Tim Walberg

Mr. WALBERG

Mr. WALBERG. I thank the gentleman for the opportunity tonight to talk to this issue. I, too, stand in full support of passage of the Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act and ask the Senate to reach down deep into their consciences, their hearts, their emotions. So often, we don't talk about that on the floor of this august body, the House of Representatives, but that is where it ought to flow because, indeed, we here, both in the House--the people's House--and the Senate, were sent to represent people, people of a great nation, people of a blessed nation, a nation that has honored the worth, the purpose, and the value of life itself since its inception. We were formed of people with great ideals; great value; great courage; and, indeed, formed with their blood given for the rights and freedoms of all individuals. For us to concern ourselves with protecting the most innocent among us, even those that are among us in the womb, I think of my new granddaughter in the womb right now, in my daughter's body, waiting for, in just a month and a half, the opportunity to breathe air itself and become a functioning human being cared for, growing and ultimately becoming all that God intended for her. I would say the same for any human being, born or unborn, that we must protect. Mr. Speaker, I certainly thank the gentleman from Arizona for his courage to push for this, with unwillingness to bend and bow under those that would say: Oh, get over it; stop defending something that is indefensible. I would say thank God for defending something that is totally defensible. As was mentioned earlier, we were founded on principles, principles that were firm and correct. The Founders and Framers long understood the power of truths versus human wisdom, truths and wisdom that said: We hold these truths to be self-evident that all men are created equal and endowed by their Creator, by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, among them the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. John Adams said, ``Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.'' And, indeed, what we have seen in videos in recent days, has evidenced that, when you step out of that moral principle, you go into things unthinkable and grotesque. It has been said that righteousness exalts a Nation, but sin is a reproach to any land. How could we not feel reproached in looking at videos of a licensed doctor who is willing to take and sell body parts and to countenance pain as something that is just part of the process and to be totally unconsidered? Mr. Speaker, I spent a good deal of my early adult life in the pulpit, ministering to people from an authority far greater than this government or even this Constitution, the greatest document on the face of this Earth, manmade. But the psalmists said, ``Behold, children are a gift of the Lord. The fruit of the womb is a reward.'' That is true. Certain commentators will denigrate me for bringing up these truths, and so be it. But they are truths. Jeremiah, the prophet, speaking of God, said, ``Before I formed you in the womb, I knew you. Before you were born, I set you apart.'' The psalmist David, who became King David, said, ``For you formed my inward parts; You wove me in my mother's womb.'' Does that sound like what that doctor was doing in the womb, weaving, carefully forming? No. She was destroying. We must fight back against that evil. He want on to say, ``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.'' I thank the gentleman from Arizona. I thank him for his courage and standing for life itself and acknowledging the fact that the Creator has formed something of greatness. And we must not stand in the way, but do everything possible to reject the pain, to reject the defeat, to reject the conquering of the human spirit beginning right in the womb. May God help us in this country to repent, to seek his healing, to do right, and to spare the innocent among us.

Mr. WALBERG

Mr. WALBERG. Mr. Chairman, my amendment tells the Environmental Protection Agency to follow the law and clearly establishes the view of Congress that the EPA cannot lobby on behalf of the waters of the U.S. rule, in violation of the Anti-Lobbying Act. Over the past few years, the EPA has been pushing the limits of its statutory authority to the issue of the waters of the U.S. rule. Now, we have learned that, as part of their efforts to regulate every pond, stream, and ditch in America, the EPA may have violated the Anti- Lobbying Act to garner public comments in support of the proposed rule, even though the Department of Justice has consistently stated that the act prohibits Federal agencies from engaging in substantial grassroots lobbying. In fact, The New York Times recently reported: In a campaign that tests the limits of Federal lobbying law, the Agency orchestrated a drive to counter political opposition from Republicans and enlist public support in concert with liberal environmental groups and a grassroots organization aligned with President Obama. The New York Times went on to say as well: The most contentious part of the EPA's campaign was deploying Thunderclap, a social media tool that spread the Agency's message to hundreds of thousands of people, a ``virtual flash mob,'' in the words of Travis Loop, the head of communications for EPA's water division. Mr. Chairman, this is unseemly. The EPA Administrator later used the skewed results as evidence of public support before Congress. For this reason, my amendment is needed to make clear that the EPA shall not violate the Anti-Lobbying Act while pursuing the completion of the waters of the U.S. I respectfully urge all my colleagues to support my amendment.

