Tim Walberg

Mr. WALBERG

Mr. WALBERG. Madam Speaker, I rise today to express my opposition to the new guidelines from the administration that restrict marketing certain food and beverage products toward children. Instead of principles, these guidelines should be treated as what they really are: unnecessary regulations. As introduced by the administration, these rules falsely claim to be voluntary. For the first time in our Nation's history, the food and beverage industry and advertising businesses will be forced to completely alter the way they promote even their healthiest products. Great Michigan companies like Kellogg's, that already make nutritious products, will be harshly affected. Stripping Tony the Tiger off the cereal boxes isn't going to make children healthier. What it will do is tack on another burdensome regulation for Kellogg's and other companies to deal with, destroy an American icon, and cost jobs. Guidelines with this type of power should not circumvent the normal rulemaking process, including review by the OMB. These guidelines should be withdrawn immediately by the administration.

Mr. WALBERG

Mr. WALBERG. I thank the chair and committee leadership for bringing this bill forward, H.R. 2218, for which I urge my colleagues' support. In the Northwest Ordinance, the same language in that ordinance, as well as what was then put into many of our State constitutions, says this: ``Religion, morality, and knowledge being necessary to good governments and the happiness of mankind, schools and the means of education, shall forever be encouraged.'' I believe this bill, H.R. 2218, does just that. It's a simple bill. It promotes a charter school program that accomplishes three goals. Those being, one, to provide parents greater options for their children's education; two, consolidating education programs and reducing the authorization level; and, three, supporting the development of high-quality charter schools. That's what we're about in education. That's what we ought to be concerned with. This bill accomplishes our goal of modernizing and streamlining the program by consolidating the current programs to one program and one authorization line. The result in savings still affords the taxpayer, the parent, and the educator with even more opportunity for growth of proven charter school models and new innovative charter schools. The bill ensures that charter schools and charter school authorizers reach out to parents to serve students who can benefit from these schools. The legislation supports quality initiatives in the authorizing world without putting any new mandates on the schools. The legislation has broad support, including a community that includes the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, Business Roundtable, National Alliance of Public Charter Schools, Texas Charter School Association, Chiefs for Change, the National Association of State Directors of Special Education, just to name a few. Charter schools were created in Michigan, my State, 15 years ago. And since that time nothing but proven educational success has taken place, with children in tough school districts before now receiving education that is promoting success for them and their future prosperity in an education opportunity that expands in the real-world experience. For that reason and many others, I urge the support of H.R. 2218 as a proposal that does exactly what our Northwest Ordinance says. It encourages schools and the means of education for quality, students, and future people that will work in our system.

Mr. WALBERG

Mr. WALBERG. Mr. Speaker, we are in the midst of a crisis. It's not a crisis of a debt ceiling. It's a crisis of debt, of Washington spending too much, not taxing or borrowing too little. The problem isn't the debt ceiling; it's the debt. We can no longer continue to commit generational theft by our uncontrolled spending habits to our children and grandchildren. Luckily, the Congress has made significant progress in the first six budget bills in cutting real spending for this upcoming fiscal year. And House Republicans have fundamentally changed the debate in Washington. We are no longer talking about job-killing tax increases. We're talking about spending cuts and long-term spending reform--our goals from day one. It's time for President Obama and the Senate Democrats to join us in our efforts to control spending before time runs out. We must solve this crisis to encourage job creation and return America to its greatness. America's great people are ready.

Mr. WALBERG

Mr. WALBERG. Mr. Speaker, we are in the midst of an important debate. It's a debate on the debt ceiling and our spending crisis. But fundamentally, it's a debate about the future direction of our country, the next generation, and getting Americans back to work. Jobs are the cure for an ailing economy and the elixir for a bright and secure future. We cannot continue down the current path of fiscal irresponsibility. We cannot continue to commit generational theft of our children's and grandkids' futures. What kind of legacy will we leave for this country and its future generations? Will we leave a legacy of debt? No, that's not what I want. We must not pass on to the generation of tomorrow the mistakes of our leaders today who, until now, remain unwilling to make the tough decisions and cut spending to create jobs and grow our economy. We can and must do right; and by God's grace, we will.

