Tim Walberg

Mr. WALBERG

Mr. WALBERG. Madam Speaker, I rise today to recognize Charlie Dunigan from Jackson, Michigan as he prepares to retire at the end of the year, completing a 42-year career in the construction industry. Started by Charlie's father, Joseph, Dunigan Brothers, Inc. is a well-respected underground construction company that has serviced the Jackson area and beyond for more than 70 years. Growing up, Charlie spent many nights and weekends working for the family-owned business prior to joining full-time after completing high school. Throughout his tenure, Charlie and Dunigan Brothers have largely specialized in various types of sewer and water construction projects, including building critical infrastructure around more than 20 lakes throughout Michigan. They played an important role in safeguarding the beauty and ecosystems of these lakes, something we take with great pride in the Great Lakes State. Despite the many notable projects he has overseen, Charlie would tell you the most fulfilling part of his career is the wonderful people he has worked with over the years. Charlie's days at Dunigan Brothers may be coming to an end, but his commitment to giving back and making the community a better place will be remembered for years to come. I congratulate Charlie on his long and distinguished career, and wish him a happy retirement with his wife, Laurie, and his children and grandchildren.

Mr. WALBERG

Mr. WALBERG. Madam Speaker, I rise today to recognize William McVey of Jackson, Michigan as he is posthumously presented the Bronze Star Medal. McVey, and his entire M4A1 Sherman tank crew, are receiving this high honor because of their heroism during World War II. The crew's story of battling enemy forces outside Cologne, Germany was the subject of the recent book, ``Spearhead,'' by author Adam Makos. Outgunned by German tanks, and facing harrowing odds, McVey and his band of brothers pushed eastward across Europe after D-Day, gaining critical ground for Allied forces. Our nation is forever grateful to the Greatest Generation and soldiers like William McVey who fought for freedom around the world. Their actions, which came at great personal cost, changed the course of history. While William McVey is now gone, may this long overdue Bronze Star serve as a reminder for generations to come of his incredible valor and service to the country he loved.

Mr. WALBERG

Mr. WALBERG. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize Elgin and Joanne Darling of Willis, Michigan, for being inducted into this year's Michigan Farmers' Hall of Fame. Elgin and Joanne have been married for 61 years, and for decades, they have been respected farmers and community leaders in Monroe County. From dawn to dusk, year after year, they toiled in bountiful fields to produce crops that fed their fellow citizens. Through their involvement with Michigan Farm Bureau, Michigan Corn Growers, and a host of other organizations, Elgin and Joanne have been champions of the agriculture industry. This remarkable legacy of service and stewardship has now been passed down to their son, Doug. In total, six generations of Darlings have worked on the family farm, which dates back to 1833. Michigan farmers are among the most patriotic and hardest working individuals I have the privilege to represent, and very few have demonstrated more humility and work ethic than Elgin and Joanne. On behalf of Michigan's Seventh Congressional District, we wish to congratulate Elgin and Joanne Darling on a lifetime of farming excellence. They certainly belong in the Hall of Fame.

Mr. WALBERG

Mr. WALBERG. Madam Speaker, I rise today to recognize St. Joseph Catholic Parish of Erie, Michigan as it celebrates its 200th anniversary. St. Joseph Catholic Parish, the second oldest Catholic church in Monroe County, and the third oldest Catholic church in the Archdiocese of Detroit, has a rich history of service to the community. The parish began in 1819 as a log building in a community called Bay Creek, where worshippers were primarily hunters and trappers. In its early days, the church depended upon traveling Jesuit priests who ministered to the congregants, followed by occasional visits by Father Gabriel Richard. In 1826, a new wood-frame building was constructed to replace the earlier log structure, and in 1833, Father John Debruyn became its first resident pastor. Around 1850, the Bay Creek settlement area was renamed Vienna, and today is known as Erie. As the parish continued to grow in number, it became necessary to build a new facility. The present building was completed under the leadership of Father Peter Warlop and consecrated in 1852 by Bishop Peter Paul LeFever. The magnificent structure, still used today as St. Joseph's place of worship, is a testimony to many years of faithful ministry. Over the years, the church provided an elementary school for parishioners and added a new activities center to better serve the church body. Today, St. Joseph Parish continues to enrich hundreds of individuals and families in Erie as a place of connection, worship, and service. Madam Speaker, I ask my colleagues to join with me in congratulating St. Joseph Catholic Parish on its bicentennial anniversary. May God continue to bless the congregation as it shines a bright light in Monroe County and beyond.