Mr. WALBERG. I yield to the gentleman from California.

Mr. WALBERG. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for her comments. It is the law, and that is all I am trying to substantiate, but I have read to you not from an organ of the conservative Republican Party side, but from The New York Times. They also went on to say: The architect of the EPA's new public outreach strategy is Thomas Reynolds, a former Obama campaign aid who was appointed in 2013 as an associate administrator. He said this in relationship to flash mob tactics and the lobbying efforts: We are just borrowing new methods that have proven themselves as being effective. Mr. Chairman, it may be effective, but it is unseemly that EPA, an agency of the Federal Government, would violate the law in lobbying and trying then to show Congress through trumped up evidence that they have produced through lobbying the private sector that they have support for the waters of the U.S. rule. Mr. Chairman, that is why I think we need to establish it here very clearly in this appropriations bill. I reserve the balance of my time.

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

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

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

Mr. WALBERG

Mr. WALBERG. Mr. Speaker, in the 21st century workplace where women account for nearly half of the workforce, it is vital that our policies reflect today's new realities. Specifically, the 1978 Pregnancy Discrimination Act, PDA, is in need of modernization. Recently, the act was litigated before the Supreme Court, but even the Justices were unable to fully resolve how to apply the PDA. That is why Senator Murkowski and I have introduced the Pregnancy Discrimination Amendment Act. It says working moms-to-be should have access to reasonable accommodations from their employers if health issues arise from pregnancy. Unlike other proposals that will create more mandates, confusion, and litigation, my bill simply clarifies existing law to ensure the 21st century workplace works for families, employers, and expectant mothers.

Mr. WALBERG

Mr. WALBERG. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in solemn memory of my friend David Holden who went to be with the Lord on June 8, 2015. Dave was a great family man and role model in our community. He was an active leader in the Saline Area Schools, serving as President and Vice President of the Board of Education. His three sons--Dylan, Derek, and Reed--all graduated from Saline High School. Dave also volunteered his time as a basketball and baseball coach in the area for 16 years. He truly understood the meaning of civic duty, as he reminded us through his example day in and day out. The countless hours he spent to better our community, especially in the area of education, will not be forgotten. The citizens of Saline and Washtenaw County are fortunate to have had a man of Dave's character and dedication as a leader in our community. He will be greatly missed. On behalf of this Congress, I offer our deepest sympathies to his wife, Raye, his three sons, and his extended family and friends. Our heartfelt prayers are with them during this difficult time.

Mr. WALBERG

Mr. WALBERG. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize an extraordinary 15-year-old named Hunter Gandee from Monroe County, Michigan. Hunter's 8-year-old brother, Braden, has cerebral palsy and cannot walk on his own. Last week, Hunter carried Braden on his back for 57 miles to raise awareness for the disease. The 3-day journey took the Gandee family from Lambertville to the University of Michigan's Pediatric Rehabilitation Center in Ann Arbor, where Braden has upcoming surgery. Along the way, there were hugs, cheers, and outpouring of support from communities across Michigan and the country. Two brothers, one journey, an inspiring story of love, courage, and sacrifice--may we all learn from their example and do our part to make the world a better place. God bless Hunter. God bless Braden.