Mr. WALBERG

Mr. WALBERG. Mr. Chairman, tonight I am offering an amendment that would reduce funding for the National Endowment for the Arts to fiscal year 2006 levels. In February, during the consideration of H.R. 1, I offered a similar amendment to cut NEA funding, which the House adopted. The underlying bill funds the National Endowment for the Arts at $135 million which is a $19.7 million reduction from last year's level. I commend the chairman and the committee for recognizing that this funding has precipitated at an unsustainable rate. Since 2008, the NEA has received increases of over $10 million each year, including $50 million in funding from the stimulus in 2009. These spending increases have coincided with annual trillion dollar deficits. My amendment would take funding levels back to fiscal year 2006 levels at $124.4 million. If accepted, this cut returns $10.6 million to the spending reduction account. I want you to know I believe in the fine arts, and of course I know that's defined by individual standards. In the past, I was privileged to serve on a symphony board for a time as the chairman of the finance committee. In my early years, I was brought to the Chicago Symphony Orchestra by my parents, on school trips and otherwise, and appreciate the impact the fine arts can have. Tramping through art museums is not foreign to me as well, and I enjoy much of what I see. But at a time when our government must cut Federal spending, at a time when our taxpayers cut and fix and repair and alter their own lifestyles and their spending, the primary source of funding for the arts should be through philanthropy, not forcing open the taxpayers' wallet without their choice. The National Foundation for the Arts does provide benefits to our country and helps fund our true fine arts. However, we are asking them to only fund their true priorities, and they can make those priorities. We know that the public asks questions about some of the programs that the NEA has supported. I'm tempted to, but I will refrain from, giving explicit illustrations of funded programs and projects that they've undertaken with much taxpayer disapproval. But suffice it to say that in recent years the NEA has funded exhibits that disparage religion, promote pornography, and support Presidential campaigns. That is not supported by the general taxpayer and should not be. My amendment asks the NEA to only fund their true priorities. Now, if they want to determine those priorities, so be it. But if they want to determine priorities for youth concert series or young composers or you name it, that will be a choice as well, and I think most taxpayers would support those choices. Our country is in financial hardship. The sponsors of the arts should be sponsors of the arts, as I am. But taxpayers ought to know that we will expect them, like the rest of the programs and certainly the rest of society, to be efficient at this time. Our country is in a financial hardship, and we're not taking programs like the NEA off the table; we're just asking them to establish priorities with reduced funding, yes, but an opportunity to efficiently convey to the taxpayers their understanding of what we're going through as well. I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. WALBERG. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. WALBERG. I thank the chairman for yielding. I just want to make it clear because, as I've listened to the opposition to this, it appears one didn't catch my train of thought. I'm not saying that arts or the NEA is wrong. I'm saying it's time to make priority decisions. Certain priority decisions, as recently as November of 2010, fund programs such as Fire in the Belly--I won't go into the full description of it--and Hide and Seek, which can be considered pornography and which was, in fact, portrayed as that in an exhibit. Those are things that are priority decisions. So I'm saying it is time, if we're funding those, to give the taxpayer a break and say, if you want to attend those or support those, do it through philanthropy or do it through initial sponsorships themselves but not through the taxpayer.

Mr. WALBERG

Mr. WALBERG. I object.

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

Mr. WALBERG

Mr. WALBERG. Mr. Speaker, we're broke, and that's really not the legacy that I want to leave Micah and Claire, my grandkids. More unrestrained spending and tax increases will only slow our economy and make our fiscal problems worse. Raising the debt ceiling without significant reform is not a solution. It's a gimmick. We have to get our spending under control; and Cut, Cap and Balance is a path to fiscal responsibility. Mr. Speaker, this year alone the Federal Government will spend twice what it spent just 10 years ago, and more than 40 percent of it is borrowed money. We will have accumulated more debt in the past 2\1/2\ years than we did during the Presidencies of Washington through George H.W. Bush. That's right. It took 41 Presidencies to spend what we have spent since 2009. We've got to stop spending money we don't have. It's causing the private sector to sit on the sidelines, take fewer risks, and create fewer jobs. And that's what it's all about, isn't it, growing the economy, creating jobs? The Cut, Cap, and Balance Act automatically saves $111 billion in 2012 and around $5.8 trillion over the next 10 years. It includes enforceable caps on spending that will bring the size of government back to below 20 percent of GDP. And the legislation cuts up the government's credit cards by passing a balanced budget amendment. Cut, Cap, and Balance will create a future of better opportunities for our children, Micah and Claire, my grandkids. Washington will finally have to do what every American family and every business does every day, balance the budget. This Saturday, I enjoyed an afternoon of kicking the walnut down the street with Claire and Micah, 4\1/2\ and 3 years old, but I don't want to kick the can down the road for them. I didn't have the guts to tell them that we've already taken their tax dollars from them before they're even at the point of going to school and ultimately going to work. We need to stop our spending now. Cut, cap and balance.

