Floor Statements

Offered By: Mr. Walberg

Amendment No. 3: Page 10, strike lines 12 through 14.

Mr. Speaker, on Friday, May 30, 2014, I was unable to vote due to my duties and responsibilities in my daughter's wedding rehearsal and ceremony on the 30th and 31st. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea'' on rollcall No. 271.

personal explanation

Mr. Speaker, last week, I introduced bipartisan legislation to honor our Congressional Medal of Honor recipients. H.R. 4720, the Medal of Honor Priority Care Act, would place Medal of Honor recipients in the VA's highest priority group to make certain they receive timely access to their health benefits.

Medal of Honor recipients have gone above and beyond the call of duty by putting themselves in harm's way to protect their position and fellow soldiers in combat. Currently, there are 78 living recipients of the Medal of Honor, including two from Michigan--Corporal Duane E. Dewey and Private First Class Robert E. Simanek--who both received the decoration for their heroic actions in the Korean war.

These heroes should have access to the VA when they need it, and the Medal of Honor Priority Care Act will ensure that this select group of individuals is guaranteed the highest level of care.

Madam Chair, I wish to enter into a colloquy with Chairman Wolf.

I rise today to highlight an increasingly abused law enforcement tactic known as ``civil asset forfeiture.'' This process is an ugly development that enables law enforcement to take legal action against property of individuals, regardless of whether the property owner is guilty, innocent, or even charged with a crime at all.

Although criminal forfeiture is a legitimate tool for law enforcement that has helped in the war on drugs and human trafficking, the civil forfeiture system has created the opportunity for local and State law enforcement to police for profit in coordination with the Department of Justice.

Specifically, the practice of equitable sharing between local and/or State Departments and the Federal Government has increased 250 percent over the last 12 years, reaching $657 million in 2013 alone, according to The Heritage Foundation. Equitable sharing allows State and local agencies to work around State laws that prohibit civil forfeitures so long as the State agency partners with the Department of Justice and splits the profits.

State and local governments, in their pursuit of the fruits of seizures have at times been too eager to seize property, with the result that innocent citizens have been adversely affected with little or no compensation for their damages and economic losses. The recent story of Terry Dehko from Michigan exemplifies the problems that can occur under the civil asset forfeiture policy.

On January 22, 2013, the IRS obtained a secret warrant and used their civil asset forfeiture powers to empty Mr. Dehko's bank account of over $35,000 based on spurious evidence that the longtime grocer was a money launderer. The IRS offered to settle the case for 20 cents on the dollar. Unfortunately, this is a normal procedure for IRS, Department of Justice, and the law enforcement partners: seize property, then negotiate without having to prove guilt in a court of law.

It is time to rethink our Federal policies on civil asset forfeiture and end the abusive era of seize, forfeit, and profit. Law-abiding citizens should not fall prey to police departments and their Federal partners. I believe we can find a solution to this problem that maintains a legitimate policing tool while respecting our Constitution.

I will continue to work with the chairman, the Judiciary Committee, and my colleagues in the House to craft a sensible forfeiture policy that helps law enforcement but protects our constitutionally protected property rights.

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

Mr. Chairman, taxpayers should not foot the bill for the FBI to be consultants for Hollywood producers. However, this is the case with the FBI Investigative Publicity and Public Affairs Unit.

Although this unit does important work like publicize the Most Wanted Fugitives list, it also provides screenwriters, as well as movie and TV producers, advice on costumes, props, scenery, and weapons, as well as b-roll footage and fact-checking.

Now, I am confident that Hollywood and their hundred-million-dollar production budgets can afford to hire ex-FBI agents to consult on their projects. It just seems to make good common sense.

This unit's activities and most of its $1.5 million annual budget should be highlighted for what it really is, and that is Department of Justice waste.

If Hollywood can make millions from these movies and television shows, such as ``Without a Trace,'' ``CSI,'' and ``The Closer,'' and also movies like ``Shooter,'' featuring--and no relation I might add-- Mark Wahlberg, that grossed over $80 million, as well as ``The Kingdom,'' which also grossed over $80 million, it does not need, I believe, the American taxpayer and FBI to help fund its research.

Therefore, I ask my colleagues to support my amendment that simply states that no taxpayer funds can be used by the unit except--and I make this clear--it doesn't zero out the entire budget, but funds can only be used by this unit for the Ten Most Wanted Fugitives, the Most Wanted Terrorists, and missing children programs. I think it is a reasonable amendment, Mr. Chairman, and I ask for support of this amendment.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I would concur with the need to communicate; but, again, we are talking over 600 Hollywood projects, most of which are grossing millions of dollars, $80 million, as I mentioned, for ``Shooter,'' $80 million for ``The Kingdom.''

It seems like, with that kind of grossing that is taking place, taxpayers shouldn't be on the bill to support the research that goes on. You have retired FBI agents, CIA, and others that can be brought in to do the research, as well as consult on these films.