Mr. WALBERG

Mr. WALBERG. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of my amendment that would reiterate Congress' objection to a proposed policy change by the Department of Labor's Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs, OFCCP, that would treat healthcare providers as Federal contractors. In December of 2010, OFCCP quietly issued directive 293, asserting that contractual arrangements under Medicare, TRICARE, and the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program will trigger OFCCP jurisdiction. This is absurd. This directive would reclassify a majority of hospitals in the United States as Federal contractors, subjecting hospitals in your district and mine to OFCCP's often crushing regulatory burden. With respect to TRICARE, the agency aggressively asserted its jurisdiction in a 2009 administrative case, OFCCP v. Florida Hospital of Orlando. OFCCP argued the hospital was a Federal subcontractor by virtue of its participation as a provider of a TRICARE network of providers. The agency took this troubling position despite the fact that the Department of Defense, which regulates TRICARE, previously concluded, Mr. Chairman: ``It would be impossible to achieve the TRICARE mission of providing affordable health care for our Nation's Active Duty and retired military members and their families if onerous Federal contracting rules were applied to the more than 500,000 TRICARE providers in the United States.'' Unfortunately, the administrative law judge in the case did not heed DOD's warning and failed to see this policy change for what it is--an expansion of government power over the healthcare sector. As such, Congress acted to oppose this outreach, and in 2012 the National Defense Authorization Act clarified that a TRICARE network healthcare provider is not--is not--a Federal contractor or subcontractor. As chairman of the Subcommittee on Workforce Protections, I am deeply concerned by this attempt by OFCCP to expand its jurisdiction through executive fiat. In response, I introduced the Protecting Health Care Providers from Increased Administrative Burdens Act in the 113th Congress, which clarified that healthcare providers are not Federal contractors subject to the jurisdiction of the Department of Labor's OFCCP. Our actions on the committee in bringing attention to this issue have been successful in prompting OFCCP to place a moratorium on the policy. However, as OFCCP has previously defied Congress and the Department of Defense, I believe this amendment is necessary. Therefore, I ask the House support my amendment that would prohibit funds to be used under this act for implementing this overreaching policy and affirmatively show the House will not support such actions by the Department of Labor and OFCCP. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. WALBERG

Mr. WALBERG. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the words, the sentiments, the compassion of both my colleagues; but this is an issue that we have addressed for quite some time. It is not new. I am as concerned about our administration of the funds, our Department of Defense encouragement of Afghans to use the funds, and to make sure that contractual arrangements are in place so completion will take place. We have not seen that. I think it is time that reality strikes home. While I understand the need to encourage a new government, sometimes, the best way is tough love and a clear indication that comes through finances as well. I, again, encourage my colleagues to adopt my amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. WALBERG. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I rise to offer a bipartisan amendment with Ms. Esty of Connecticut, Mr. Cohen of Tennessee, Mr. Jones of North Carolina, and Mr. Cicilline of Rhode Island that works to assure the appropriate use of American taxpayer dollars in Afghanistan. This amendment is in keeping with the clear position of the House, as we have voted numerous times in bipartisan fashion to limit funds for the Afghanistan infrastructure fund, a program which has been poorly run and is lacking in oversight. This amendment would specifically strike the language which allows $50 million in funds for the Afghanistan security forces fund to be redirected toward the Afghanistan infrastructure fund account. Mr. Chairman, we have spent billions of dollars toward rebuilding the infrastructure of Afghanistan, and Congress has provided $1.3 billion to the Afghanistan infrastructure fund since it was created in 2011. However, funds have been slow to be spent; and, as of March 31, 2015, more than 55 percent of AIF funds remain to be expended. Additionally, the Special Inspector General for Afghanistan Reconstruction, SIGAR, has repeatedly found that DOD has experienced challenges in executing large infrastructure projects and that many projects underway are behind schedule and face serious cost overruns. SIGAR's audits have also found that we have inadequate sustainment plans and that projects lack an identifiable counterinsurgency benefit. SIGAR has also expressed reservations about the Afghans' ability to even operate and maintain these energy projects upon completion. Now, it is my understanding that DOD requested this repurposing of funds because the budget authority on previously authorized funds is about to expire. 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 over half of existing funds remaining to be expended, I ask: Mr. Chairman, why should we take away from other programs and give to this one? I urge adoption of my amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. WALBERG