Mr. WALBERG

Mr. WALBERG. Mr. Speaker, we received word yesterday that the President has threatened to veto the bill we will consider later today, H.R. 2560, the Cut, Cap, and Balance Act. As a cosponsor of this bill, I can't disagree more. We have a spending problem, not a revenue problem. For the President to threaten to veto a serious proposal that will put our country back on the path to fiscal responsibility demonstrates his stubborn insistence on continuing reckless spending and debt. If the President wants to continue to disregard the voice of the people, then he will veto this bill, despite never presenting a plan of his own. The President will do what he chooses to do, but I will do what the people and our Nation's future demand. Unless we want to face even longer-term economic difficulties, the President should reconsider his position and support this plan that cuts spending and encourages job growth.

Mr. WALBERG

Mr. WALBERG. Madam Speaker, hardly a week goes by without this administration promulgating some new regulation that burdens the American people and our economy. This week it's an environmental regulation that will drive up energy costs. According to a report by the SBA, regulations cost $1.7 trillion annually. OMB has reported that regulations cost $62 billion annually. Regardless of which agency's number we believe, it doesn't matter. Both numbers are too high and hurt economic growth at a time when unemployment is too high. Let me make this real simple and settle this argument between these agencies. The cost of regulations is not simply a job, it's jobs, and every job has a human face. If more spending and more regulations meant more jobs, then this President's policies would have produced the strongest economic recovery in our Nation's history. Unfortunately, it's made things worse.

Mr. WALBERG

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

Mr. WALBERG. Mr. Chairman, the amendment I am offering today addresses the most pressing concern my constituents have with the National Flood Insurance Program, and that problem is inaccurate flood maps. I certainly understand that the NFIP is on shaky financial ground, and I commend Chairman Bachus and Congresswoman Biggert and the Financial Services Committee for their work in crafting this bill; but as we vote today to put the NFIP on a path to solvency, we must not let this opportunity to strengthen the program pass us by. Since I returned to Congress in January, my office has been barraged with letters and phone calls expressing concerns about the new and revised flood insurance rate maps that FEMA is rolling out in my district. These maps determine whether property owners will be required to purchase flood insurance, and evidence shows that the current mapping methods are oftentimes inaccurate, onerous or punitive; and while this insurance represents an essential lifeline to some property owners who face a real risk of flood damage, it is a costly, unnecessary mandate on those who face no actual threat of being flooded. I am encouraged that the underlying bill, H.R. 1309, establishes a Technical Mapping Advisory Council to review the current mapping standards and that it proposes revised standards to be implemented by the FEMA administrator. Within 12 months of organization, the TMAC is required to report to Congress and the administrator on how to improve mapping methodology. H.R. 1309 clearly instructs the TMAC on their task, and that is to ensure that the flood insurance rate maps reflect true risk and that the most current and accurate data is used. I look forward to receiving this report from TMAC and to the administrator's implementation of the new mapping standards; but in my view, this review is a tacit admission that the current practices are not working and that they represent a poorly implemented government mandate that cannot continue. The maps FEMA has been rolling out across the country are not based on the best information available, and this needs to stop. My amendment improves on the work of the TMAC, simply requiring that, while the TMAC studies the best possible mapping methods, none of our constituents will be at risk of inclusion in a new map that uses the faulty, questionable methods currently in place. Simply put, this amendment would implement a moratorium on the issuance of new flood maps until the TMAC has done its due diligence and has issued its report on new mapping standards. I am glad to have the support of Chairman Bachus, and I ask that you support me in voting for this commonsense amendment. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. WALBERG

