Tim Walberg

Mr. WALBERG

Mr. WALBERG. Mr. Speaker, I rise to recognize James Ducey of Grass Lake as the Veteran of the Month for June and honor him for his sacrifice and service on behalf of our great Nation. After graduating from high school in 1966, James enlisted in the United States Air Force, serving proudly in the 341st Civil Engineering Squadron at the Malmstrom Air Force Base in Great Falls, Montana. James served in the Air Force until April of 1970, achieving the rank of Sergeant E-4, and was awarded the Small Arms Expert Marksmanship Ribbon and the Good Conduct Medal. Even after leaving active duty, James never stopped serving, shifting his efforts to his local community. James joined the Grass Lake American Legion Post 252, where he was appointed Adjutant in 2018, leading the annual Memorial Day celebration for several years and post activities through 2025. His leadership also extended to chairing the American Legion Fireworks Committee and the July 4th Parade in partnership with the Grass Lake Sportsman Club. While serving his local post, James also became Adjutant for the Jackson Veterans Council for four years. He served as backup Service Officer for Post 252 and has represented Post 252 as District 2 Representative since 2021, continuing in that role today. In 2023, he was elected Jackson County Commander, serving until July 2025. He also served as Finance Person for District 2 for two years under Commander Greene. In 2024, James was appointed by Department Commander Mohlman to the Department Finance Committee, representing District 2 for a one-year term. He was subsequently appointed by Department Commander Cooper as Secretary of the Department's Internal Affairs Committee, a two-year appointment he currently holds. James Ducey's remarkable life of service and leadership on behalf of America's veterans and his community inspires us all. May others know of my high regard for James, as well as my deep gratitude for his lasting contributions to the country we love.

Mr. WALBERG

Mr. WALBERG. Mr. Speaker, I oppose the motion, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. WALBERG. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. WALBERG

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 to include extraneous material on H.R. 5408.

Mr. WALBERG. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.R. 5408, the so-called Faster Labor Contracts Act. I will give credit to whoever named this bill because it certainly accomplishes two things faster: It fast-tracks government intrusion into private workplaces, and it erodes workers' rights faster than we have ever seen before. Under the FLCA, if the private parties involved do not reach a first contract on an accelerated timeline, a government-appointed arbitration panel steps in and imposes one. The panel does not merely recommend contract provisions or serve as a neutral entity while parties work to reach an agreement. Instead, it imposes a contract on employers and employees for at least 2 years without their consent. Let's call this bill what it really is: a massive expansion of Washington's power over American workers and job creators. It is the latest attempt to put workers under the thumb of Federal bureaucrats. Under the bill, government bureaucrats can parachute into workplaces they have never set foot in, override the voice of the workers and industries they know little about, and leave them with contracts that may not serve their interests. Mr. Speaker, supporters of this bill assure businesses and workers that it is about worker empowerment and efficiency. I may be misremembering the definition of empowerment, but I can guarantee it does not mean taking away a worker's right to vote on his or her own contract and giving that power to a Washington bureaucrat with no stake in the outcome. As for efficiency, this bill inserts the Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service, FMCS, an agency that President Trump rightly sought to eliminate for its corruption into the bargaining process. Reports came out last year about the agency's alleged mismanagement of funds and other fraudulent activities. Now we are expected to give this agency a role in deciding workers' wages, benefits, scheduling rules, disciplinary procedures, and working conditions whenever contract negotiations extend beyond an arbitrary time frame. I really doubt this agency will be able to do much, if anything, efficiently. If the bill supporters truly care about efficiency--and I believe they do--this is a strange way to show it. For more than 90 years, Federal labor law has required employers and unions to bargain in good faith. Despite what supporters of this bill seem to suggest, that system is still working today. Whether it is the Teamsters, UPS, or United Auto Workers and the Big Three automakers, countless agreements across the country have been reached because both sides negotiated compromise and arrived at terms that made sense for their unique workplaces. Under this bill, small businesses, in particular, could be forced into long-term, expensive, one-size-fits-all contracts written by bureaucrats. Those contracts could mandate spending that small employers cannot sustain, threaten jobs, kill growth, and in some cases, shut businesses down entirely. Mr. Speaker, simply put, the FLCA is not proworker. It is an ideological Trojan horse that harms the very people it claims to help, empowers bureaucrats over workers, and undermines the collaborative process that has long-defined American labor relations. Ultimately, workers value having a voice in workplace decisions. The Trump administration has prioritized putting America's workers first and strengthening the Nation's workforce. This bill goes directly against the President's vision for America: to have the most capable and competitive workforce in the world. It takes decisions out of the hands of workers and job creators and places them in the hands of unelected bureaucrats. Mr. Speaker, we do not need government-imposed contracts. We do not need bureaucrats writing workplace rules. We certainly do not need a bill that claims to champion workers while stripping them of their ability to approve contracts that govern their livelihoods, whether they understand that or not. If Congress truly wants to support American workers, we should strengthen workplace democracy, protect workers' rights, and encourage honest bargaining--not replace negotiation with government mandates. The FLCA is wrong for workers, wrong for businesses, wrong for the economy, and wrong for the country. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to join me in opposing it, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. WALBERG. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from North Carolina (Ms. Foxx), the chairman emeritus of the Committee on Education and Workforce.