Mr. WALBERG

Mr. WALBERG. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Duncan) for yielding. Often during that polar vortex, I thought of South Carolina and sometimes wished that I could enjoy the warm breezes. Madam Speaker, as a member of the House Energy Action Team as well as a proud member of the Energy and Commerce Committee serving on the Energy Subcommittee, I rise today about an important subject we have been talking about here, and that is American energy security and independence. Madam Speaker, like many of my colleagues, I understand the importance of being a good steward of our environment. As an avid outdoorsman, a proud representative of the energy district of the Great Lakes State, a district that has wind, solar, nuclear, hydro, and coal power, along with natural gas, we have it all there. But I want my children and my grandchildren to experience the same beautiful world that I have experienced. In fact, Madam Speaker, I want them to experience even better. We can do that in the use of our energy as well, but we are not going to get there through socialist policies like the Green New Deal that will cause energy prices to skyrocket and commit, really, a fraud on the American people. Instead, we should focus on solutions that spur innovation and encourage investments in new technologies that support these goals while keeping a reliable, resilient grid. These investments are happening now, but the transition needs to happen in an orderly way that doesn't hinder economic growth or the security of our country. One step we can take right now is to update our energy policies for the 21st century. The energy landscape looks totally different than it did 40 years ago. Energy resources are abundant instead of scarce. It is a more diverse market than ever before, and it will continue. With that in mind, I introduced H.R. 1502, the PURPA Modernization Act. The bill simply increases competition and reforms outdated regulations from the 1970s, so that consumers are not burdened with unnecessary costs on their utility bills coming from stale, outdated green energy regulations. We also can't forget that an all-of-the-above energy approach will continue to utilize safe, clean, and resilient nuclear-based power, like that produced at the Fermi plants in my district. Getting new technologies, like advanced carbon capture, out of a lab and into the market is also crucial. This past winter, we saw the importance of baseload power when temperatures in Michigan and other places in the north plummeted to lower than 40 degrees below zero. I would point my colleagues to bipartisan legislation that I helped introduce last week with my friend and colleague from Texas, Representative Crenshaw, which would provide a jump-start to those innovative technologies at commercial scale. In closing, Madam Speaker, let's get to work on legislating, not political messaging. The American people sent us here to work on solutions that impact their pocketbooks and, yes, also promote their pursuit of happiness. That is what America is about: unleashing American energy. And bringing down prices for families we represent is certainly an important crucial discussion to have. Madam Speaker, I thank the chairman tonight for leading this.

Mr. WALBERG

Mr. WALBERG. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to H.R. 582, better known as the Raising Unemployment for American Workers Act. The bill's desired outcome may be well-intentioned, and you will hear hypothetical numbers from my good friend and chairman of the committee, assuming jobs are kept, which they won't be. In reality, it causes harm to the very people it is supposed to help. Just ask the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office. According to a CBO analysis of this legislation, it could eliminate up to 3.7 million jobs with a minimum wage increase, but the loss of 3.7 million jobs, and reduce family income by $9 billion. Low-income workers without a high school degree would be hit the hardest. We have seen the real-world consequences of a $15 minimum wage in cities like Seattle. It resulted in small businesses cutting jobs and workers receiving fewer hours and overall take-home pay. Instead of a one-size-fits-all approach, there is a better way to boost income for hardworking families. Let's focus on policies that keep our economy thriving and create more opportunities for all Americans to find good-paying, living-wage jobs that allow advancements as well, not just minimum wage.

Mr. WALBERG

Mr. WALBERG. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to take from the Speaker's table H.R. 3401, with the Senate amount thereto, and concur in the Senate amendment. This bipartisan bill passed the Senate with 84 votes and could be sent to the President's desk for his signature today.