Mr. WALBERG. Mr. Speaker, rising unemployment continues to populate the headlines. An article last week by the AP points out that several cities in my State of Michigan, including Battle Creek, which I have the privilege of representing, endured big increases in unemployment. Michigan's unemployment stands at over 10 percent. The policies of this administration exacerbate bad situations. We do not need more overspending, higher taxes, rising energy costs, government takeover of health care, and more regulations. My Republican colleagues and I have put forth a jobs plan. We know government cannot create jobs. Instead, we can support an environment where the private sector flourishes and creates jobs. Our jobs plan will reduce regulatory burdens, which are currently costing small businesses over $10,000 per employee each year, requiring congressional approval for any regulation that has significant impact on the economy. Our jobs plan will fix the Tax Code, streamlining and lowering tax rates. Our jobs plan will encourage entrepreneurship. Our jobs plan will increase domestic energy production and will cut unsustainable spending that creates crushing burdens of debt. At home last week, I was constantly reminded how the lack of good- paying jobs is affecting my constituents. It's truly time for America to stand up for its liberty and its next generation.

Mr. WALBERG

Mr. WALBERG. Mr. Speaker, while our President telegraphs to our enemies a timeline for ending the war that they are certainly willing to continue to commit to, while military efforts continue in Libya with uncertain, undisclosed, and unsuccessful outcomes led by our administration under NATO command, greater atrocities perpetrated against freedom seekers in Syria go unaddressed, unannounced, unconsidered by our President. Why? What's the reason? What's the time limit? It is known that Syria has been a continuing threat to freedom and a strong supporter and sustainer of unrest and terrorism in the Middle East and around the world. They're a strong ally of Iran and a constant threat to our friend Israel. As freedom-seeking citizens of Syria join, Mr. Speaker, many others in the Middle East in calling for political reforms, respect for human rights, and regime change, the government of Syria and President Bashar Al-Assad is violently and sadistically suppressing the Syrian people, his own people. Tanks, snipers, goon squads, violent attacks on women and children, starvation and dehydration, inhuman imprisonment, torture, and worse has been the norm for the Syrian people for too long--without a strong and principled response from our President and our Nation. Why? We're not calling for a war. We're not calling for troops on the ground. We're not calling for anything right now except to take a stand against this atrocity. Other nations have stood and voiced their concerns that President Assad has violated its international obligations, including the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the United Nations Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment. Isn't it time for our President and this administration to stand and speak as the world leader and call on President Assad to step down and for the Syrian Government to end its cruel crimes against humanity? I am firmly convinced that the rest of the peace-loving world will respond to our leadership. They are looking for it. They expect it. They are asking for it, and the Syrian people will be encouraged and defended. And liberty's cause will be promoted in this earthquake zone called the Middle East. It's time to speak up. May God grant our President and this administration and our government the courage to do so. Because it is for humanity and people like ourselves that we speak.

Mr. WALBERG

Mr. WALBERG. Mr. Speaker, on Tuesday, the House overwhelmingly defeated by a vote of 318-97 a blank check on spending. We stopped the unconditional raising of the debt ceiling. The fact remains, we are in a debt crisis because Washington spends too much, not because it taxes too little. America is drowning in debt, and we need to significantly reduce spending and make long-term reforms that encourage private sector job creation and move toward a balanced budget. Raising the debt limit without restoring financial accountability was unacceptable, and that's why I voted against this irresponsible debt limit increase. I can't comprehend why this administration continues to push the same dangerous failed strategy that got us into this economic mess. The failure to increase the debt limit on the floor Tuesday would be enough evidence for the White House and Washington Democrats to conclude that Americans want Washington to stop signing a blank check, spending money we don't have and sending the bill to our children and our grandchildren--grandchildren that I personally have an opportunity every time I open my BlackBerry to see their faces and be reminded that it's for them that I speak and this House spoke on Tuesday evening. Yet more than 100 House Democrats signed on to a letter publicly advocating for a debt limit increase without spending cuts and reforms. And unfortunately after meeting with the President yesterday, I'm not sure he's heard the people on this issue either. According to the latest evidence, only 11 percent of Americans support a blank check raising of the debt limit and more spending. This vote demonstrates that President Obama and the House Democrats are far out of step with the rest of America and should join House Republicans in working to cut spending. The American people have said ``no'' to the Democrats and they're not going to take it anymore, not another blank check of more spending and more debt for the Obama administration. It's the time now to think of the next generation and not the next election and take time to rip up a blank check of defeat for our country.