Mr. WALBERG. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I certainly respect my good friend and colleague from New Jersey, the sponsor of this bill, and his desire to move processes forward. I just have a significant concern that it is short-sighted to think that government intrusion into this process will ever work in the end and what would be considered optional wouldn't eventually become mandatory in the fact that the workers themselves aren't making these decisions, that the best interests of the union leadership may be carried on, but not the workers'. That is my concern. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Allen), a man who knows what it means to be involved in negotiations from both sides.

Mr. WALBERG. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, we talked about efficiency and moving the issue forward 400-some days, but this bill is being rushed. It is being rushed in other ways. It requires a report from the Government Accountability Office, examining the length of time between recognition of a union in the workplace and the initial collective bargaining agreement. However, that report will not be issued until 1 year after enactment of the bill. We are passing a bill that could impact millions of employers and employees, only then to request a report to understand the alleged issue that this bill aims to address. I think back to the 2010 ObamaCare vote, when Members of this body were told to pass the bill so we could find out what was in it. We face a similar question today. Why must we vote on a proposed solution before we even know the problem? Instead, let us do the reasonable thing before this bill goes to a vote. That is just something we ought to consider, especially when we have the opportunity to do that, as opposed to pushing this directly to the floor without even having a GAO study beforehand. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Illinois (Mrs. Miller), a great member of our Education and Workforce Committee.

Mr. WALBERG. Mr. Speaker, I yield 7 minutes to the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Onder), another great member of the Education and Workforce Committee.

Mr. WALBERG. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Fine), one who stands up for workers and is a great participant in the Education and Workforce Committee as well.

Mr. WALBERG. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, as a former union steelworker, I certainly understand the value that unions play in the workplace. I also understand the value that employers play in the workplace. I sometimes have my concerns about union officials and where they put their greatest agenda items at and the greatest concerns. Unions can only force workers to pay dues or fees if there is a signed contract in effect. This means that between the time a union is certified and when a first contract is signed, the union is not getting paid to represent workers. Once the dues spigot is open, nearly all unions funnel that money to opposing President Trump and the Republican Party goals to lower taxes and make the American Dream affordable. For decades, unions have increasingly spent more of their money on political campaigns--it is part of the record--and fringe social issues with a paltry sum spent on actually representing their members at the bargaining table and fighting for their rights. From 1990 to 2010, the American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees, AFSCME, was the second largest political donor on record, but spent 98 percent of its dollars on the other party, Democrats. President Trump is a strong supporter of Israel, but millions of dollars of union dues from unions like the SEIU, United Electrical Workers Union, and United Auto Workers are going to a pro-Hamas, anti- Israel agenda. President Trump has fought to get DEI initiatives out of our schools, workplaces, and government agencies. Union money has been propping up that agenda for more than a decade. These are hard truths. President Trump supports a pro-life policy, but union money flows into Planned Parenthood and other pro-abortion organizations. Union-funded House Democrats have not spent their time fighting for workers like they promise. Instead, they have spent their time undermining President Trump's agenda and trying to get him removed from office. These are hard truths. The Faster Labor Contracts Act is just the latest attempt to undermine the President and his proworker agenda. It will go to union leadership. They will still be pulling it in while the bureaucrats make decisions for the employees. I urge colleagues to vote ``no'' on H.R. 5408, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. WALBERG. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Grothman), a great member of the Education and Workforce Committee.