Mr. WALBERG

Mr. WALBERG. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding. Mr. Chair, I appreciate the fact here of striking the last word. I rise in opposition to amendment 36, which was en bloc. Despite the description of this amendment, it would actually reduce broadband competition, if adopted, with tremendous negatives for my district and many others. It also frustrates broadband deployment, an important thing right now. By requiring network sharing in multi-tenant buildings, there is less of an incentive for network operators to build out or make upgrades to their networks. More importantly, nothing in the FCC's order that is the subject of this amendment would prevent State and local efforts from increasing access to multi-tenant environments. Rather, the Commission would clarify that those efforts should be consistent with Federal policy. This amendment also raises safety concerns. Technicians from varying broadband providers would be required to service the same facilities in a shared setting, and this could lead to unknown or unsafe environments for these workers. This amendment could also disincentivize build-out. This amendment would prevent the preemption of an outlier San Francisco ordinance which requires the sharing of in-use wiring in apartment complexes, office buildings, and other similar buildings between providers. For years, the FCC has been promoting facility-based competition to bring broadband to unserved Americans. Meanwhile, the Commission has forborne from the vast majority of the legacy competitive carrier provisions of the Communications Act because they did not work. We shouldn't be trying to re-create them on a local level.

Mr. WALBERG

Mr. WALBERG. Madam Chair, based upon that and, also, an understanding of the chairwoman's willingness to at least look at how we can find an adequate solution to meet the needs of our servicemembers who have given their all for our great country, I am willing to continue working on that. Madam Chair, I yield back the balance of my time, and I am willing to withdraw this amendment.

Mr. WALBERG. Madam Chair, I rise today in support of an important issue: preserving veterans' choices over their prosthetic services. While I am prepared to withdraw this amendment--we have had discussions about that--I would hope that I can continue to work with the chairwoman as we move to conference on improving the underlaying report language. Last year, the VA released a draft proposed rule which would have significantly curtailed veterans' choices in how they receive their prosthetic or orthotic care. While we appreciate the Secretary's efforts to address the concerns of the veterans, I remain concerned that the proposal does not go far enough to protect veterans' ability to select high-quality, convenient, and efficient services from community-based providers of their choice. This proposal would have upended more than 60 years of successful partnership between the VA and local prosthetists who contract with the VA and have long-term relationships with their patients. This long-term relationship is critical for the unique, patient-centered care needs of prosthetics services. I would also like to thank my colleague, Representative Rutherford, for working on this issue with me. Madam Chair, I yield to the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Wasserman Schultz) to at least assure me that we can continue to work on this issue together.

Mr. WALBERG. Madam Chair, I rise having an amendment at the desk.

Mr. WALBERG

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

Mr. WALBERG. Madam Chair, I rise today to support my bipartisan amendment that would help provide critical protections for all Americans and their right to due process under the Constitution. My amendment would prohibit the use of funds for adoptive seizures. These forfeiture options provide a loophole that helps local law enforcement evade stricter State laws, like my own in Michigan, governing civil asset forfeiture by seizing property and transferring it to Federal authorities in exchange for up to 80 percent of forfeiture proceeds. For many years, I have worked in a bipartisan way to shine a light on civil asset forfeiture abuses. In Michigan, Terry Dekho isn't a household name, but his story serves as a cautionary tale. Terry was a small grocer who had tens of thousands of dollars seized by the IRS without any criminal charges filed against him. He was a law-abiding citizen, in fact, and he had to fight in court to get his hard-earned savings back. The Department of Justice Assets Forfeiture Fund contains proceeds from equitable sharing agreements between the Federal Government and local law enforcement. These arrangements create perverse incentives to seek out forfeiture opportunities, and it is used to circumvent State- enacted civil forfeiture reforms, again, like those that have been enacted in Michigan. What is worse is that civil asset forfeiture disproportionately affects minorities and individuals who cannot afford to represent themselves. I would like to thank my colleagues, Representatives Raskin, McClintock, Rush, Amash, Cardenas, and Gabbard, for their support on this amendment. Madam Chair, I urge my colleagues to support this amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. WALBERG. Madam Chair, I appreciate the comments of my good friend and colleague from Alabama. We are not attempting to take away civil asset forfeiture as a tool. We are simply saying that due process ought to be carried out in every part of our judicial process and our law enforcement process. We are talking about people here--for instance, Terry Dekho, who was informed by his insurance company that they would not insure any assets at his grocery beyond $10,000. Each day, he took in his $10,000 or less, whatever it was, and it made a pattern. Ultimately, $35,000 of his hard-earned assets were frozen. For a small grocer, $35,000 is life or death for his business. All we are asking is for due process to be followed. Attorney General Holder, I think, saw the error of our ways when he reversed and made revisions that, ultimately, Attorney General Sessions reversed as well. I think we need to go back. We still have the opportunity to use the process but use it with due process. That is all I ask. Madam Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. WALBERG