Mr. WALBERG

Mr. WALBERG. Mr. Speaker, I have listened to a textbook case, I believe, of self-induced amnesia this morning from my liberal colleagues. But the American people spoke in November, and I heard the mandate: Cut Federal spending so that more resources can be left in the hands of American families and small businesses so that they can save and invest in order to grow jobs. I responded to their mandate by voting for billions in cuts. Unfortunately, my colleagues on the other side of the aisle refused to receive the message, but the message is still true. Let's put the budget issue into a little perspective. It actually is quite simple. They didn't pass the budget when they had control, and now we have to clean up the mess. My liberal Democrat friends want to shut down government in order to maintain their overspending status quo, even at the expense of not sending paychecks to our courageous troops and their families at home. On the other hand, I and my Republican colleagues want to keep the government open, pay our troops, and respond to the people's demands for cuts in spending and a return to the blessings of freedom. Our Republican leadership has worked and negotiated with the other side in order to keep the government open, while cutting deficit spending, but it has been to no avail. The Democrats won't give up less than one-half of 1 percent spending in order to keep the government running on a trimmed-down budget and pay our troops. The argument has come down to the size and scope of the spending. And President Obama, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, and the Senate Democrats, like a stubborn mule, refuse to move in the direction of their masters, the Constitution and the American people who are telling us to cut spending. It's time for them to start listening to the American people. It can't be just about the next election; it must be about the next generation.

Mr. WALBERG

Mr. WALBERG. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to talk about a topic that affects every American, rising energy prices. I've spoken on this floor about it before, and I will continue to do so until we increase our energy production here in America, and our dependence on the political earthquake zones of this world is depleted. While President Obama was traveling in South America, I returned home to my district last week, and I heard from my constituents loud and clear: Gas prices are too high. We need to do something about it. That's why I found it so outrageous and appalling when I heard our President last week offering assistance and encouraging energy production, not here in America, but in Brazil. No, that's not the right direction. We need to encourage energy production right here at home, not Brazil. We need to develop our offshore energy resources so that jobs can be created here in America, not Brazil. And we need to encourage energy independence so that we return to more reasonable energy costs, not in Brazil, but right here in America. Mr. Speaker, the time is now to confront this issue and encourage energy exploration and production right here at home. The time is now to create our independence from foreign energy sources and secure our present and future as good stewards of our God-given resources and the blessings of liberty.

Mr. WALBERG

Mr. WALBERG. Mr. Speaker, let me cut to the point. Gas prices have skyrocketed at the worst possible time, the economy is in a slump, and people are hurting. The administration and congressional Democrats are making the problem worse with their burdensome energy regulations that destroy jobs and drive up costs. Democrats and the White House are blocking commonsense reforms that would allow for more targeted energy exploration here at home, which would lead to lower gas prices and additional job creation and greater security. Three weeks ago, I had the privilege of sitting in the office of Benjamin Netanyahu in Israel. He expressed great appreciation for America, but also ended by saying that he was greatly concerned that America was unwilling at this time to do what was necessary to make sure that we had an energy plan of independence from, as he called it, the earthquake zone of the Middle East. And I agree. So I am joining with my colleagues, my Republican colleagues, their common sense and pro-growth, in proposing an alternative. I believe we should allow for more exploration in Alaska, so I cosponsored H.R. 49, the American Energy Independence and Price Reduction Act. I believe we should pass an all-of-the-above energy plan. So that is why I am becoming an original cosponsor of H.R. 909, A Road Map to America's Energy Future. And the government should stop the painfully slow permitting process for drilling in the gulf, so I joined with Representative Scalise and others of my colleagues in the House to urge the President to do just that. Mr. Speaker, the current energy policy is one of overregulation, and it is not working. We must work to change that now. I stand ready to work with my colleagues to created an energy policy that lowers energy prices and allows for more job creation. The people of my district and of this great country are demanding nothing less.

Mr. WALBERG

Mr. WALBERG. Right.

Mr. WALBERG. Not at all.

Mr. WALBERG. Well, I think, not necessarily the suffering idea, I think in doing something that's credible and the right thing to do, it gives people optimism that the answer is here. It will take some tough decisions but ultimately the people who are in need will be taken care of. The other people with the great creativity, the American exceptionalism that's there will find ways to do it and do it better, and ultimately a greater opportunity for the future, and that's optimism.

Mr. WALBERG. And we can do it the right way without the Big Government issues and getting down to that American exceptionalism that says we can trust people to do for themselves, if given the incentive and opportunity, better than what Big Government can do.