Mr. WALBERG. Mr. Speaker, through you to my friend from the region where we both grew up, Hammond, South Side of Chicago, Calumet City, steel area and all the rest, I just make one point: Our President is clearly for private sector workers, very much so. When he dealt with the Federal Government, it follows the pattern of trying to reduce the cost, the size, the scope of the Federal Government. In fact, that is what we are talking about here, of expanding the scope of the Federal Government to come in and force on employees and employers contracts that in many cases they will not have voted on. I just remind my good friend of that. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. WALBERG. Mr. Speaker, just to bring clarity, my exact words were: President Trump is a strong supporter of Israel, but millions of dollars of union dues from unions like SEIU, the United Electrical Workers, and the United Auto Workers are going to support a pro-Hamas, anti-Israel agenda. I stand by that. Mr. Speaker, I am prepared to close, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. WALBERG. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. Mr. Speaker, this bill asks us to believe that workers are empowered when their right to vote on a contract is taken away and handed to a government-appointed arbitrator. That is not empowerment. That is Washington deciding it knows better in the end than people actually doing the job. For decades, employers and unions have negotiated contracts through good faith bargaining. Certainly, it is not always easy, but it works because the people closest to the workplace are the ones making the decisions. This bill replaces that process with Federal intervention and a one-size-fits-all mandate. Congress is being asked to make these sweeping changes without the scrutiny they deserve--no committee process, no serious examination of the costs, and no opportunity to fully consider the consequences. Workers deserve a voice. Businesses deserve certainty. The American people deserve better than rushed legislation that puts bureaucrats in charge and leaves everyone else with the bill. Finally, Mr. Speaker, I will include a letter at a later time raising concerns about H.R. 5408 from G. Roger King, senior labor and employment counsel at CHRO Association, and Alex McDonald, co-chair of the Workplace Policy Institute at Littler Mendelson. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. WALBERG

Mr. WALBERG. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 1333, I call up the bill (H.R. 7892) to amend the Higher Education Act of 1965 to require to the Secretary of Education to use an identity fraud detection system to review each FAFSA to determine whether the FAFSA presents a reasonable suspicion of identity fraud, 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 to insert extraneous material on H.R. 7892.

Mr. WALBERG. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 7892, the No Aid for Ghost Students Act of 2026, a simple and commonsense piece of legislation to fight fraud in our Federal student aid system. This legislation, authored by Representative Burgess Owens, also includes key provisions from Representative Glenn ``GT'' Thompson's H.R. 7891, the Student Aid Fraud Oversight and Accountability Act of 2026, which further strengthens this important bill. Student aid should go to real students. This is simple but somehow contested, an idea that Republicans are committed to protecting. Over the past few years, it has become increasingly apparent that fraudsters are exploiting Federal programs at every level. Instead of helping children get meals or supporting students' educations, Americans' tax dollars have been lining criminals' pockets, helping fraudsters get rich while Americans suffer the consequences. At the Committee on Education and Workforce, Mr. Speaker, we have been examining this issue closely and working hard to expose the rampant fraud in our Federal assistance programs. While childcare and hospice care have dominated the headlines in recent months, our Federal student aid programs have also fallen victim to fraud. The most pressing threat comes from ghost students, fraudsters who use stolen or synthetic identities to submit the Free Application for Federal Student Aid, or FAFSA, and steal student aid dollars. These fraudsters commonly operate in foreign or domestic crime rings, submitting large numbers of FAFSAs to net huge amounts of cash. Until recently, these schemes were far too often successful. This was largely possible because the Biden-Harris administration removed critical, commonsense guardrails during the COVID-19 pandemic that weakened fraud prevention measures and made it easier than ever to loot our Federal student aid programs. Those foolish policies didn't help students. In fact, they did the opposite by creating more opportunities for fraudsters and criminals to endlessly exploit Federal student aid assistance programs and steal from taxpayers. The good news, Mr. Speaker, is that under Education Secretary Linda McMahon's leadership, the Department of Education has made great strides in combating this fraud, restoring key safeguards, increasing identity screenings, and strengthening verification requirements. As a result, the Department blocked more than $1 billion in attempted fraud in 2025. Those efforts, while effective, are not guaranteed to remain in place under future administrations, as we saw under the Biden administration. That is why committee Republicans are advancing legislation that not only builds on the Trump administration's efforts to stop fraud but also puts effective fraud prevention measures where they belong, in the law. I know we all want to help students pursue an education and obtain a degree if they choose to do so. Unfortunately, that opportunity is stolen from students and borrowers when we allow fraud to continue unchecked. H.R. 7892, the No Aid for Ghost Students Act of 2026, creates an invaluable opportunity to stop this kind of incessant fraud and protect access to higher education. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 7892, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. WALBERG. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate my good friend, colleague, and ranking member's comments. I am a bit surprised because I had hoped that he could support this bill since in committee he supported this bill. In fact, one of the two bills in this bill that has been combined was unanimous in support by my Democratic colleagues. In response to weaponization that this bill could provide, the bill does not single out any State, student, or institution. The bill's identity fraud detection system simply screens and assesses each FAFSA submission, which is working now, for indicators of fraud risk. When an application is flagged for identity verification, it is based on real fraud risk, not political agenda. Further, the bill's program review priority categories applies only to institutions that display a pattern of disbursing aid to flagged applications, and only after giving those schools an opportunity to demonstrate compliance with the bill's reasonable, commonsense identity verification requirements. In other words, the bill simply requires institutions to do their part in ensuring that taxpayer dollars are going to real students, not fraudsters. Additionally, the bill promotes transparency. It requires the Department to provide Congress with a written description of the system, notice of substantial changes, and annual reports on the system's use and effectiveness. Mr. Speaker, bottom line, this bill keeps the focus where it belongs: on stopping fraud and protecting legitimate students. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Owens), the vice chairman of the Education and Workforce Committee and the sponsor of this legislation.

