaders who are already working hard to raise the standards of our schools in Michigan and throughout the Nation. The Student Success Act's emphasis on increased State and local control by people closest to our kids will help put more students on a course for a successful future. As a parent and grandparent, I encourage my colleagues to support the Student Success Act.

Mr. WALBERG

Mr. WALBERG. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Georgia. Mr. Speaker, this must come as a shock to the administration and Democrat Senate leadership who have recently described ObamaCare as ``wonderful for our country.'' But not to us in the House and the American people. Today, employers are cutting jobs, hours, and wages because they won't be able to comply with the law. Individuals are seeing premiums climb, and families are losing health insurance they like. An administrative train wreck has become so likely that on July 2, the President announced a year delay for the employer mandate in his own law. This evokes a question for the President: if businesses are being given relief, shouldn't the same relief be given to the American people? I rise in support of today's legislation to delay both the employer and individual mandate. It's only fair that all taxpayers, whether businesses or families, receive relief from these hurtful mandates. I look forward to continuing to work with my colleagues to revive our economy, create jobs, and put the American people first so they can make their own health care decisions. And by the way, wouldn't it be great if personal responsibility, creativity, and liberty reigned again in America.

Mr. WALBERG

Mr. WALBERG. Mr. Speaker, the President's decision last week to delay ObamaCare's employer mandate underscored how this law is far too complicated and expensive. Worse yet, it fails Michigan families and businesses. While this will certainly help our job creators in the short term, without a delay or, better yet, a repeal of the individual mandate, the administration deliberately chose to leave the American people out in the cold. This delay creates even more confusion for Michigan families who are wondering if they will lose their current coverage, be forced into choosing different providers, or be burdened with new high costs. It becomes clearer and clearer that, without repeal, this law will continue to destroy jobs and slow down our economy. Instead, we need to return to patient-centered care and not the government-knows-best health care system. I look forward to continuing to work with my colleagues in the House to revive our economy, create jobs, and put people first so they can make their own health care decisions.

Mr. WALBERG

Mr. WALBERG. My amendment prohibits the use of funds to be used to carry out section 801 of the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007, which creates a national media campaign to promote alternative green energies. The 2007 energy law directs the Department of Energy to run a national media campaign to promote alternative energies, encourage energy efficiency, and discourage the use of fossil fuels, authorizing $5 million a year. Promoting green-energy technology is really not the role of the Federal Government apart from an all-of-the-above energy plan, and it certainly is not part of the core mission of the Department of Energy. The American people don't need more government bureaucrats to tell them what energy sources they should use. The government needs to get out of the business of picking winners and losers in the energy market and certainly shouldn't be funding advertising campaigns on behalf of private green-energy firms, which is normally a losing proposition to the taxpayer. This amendment is more than fair. It was included in the last Congress' attempt at this legislation, and I urge my colleagues to support it and to defund this taxpayer media campaign. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. WALBERG. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. WALBERG

Mr. WALBERG. Mr. Speaker, after spending the past week meeting constituents across my district, I come to the floor to remind my colleagues that the American people are incensed over the unwarranted targeting and mistreatment by the IRS. Without the administration's help, the House has done its due diligence to get to the bottom of this issue, but it seems as though a new scandal comes to light every day. Most recently, we learned about the purchase of wine, romance novels, and even illicit material on IRS credit cards. Add lavish conferences, improper contracting practices, singling out of adoptive families, and, of course, the systematic targeting of conservative and religious groups, it is apparent that the IRS is an agency out of control. Mr. Speaker, the Fourth of July causes our entire Nation to pause and reflect on the vision of liberty our Founders valued when they declared our independence. Liberty is jeopardized when Federal agencies abuse the trust granted by the people. It must end, and the administration and the IRS must show Congress and the American people that it will never happen again.