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

Mr. WALBERG. I want to begin by thanking Chairman Diaz-Balart and his staff for their hard work on this legislation before us. Madam Chair, I rise today to offer a commonsense amendment with Mr. Sensenbrenner and Mr. Ribble of Wisconsin which makes it clear that Federal Government agencies should not be in the business--again, I say should not be--in the business of lobbying State and local legislators with Federal taxpayers' money. Federal law already prohibits Federal agencies from lobbying Congress in support of or against legislation. Thanks in part to the leadership of Mr. Sensenbrenner in 1998, Congress passed similar antilobbying language to prohibit the Department of Transportation from lobbying State and local elected officials. At that time, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration was sending staff to State capitols at taxpayers' expense to lobby in favor of motorcycle helmet laws. At the cost of tens of thousands of taxpayer dollars, these officials traveled across the country to testify before State legislative committees, participate in conferences, and produce videotapes and other printed materials with the goal of advancing mandatory motorcycle helmet laws. As the co-chairman of the Congressional Motorcycle Caucus and a rider myself who wears a helmet, I believe the most effective way to reduce motorcycle injuries and fatalities is to prevent these crashes from occurring in the first place. Madam Chair, that means putting between the ears as opposed to simply putting on the head. I believe the NHTSA has an appropriate role in promoting vehicle and highway safety, whether that is focusing on efforts on crash prevention or rider education. Unfortunately, language pushed by the administration has made it into the recent omnibus legislation to reverse the lobby ban, and that provision is carried over into this bill. Whether you ride or not, I would hope all my colleagues agree that this is an inappropriate use of taxpayer dollars. It violates the rights of States and local communities we represent to make their own decisions on helmet laws. Madam Chair, I ask my colleagues to support this amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. WALBERG. Madam Chair, I demand a recorded vote.

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

Mr. WALBERG

Mr. WALBERG. I thank the chairman. Mr. Chairman, I rise today deeply concerned by the increase of heroin and opioid abuse in Michigan and around the country. In Jackson, six heroin-related deaths have happened since March. In April, in Monroe County, three people overdosed in a 24-hour period. Last year, Lenawee County, my home county, had seven drug-related deaths in the first three quarters. Sadly, we hear similar stories in far too many communities across Michigan. Today's CJS Appropriations bill includes essential funding to assist States and localities to combat drug-related problems, including over $400 million to advance strategic plans to address the growing heroin and opioid epidemic and $372 million to tackle prescription drug abuse. It will take all of us working together--concerned citizens, treatment providers, law enforcement, elected officials at every level--to fight this growing epidemic and keep our homes and streets safe. I appreciate the work of the chairman of the committee on this, and I support it.

Mr. WALBERG

Mr. WALBERG. I thank the chairman for the efforts put forth by himself and the committee on necessary legislation that, indeed, should pass. Mr. Chairman, America has given 14 years, nearly $1 trillion, and thousands of lives to help build a stable Afghanistan. While most of our troops have come home, Congress has still obligated billions of dollars to be spent on reconstruction efforts. As we transfer oversight authority to Afghan officials, the Special Inspector General for Afghanistan Reconstruction has identified serious deficiencies in our ability to ensure the proper use of these American taxpayer dollars, as the Afghan Ministries currently lack the capacity to effectively manage and account for U.S.-funded assistance. My amendment would require SIGAR to certify it has sufficient access to Afghan accounts to guarantee effective audits. We must ensure that every dollar is spent effectively. I appreciate that this amendment has been added en bloc, and I ask my colleagues to support this legislation and this amendment.

Mr. WALBERG

Mr. WALBERG. I thank the chairman. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. WALBERG. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. WALBERG. I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania.

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