Mr. WALBERG. Madam Chair, I rise today to support my amendment, which would prohibit taxpayer money from going directly to the Taliban. According to recent news stories, the Defense Department asked Congress for funding that could be used to reimburse the Taliban for transportation and other expenses. That is quite simply absurd. For many years, I have worked in a bipartisan way to shine a light on how American tax dollars are being misspent in Afghanistan. There have been a number of oversight reports conducted by the Special Inspector General for Afghanistan Reconstruction that highlight how these programs have been mismanaged and poorly run for years. The SIGAR has identified a disturbing amount of waste, fraud, and abuse totaling in the billions of dollars. This level of wasteful spending is staggering, yet we continued pouring money down the drain anyway. But sending taxpayer dollars straight to the Taliban, despite the price paid by men and women in uniform, is the ultimate insult. We owe it to the taxpayers to not waste any more of their money.

Mr. WALBERG

Mr. WALBERG. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 3253, which takes several important steps to strengthen the Medicaid program; and I thank my friends and colleagues, Representatives Dingell and Guthrie, for this legislation. I am especially pleased that the bill includes a piece of bipartisan legislation I authored, along with my colleague from Vermont, Congressman Welch. Our legislation broadens the authority of Medicaid Fraud Control Units to better protect the most vulnerable and bring bad actors to justice. Medicaid Fraud Control Units are charged with investigating and prosecuting State Medicaid provider fraud and resident abuse complaints in Medicaid-funded healthcare facilities. Nationally, these units contributed to 2,500 convictions and $1.8 billion in recovered funds in 2017 alone. They are a vital instrument of justice for protecting Medicaid beneficiaries from abuse. However, current law prevents these units from investigating cases of patient abuse in noninstitutional settings, such as home-based care. It doesn't make sense. Our committee has heard from States that have had to turn a blind eye to cases of abuse simply because the abuse occurred in a noninstitutional setting. This arbitrary restriction simply does not make sense. There has been substantial growth in home and community-based services since the initial statute was enacted decades ago. It is time that we update the law so we are not needlessly tying the hands of those who are charged with protecting the most vulnerable. Our legislation will empower attorneys general to expand the scope of their States' fraud units so they can combat patient abuse wherever it might occur. This reform has broad bipartisan support from AGs in red States and blue States. It is just common sense, and it will help better serve those in need. Once again, I thank my colleagues on the great Energy and Commerce Committee for their bipartisan collaboration. I encourage passage of H.R. 3253.

Mr. WALBERG

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

Mr. WALBERG. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition.

Mr. WALBERG. Mr. Chairman, while I appreciate my friend and colleague from Virginia and his concern about this issue, I have to oppose the amendment because it would prevent the administration from continuing its important work to finalize proposed rules to examine the exposure limits for beryllium in construction and shipyard industries. Mr. Chairman, regulations to protect worker health are vital and necessary; however, all voices should be heard through proper notice and comment period. Unfortunately, in the last days of the previous administration, OSHA expanded its 2017 final rule without allowing for proper notice and comment from many impacted industries. The public comment period is an essential part of upholding our democratic values because it ensures that Americans will have their voices heard in the Federal Government's regulatory process. People need to have the confidence that Federal agencies are open to their insights and constructive criticism and that their concerns will not be circumvented at the last minute. So I encourage Members to oppose this amendment and allow OSHA to get back to work to issue a regulation that has undergone the proper review and protects the health of workers. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to Mr. Comer.