We want accuracy, and yet we also understand that the taxpayer should only be footing the bill as necessary, and I don't think this is. Nothing against Mark Wahlberg or any others that are being used in these movies, especially with my name attached.

I still think the taxpayer deserves consideration here, and so I ask for this reasonable amendment to be supported. It allows the continued working on Most Wanted Fugitives and Most Wanted Terrorists and missing children programs. I think that is legitimate. Beyond that, I reject it. I ask for support of the amendment.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that my request for a recorded vote on my amendment be withdrawn to the end that the amendment stand adopted by the earlier voice vote.

Offered By: Mr. Walberg

Amendment No. 27: At the end of the bill (before the short

title), insert the following:

Madam Chair, I want to thank the chairman for including this amendment en bloc.

As our men and women transition out of the Armed Forces, they are confronted with a number of challenges as they reintegrate into civilian life. My amendment offers a simple change to current DOD policy that I believe will greatly benefit our servicemembers as they return home.

Based on bipartisan legislation I have introduced, the Servicemembers Transition Improvement Act, this amendment would require a pilot program at DOD to transmit a comprehensive copy of a servicemember's information to State veterans agencies.

Veterans service agencies are a powerful resource, helping veterans through job assistance programs and navigating the benefits they have earned. This legislation will enable veterans service offices to assist separating servicemembers who reside in their communities and confirms that caring for our men and women in uniform does not end when they leave military service.

Also, Madam Chairman, I rise today in support of my bipartisan amendment with Mr. Cohen of Tennessee to prohibit new funds for the Afghanistan infrastructure fund and ensure American tax dollars are invested wisely.

We have already spent billions of dollars toward rebuilding the infrastructure of Afghanistan, and Congress has appropriated over $1.2 billion alone to the Afghanistan infrastructure fund since it was created in 2011.

In their most recent report, SIGAR reported that only $229 million of the $1.2 billion Congress has appropriated has actually been disbursed for projects. More importantly, SIGAR has repeatedly found that the projects which are underway are behind schedule and years away from completion.

Without any assurance that these projects are needed or can be completed, let's focus these funds on growing our economy, investing in American infrastructure, and paying off our debt.

I want to thank Chairman McKeon for accepting this amendment in the en bloc and would encourage my colleagues to vote in support of it.

Madam Speaker, last week, I had the pleasure of holding a veterans fair economic town hall and several general town halls across my district. Throughout the conversations I had with my constituents, I heard a growing concern about the increasing government intrusiveness, whether it is in the doctor's office, the classroom, or the economy.

House Republicans understand that our constituents want government to work efficiently. We have offered real solutions that will grow good- paying jobs and expand opportunity for all.

In fact, we have already passed over 200 bills that will start helping people today but unfortunately are still collecting dust on Senator Harry Reid's desk. This includes bills that would lower health care costs and return choice back to patients, as well as expand domestic energy production to both create jobs and lower costs for consumers.

It is time, Madam Speaker, for the Senate to join us in advancing real solutions. It is time to make life work better for all Americans.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Mr. Chairman, I rise today to offer my support for the Pro-Growth Budgeting Act, and I thank Dr. Price for his leadership on this issue.

This simple legislation would require the Congressional Budget Office to provide a full analysis of major legislation so that we know how bills will impact our economy and our Nation's employment.

It appears today that Democrat opposition to this bill seems to indicate their satisfaction with the anemic job growth, a historic $17 trillion debt and growing, no attempt to balance our budget, and devastation of the middle class.

Before Congress even considers passing another legislative overhaul like the Dodd-Frank or stimulus or the President's health care law, let's understand exactly how these thousand-page bills will impact our economy and potentially result in lost jobs and lost futures.

As we craft fiscal policy to get our economy back on track and improve the livelihoods of our constituents, I would ask my colleagues: Is it better for us to have more information or less? understanding or ignorance? reality or spin?

Supporting the Pro-Growth Budgeting Act is a commonsense step that will help us judge the long-term impact of legislation, and I would urge my colleagues to join me in support.

I thank the gentleman. I thank you for your leadership.

Mr. Speaker, it is a privilege to stand here in support of this legislation--good legislation--that will help people in my district in Michigan, a hard-hit State because of economic problems and, I think, bad, bad efforts and policies from an administration that didn't understand that workers who are encouraged to work to their fullest extent produce an economy.

It is hard to take seriously the objections of the Democrat side of the aisle here when they talk about the middle class, they talk about employees and their efforts to help them, a party who enshrines the minimum wage and unemployment insurance as the golden grail of what grows an economy. I find that absurd.

It is a party who has decimated the middle class in the last 6 years with policies including what we are discussing today. Moving from 40 hours to 30 hours as full-time worker requirements? I don't get it.