Mr. WALBERG. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate my colleague from Texas' concern about students and not missing one. We certainly don't want to do that. However, we have been doing that for years until the reforms that have taken place in FAFSA, and we know they are working now. It has come down to days as opposed to weeks and months before in getting feedback. Now, in fact, most recently it has gotten down to immediate feedback in most cases. We are seeing it work, and we have no evidence that it is unjustly pulling out certain groups or certain individuals. Again, we don't want that to take place, but we do not want fraudsters and ghost students, and that is what we are dealing with. FAFSA finally, finally is working, and people--parents and students-- are calling my office, and I bet other offices, as well. Mr. Speaker, with great appreciation, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Kiley), the chairman of the Early Childhood, Elementary, and Secondary Education Subcommittee of the Committee on Education and Workforce.

Mr. WALBERG. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I was caught with the first entity that was mentioned, AFT, the American Federation of Teachers', concern about higher education. They have messed up our K-12 education and the pipeline going into higher education. I don't see them as any voice that we ought to be listening to, especially dealing with fraud, waste, and abuse. It is important to recognize the progress the Department has made, Mr. Speaker, in addressing ghost student fraud. In just its first 2 weeks, the Department's new real-time identity fraud detention tool blocked over $60 million in ghost student fraud. That is real money for students. That is real success, and it is exactly why this bill is drafted this way. The bill makes clear that the Department may satisfy the bill's identity fraud detection requirement, in whole or in part, through a system already in use, while also giving the Department room to adapt its system to evolving threats. The trouble is that without this bill, strong safeguards against fraud are not guaranteed, as we said, to remain in place and could change from administration to administration. Especially if the AFT is pushing, we know that push is real because of the Biden administration's failures. If we agree the current safeguards are working, we should make sure they remain in place to protect students and taxpayers alike, not just for now, but far into the future. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Kim).

Mr. WALBERG. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Grothman), who is a working member of our Committee on Education and Workforce.

Mr. WALBERG. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. Mr. Speaker, fraud has no place in America. I think we can all agree with that, at least in word. Unfortunately, fraud has spiraled out of control and allowed criminals to steal billions from American students and taxpayers. H.R. 7892, No Aid for Ghost Students Act of 2026, is a powerful opportunity to put a stop to fraud in our Federal student aid programs and expand the dream of higher education for the next generation of Americans. While Democrats and the Biden-era administration allowed fraudsters to steal from students and taxpayers, Republicans and the Trump administration are committed to righting that wrong and ensuring Federal student aid goes to the people who are meant to receive it: students. As lawmakers, it is imperative we do everything in our power to ensure taxpayer dollars are spent correctly. That means stopping fraud and putting an end to the parade of criminals who have exploited our Federal student assistance programs. It makes sense to me. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 7892, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. WALBERG

Mr. WALBERG. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 1333, I call up the bill (H.R. 7726) to amend the Child Care and Development Block Grant Act of 1990 to withhold funds from noncompliant States under such Act, 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.R. 7726.