Mr. WALBERG

Mr. WALBERG. Madam Speaker, I thank my friend from Texas for yielding, and I thank him for his work. Madam Chairman, I rise today in support of H.R. 1994, the Setting Every Community Up for Retirement Enhancement Act. I would like to thank Chairman Neal and Ranking Member Brady for their leadership on this important piece of legislation. For families in my district, putting away enough money for retirement is a constant struggle. Now more than ever, we need policies that empower workers to save more and save earlier for retirement. I am pleased this legislation includes a provision I coauthored with my colleague from Delaware (Ms. Blunt Rochester). Our bipartisan provision clarifies rules surrounding annuity plans, making it possible for more employers to provide guaranteed lifetime income products as part of their benefits package. Our goal is to remove barriers to saving and give workers a variety of tools so they can choose what option best fits their needs. Madam Speaker, we have a retirement income crisis in this country, and the SECURE Act will help more Americans retire with dignity and piece of mind. I urge its passage today.

Mr. WALBERG

Mr. WALBERG. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in opposition to H.R. 987, and I truly lament the fact that the other side is once again, under their leadership's direction, trying to score political points instead of truly solving problems. Republicans and Democrats agree on the need to tackle out-of-control prescription drug costs. It is an issue that touches all of our districts. People are struggling and in need of relief. All of the names mentioned today, the illustrations, from the Speaker of the House on to my colleagues, names that were mentioned of people who are hurting and need relief from drug costs, are being let down by the Democrat leadership today. Up until today, we have been working together on solutions. On the Energy and Commerce Committee on which I sit, as well, we passed three drug pricing bills with overwhelming bipartisan support: The CREATES Act, the Protecting Consumer Access to Generic Drugs Act, and the Bringing Low-cost Options and Competition while Keeping Incentives for New Generics Act. These bills would foster greater competition and help bring generic drugs to market as soon as possible and at more affordable prices. Once again, they all had bipartisan support. They were bills that were good bills. Unfortunately, the Democrats turned this bipartisan issue into a political football by adding several partisan provisions to this bill package, and they let down everyone that they have talked about today who needs affordable prescription drugs. They are costly provisions that bail out failed ObamaCare programs and strip away affordable healthcare options for families. The Democrats also rejected a number of commonsense amendments, including one I offered to protect expanded access to association health plans. These association health plans give more affordable options to workers and small businesses to purchase healthcare that fits their needs. We should be encouraging these options, not removing them. But most of all, today should be a moment of bipartisanship, a moment of meaningful results. We had an opportunity to get something done today on behalf of our constituents who are struggling with skyrocketing costs of prescription drugs. Instead, politics got in the way and we missed that opportunity. The American people deserve better than that, and I think most of us are better than that. We stand ready to work on lowering prescription drug costs. I hope our colleagues on the other side of the aisle will talk to their leadership and put politics aside and join us in that effort. I believe we and they are better than that and that, by standing up to leadership that wants to make it political, if they do that, we can get this done. I stand ready to work. I hate to do this, Mr. Chairman. I want to keep talking about this and get a solution, but my time is up.

Mr. WALBERG

Mr. WALBERG. Mr. Chair, I thank the lead Republican for yielding. Mr. Chair, I rise today in opposition to H.R. 986. I would give its titled name, but it is yet another misleading effort that has nothing to do with the title of the bill. House Republicans fully support protections--and I will make it clear--for patients with preexisting conditions. I know that my Democratic colleagues and friends want to continue using the mantra that works so well politically without fact, truth, or reality during the election. We have gone beyond that now. Republicans support protections for patients with preexisting conditions. These patients deserve peace of mind and safeguards from being treated unfairly. That has always been a priority of ours, and it will continue to be, but that is not what the bill before us today would do. H.R. 986 can be summed up in 3 words: Washington knows best. The bill eliminates flexibility at the State level, taking away options for States to innovate and bring down healthcare premiums. The high and rising cost of healthcare is a significant concern for patients and families in my district. We need to focus on solutions, not politics. We need to focus on solutions to provide relief from increasing costs, encourage choice and competition, expand access to quality care, and maintain--and I will make it very clear here again-- important protections for patients with preexisting conditions. We have the ideas to do that. We have the amendments that would put that forward and make this bill something important to people with preexisting conditions, but that is not being allowed today. Let's stop playing political games with a bill title and a title like this and, instead, focus on patient-centered solutions.