We also understand it is the same party that told us, if you like your insurance, you can keep it--no. If you like your doctor, you can keep it--no. If you like your hospital, you can keep it--no. And now we hear their objection that basically says, if you like your job, you can keep it--no.

Back in September, before this ill-advised law took place, Janet from Jackson, Michigan, called my office in tears, a 56-year-old mother of three, single parent, who had just been told that morning by her job provider in home health care--a very valuable field of service--that she no longer would be working 36 hours, which was her normal working hour opportunity, and was being moved back to 28 because of what? The Affordable Care Act requirements. And so she said to my office staff, in tears:

How am I now going to make it when I was making it on 36

hours at that job, supplementing that with a waitress job on

the weekend, and I was paying my mortgage and my insurance,

and now I am going to be asked to pay for all that on 28

hours? I am 56 years old. Where am I going to get another

job?

That is what is being produced by this. We want to give Janet the opportunity to have her 36 hours back. We want to give Jim, Jerry, and Joan, and all the rest of the people, the opportunity to have the fullest hours they can possibly have in an America that grows the middle class and gives opportunity for success.

Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 70, I inadvertently voted ``yea'' when I intended to vote ``nay.''

Mr. Speaker, last week, I held health care town halls all across my district. Constituents shared their experience with the President's health care law. While parts of the law have helped a few, a majority of people have been hurt.

We heard from a mother with a mentally ill, disabled son who lost his plan, small business owners who had to cut employee hours to avoid the law's penalties, and even a woman battling cancer who is now facing an uncertain future because of the law. They aren't lying.

Many promises made before the law's passage haven't and couldn't be kept. Americans have a right to feel frustrated.

It is time Washington stops imposing a law that is clearly not working. We were promised lower costs. Instead, the President's own analysts reported at least 11 million people who work at small businesses will see their premiums climb while their take-home pay drops.

House Republicans offer a step-by-step, commonsense approach to reforming our health care system that really does lower costs, providing access to quality care that people need.

We remain focused on policies that grow the economy and make life better for all Americans.

I thank my friend from New Jersey, again, for this opportunity to stand for life. It will be exciting to have the demonstration, and I say that in a positive sense, a demonstration that is going on this next week, again, of people demonstrating that there is a love for life, for children, for women and for men, who have been caught in the lie of abortion, who have been sold a message that goes against, in most of their cases, goes against their normal, commonsense thought, a thought that says life is something that should be sustained, it should be seen as a blessing, and we should praise that opportunity.

Mr. Speaker, my wife and I have always seen it as a high privilege to stand on a platform and look out across a crowd of hundreds of thousands of individuals who have love on their faces for life, for fellow humans, and for people caught in very difficult situations with a great desire to tell the truth that there is a difference, there is an opportunity that they can share with others that could experience hope.

Today, Mr. Speaker, we sit in a Chamber that has above your rostrum the motto of the United States of America that says ``In God We Trust.'' And so rather than going on with further comments that I would make from my own thoughts, I would turn to the thoughts of God Himself, more specifically words that were uttered by a man, a king, a very wise king who was very human, as well, a king who was classified by God Himself as being a man after My own heart. And so what this man would say or would think if he were honored by God with that statement would be something we should hear.

These words that King David uttered in Psalm 139 are words I believe that can be uttered by not only the 56 million aborted babies but every baby in the past and the future who experiences being a gift of God. David said:

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. (Psalms 139:14-16 NASB).

That talks of life as planned and as gifted by God in the womb, made for a purpose intended. And I thank God that I can stand here today, as a Member of Congress, as a father, as a husband, as a grandfather, and as one who loves life in all its forms humanly made by God as a gift. I thank the gentleman for allowing me this opportunity. God bless you.

Mr. Speaker, a new year brings new perspective and, for many, a fresh start. Many of my hardworking constituents hope this year will bring a healthy economy with increased opportunities.

My House colleagues and I didn't need a new year to make this our goal. Last year, we passed dozens of bills, making job creation and expanding opportunity our central focus. This included bills to make energy more affordable, to repeal ObamaCare and to expand education for students and job-seekers. If the Senate would only act on these measures, we could offer more opportunities for our constituents today: bills like the Energy Consumers Relief Act, halting major new regulations that increase prices and hurt the economy; the Northern Route Approval Act, to finally approve the Keystone pipeline and immediately create thousands of good-paying jobs; or the SKILLS Act, to eliminate and streamline dozens of overlapping Federal programs and to help connect job-seekers with the skills they need.

I look forward, Mr. Speaker, to continued work with my colleagues, supporting additional measures to strengthen our economy, to provide more opportunity for all, and to put Americans back to work.

Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 2, on Wednesday, January 8, I was unavoidably detained and missed a rollcall vote. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea'' on rollcall 2, in support of a bill I cosponsored, H.R. 724, to amend the Clean Air Act to remove the requirement for dealer certification of new light-duty motor vehicles.