Mr. WALBERG

Mr. WALBERG. I would suggest that it's not voluntary for all of those in an industry, and I am certain that not all of them in the industry are asking for this checkoff. Again, I understand there may not be the best infrastructure like the agriculture at the USDA programs for a checkoff like this. But again, I would ask the sponsor of this proposal: When have we grown rocks? Do we seed rocks? When we look at the agriculture commodity as a term described and defined, it says that the agriculture commodity means agricultural, horticultural, viticultural, and dairy products, livestock and the products of livestock, the products of poultry and bee raising, the products of forestry. I could go on, but it nowhere says ``rocks.'' To expand the program in a farm bill issue and in dealing with something we can't grow, I think, establishes the wrong precedent. I ask for support for the amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. WALBERG. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. WALBERG. Mr. Chairman, if it weren't for the lateness of the hour, I would be tempted to ask if any of my colleagues have had constituents call or write their offices to ask whether Congress has lost its marbles. I won't do that. But I would point out the fact that the underlying bill we are considering tonight contains a provision to create a checkoff program, like many others, but this is a checkoff program for natural stone on behalf of the marble and granite industry. To those of my friends who are supporters of the checkoff program-- and again, there are many checkoff programs--I would simply ask for you to take a close look at my amendment. Proponents of this checkoff have argued that stone is a natural product, and yes, it is. But is it just like the other products covered in the checkoff program in the agriculture arena? To anyone unfamiliar, here's a sampling of the some of the other checkoff programs currently run by the USDA: dairy, eggs, beef, blueberries, pork, sorghum, watermelons, et cetera. The common denominator between the some 20 checkoff programs run by the USDA is that they are all agricultural commodities. They all grow. They all can be raised. The statutory authority for this program defines precisely what an acceptable agricultural commodity is, and rock, no matter how natural it is, is not one of them. Mr. Chairman, farmers in my district do not grow rocks. In fact, they don't like it when frost heaves and pushes new rocks up in their fields, as in my farm field. My amendment is more than fair, Mr. Chairman, and is necessary for maintaining the integrity of the farm bill and not for expanding--for which our chairman earlier this evening expressed concern--more farm bill programs in assorted prior amendments. There are no laws preventing this industry from imposing a voluntary tax on their membership. If they are really insistent on having a government-run checkoff, they could have pursued a program under a more appropriate agency like the Department of Commerce or the Department of the Interior. I would hope my colleagues, Mr. Chairman, would agree that rocks have no place in a farm bill, and would join me in removing this provision from the bill. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. WALBERG. Mr. Chairman, propane and oil heat function as checkoff programs under the Department of Commerce and under the Department of Energy. The statutory authority for the USDA checkoff also does not include rock. So I respectfully request that my colleagues in this body support this amendment, which keeps free those things that don't grow and are not part of agriculture out of a farm bill. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. WALBERG. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the respect, and I understand that. I appreciate the fact that the USDA has a good record of dealing with checkoffs. I'm not necessarily opposed to all checkoffs, but they ought to fit. Growing rocks--marble, granite--just does not fit in an agricultural program. I think that's apparent. So I ask my colleagues to support this amendment in order to keep the integrity of the farm bill in growing agriculture. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. WALBERG. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. WALBERG. Mr. Chairman, may I inquire of the time remaining.

Mr. WALBERG

Mr. WALBERG. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize the achievements of an iconic company in my district, La-Z-Boy Incorporated, and to congratulate them as they begin construction on their new world headquarters next week. Based in Monroe, MI, La-Z-Boy has been crafting comfortable, quality furniture since 1927. The vision of two cousins, Edward M. Knabusch and Edwin J. Shoemaker, La-Z-Boy started with the success of their innovative reclining wooden slat chair From their humble beginnings in Edward's father's garage they quickly evolved their company with new products like the first upholstered reclining chair. The company grew and they built their own factory on Telegraph Road to meet demand, where they've been a part of the community for the last 85 years. With the exception of a break during World War II to make tank seats and crash pads as part of the war effort, the employees of La-Z-Boy have never stopped producing a myriad of products that are well-known across the globe. With an accredited test lab on site, every product coming off the line meets the high standards of the La-Z-Boy brand. Just imagine how many sports fans those recliners have comforted or the countless babies they've rocked to sleep. On June 20th, La-Z-Boy will hold a groundbreaking ceremony for their new world headquarters, as the company enters its next phase. The environmentally friendly building will be able to support 500 employees who will no doubt continue making quality furniture for every room in the home. I offer my best wishes to my constituents and friends at La- Z-Boy and encourage them to keep making this world a more comfortable place.