Mr. WALBERG

Mr. WALBERG. Madam Speaker, I rise today to recognize Dr. David L. McKenna, a legendary leader in Christian higher education, as he celebrates his 90th birthday during the month of May 2019. Born in Michigan, Dr. McKenna received an education at Spring Arbor College, Western Michigan University, and Asbury Theological Seminary, culminating with a Ph.D. from the University of Michigan. Dr. McKenna served as the President of Spring Arbor College (now university), a respected Christian college in my district, from 1961 to 1968. He led the transformation of Spring Arbor from a two-year college to a baccalaureate institution and years later served as the Chairman of the Board when it became Spring Arbor University. He went on from Spring Arbor to serve as President of Seattle Pacific University from 1968 to 1982 and as President of Asbury Theological Seminary in Kentucky from 1982 to 1994, completing a remarkable 33 years of presidential leadership in higher education. Dr. McKenna and his wife, Janet, now live in Kirkland, Washington, where they remain active and continue to positively impact people's lives. For many years, he has been a prolific author, continuing to publish at least one book per year. I ask my colleagues in the United States House of Representatives to join me in wishing Dr. David L. McKenna a happy 90th birthday, and in expressing best wishes for future blessings.

Mr. WALBERG

Mr. WALBERG. Mr. Chair, I thank the gentleman for yielding. Mr. Chair, as a member of the Energy and Commerce Committee, I rise today in opposition to H.R. 9, more appropriately named the U.S. energy disadvantage act. The bill attempts to lock us into a bad deal. While the United States is continuing to lower its emissions and to lead the world through technological innovation, other countries around the world are not meeting even their targets. Some aren't making targets. Those countries came up with targets on their own, and they still aren't living up to them. Staying in the Paris Agreement would raise energy prices and slow economic growth without curbing emissions in a meaningful, global fashion. Mr. Chair, we are not the ones who are polluting the air and the water. We are cleaning it up. We are doing it as a result of doing the right thing. Yet, Mr. Chair, today, the ones that are polluting greatest are doing nothing other than just being told to think up something by 2030. Mr. Chair, our President did the right thing. We should do the same. We need to get to work on legislating, not political messaging. The American people sent us here to work on solutions to healthcare, infrastructure, education, the economy, and much more. Let's get to work on that, and let's encourage the nations of the world to do the right thing and get involved in doing what the United States has done already and, by the way, will continue to do. Mr. Chair, I oppose this bill. We all should.

Mr. WALBERG

Mr. WALBERG. Mr. Chair, I rise today in opposition to H.R. 1644. I believe, if we use words appropriately, that should be named the ``Regain Big Government Control of the Internet Act.'' Thankfully, after 2015, we only had a short time of what was so- called net neutrality, which are words that sound good but aren't true. It was Big Government takeover of net neutrality, and this bill opens the door to disastrous effects like that on getting broadband into rural America, where I live. I still don't have broadband. In 2015, under the so-called net neutrality, we saw that broadband build-out stop. I am still looking forward to it someday. So this bill would take us backwards, not forwards. It is clear that the bill also could have several unintended consequences which are completely at odds with the authors' intended outcomes. Instead of doubling down on the light-touch framework which has resulted in the widespread success of the internet, Mr. Chair, my colleagues seem more interested in imposing more and bigger government regulation. The bill only forbears from what the FCC claims it forbore from, not what it can forbear from through the backdoor of sections 201 and 202. Instead of letting the markets work under a framework which still robustly protects consumers, this bill would inject even more uncertainty into the market. It seems that, instead of locking in protections for consumers, the only thing it is really locking in is more partisanship. I urge my colleagues to work with Republicans on bipartisan legislation that protects consumers and promotes broadband deployment in rural America, the place I live and the place I lack broadband now and, with the continued effort to have Big Government control, I probably will still lack. It is time to change that, and I encourage my colleagues to oppose H.R. 1644, the ``Regain Big Government Control of the Internet Act.''