I'm back from my week off, but I'm off to a slow start. There's a lot of e-mail I've got to sort through... -- Fitzy

A while back, I mentioned Congressman Tim Walberg's newest strategy for furthering his agenda: introducing (and, in one case, passing) confusing amendments that would prevent the federal government from enacting affirmative action policies.

His one success on this front was on HR 3074, a bill which would fund the Department of Transportation and the Department of Housing and Urban Development. As I wrote before, his amendment only passed because, simply put, House Democrats couldn't figure out what it would actually do. As Congressman John Olver said:

Either this is not a serious amendment or it is an exceedingly serious amendment. This amendment is either totally unnecessary or it has a really nefarious purpose... I don't know whether this is the sort of thing that the gentleman was trying to get at, but I think that this has some entirely unknown effects.

So, it passed with little opposition because Walberg had successfully confused the House of Representatives.

It turns out that Walberg's amendment's language would have eliminated funding for the Disadvantaged Business Enterprise program. That program, as far as I can tell, has successfully led to businesses owned by historically disadvantaged groups (minorities and women) getting an appropriate share of federal contracts.

When the actual result of Walberg's amendment was known, the Senate moved to kill it:

This week the US Senate averted an attempt to eliminate funding for the Disadvantaged Business Enterprise (DBE) program for transportation construction, an affirmative action program for women and minorities. A last minute amendment to the Department of Transportation/HUD appropriations bill, introduced by Rep Tim Walberg (R-MI), wiping out funding for the DBE program passed the House without even a voice vote.

In a procedural move, the Democratic leadership prevented such an amendment from coming to the Senate floor. A large coalition of women’s rights and civil rights organizations, worked to alert senators of the serious impact of cutting the DBE funding which the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights described as "one of the federal government's most successful small business development programs, and has helped to expand competition and create opportunities for tens of thousands of new businesses in the construction market."

Similar funding cuts in California resulting from the passage of Proposition 209 resulted in more than 50 percent reduction in transportation construction contracts to women and minority-owned businesses over a ten year period according to the Discrimination Research Center.

So. Bummer for Tim Walberg, I guess. One of his few legislative accomplishments got wiped away by a procedural move. Too bad for him that the Senate wasn't as confused by his last-minute stunt as the House of Representatives.

Labels: 110th Congress, Affirmative Action, Issues, Tim Walberg

It looks like being anti-tax, anti-gay, anti-environment, and anti-abortion, Congressman Tim Walberg has found his new niche in Congress: anti-affirmative action.

Not to debate the merits of affirmative action programs (that's a controversial issue I'm not gonna touch on this blog), but it's interesting to see that Walberg's picked this as his issue to champion. And really, that's fine. Everyone needs a hobby. But it's sort of odd to see how he's decided to pursue his cause.

First was his very confusing amendment to the Department of Transportation bill, which read:

None of the funds made available in this Act may be used by the Department of Transportation to promulgate regulations based on race, ethnicity, or sex.

That amendment, by the way, passed on a voice vote because, basically, no one could figure out what it would actually do.

After his apparent success with one amendment, Congressman Walberg tried again on the Defense Department appropriations bill with this amendment:

An amendment numbered 6 printed in the Congressional Record to prohibit the use of funds to be used to award a grant or contract based on the race, ethnicity, or sex of the grant applicant or prospective contractor.

As with the previous amendment, I'm not quite sure whether this would actually have much of an impact. However, the amendment failed, 126 to 284.

We'll see if Walberg tries again on the next bill.

Labels: 110th Congress, Affirmative Action, Issues, Tim Walberg, Walberg Voting Record

Thanks to the anonymous comment that brought this to my attention.

On HR 3074, the appropriations bill for the Department of Transportation and the Department of Housing and Urban Development (which Walberg earmarked and voted against), Congressman Walberg offered an amendment. It's an amendment he seems proud of, perhaps because it's the first time the House has passed something he's written.

But it's a very puzzling amendment. Here's the text as read by the House clerk:

Amendment offered by Mr. Walberg:

At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the following:

Sec. __X. None of the funds made available in this Act may be used by the Department of Transportation to promulgate regulations based on race, ethnicity, or sex.

Walberg called it "prohibiting 'affirmative action for roads.'" Apparently he thinks this is a big problem. He spoke in support of his amendment (it's worth noting that the House clerk recorded a slightly different version of his speech than he posts on his website), and he was "almost speechless with the fact that this very simple amendment has not been challenged aggressively yet."

When the amendment was challenged, here's what Congressman John Olver, sponsor of the bill, said:

Either this is not a serious amendment or it is an exceedingly serious amendment. This amendment is either totally unnecessary or it has a really nefarious purpose. We do have rules and regulations, I think, that might come under the material of the legislation that support and require certain set-asides for minority or women-owned businesses in providing among all of our contracting in transportation departments, in some of those departments, and under certain circumstances. I think those are entirely appropriate.

I don't know whether this is the sort of thing that the gentleman was trying to get at, but I think that this has some entirely unknown effects. Perhaps I should have asked the gentleman whether he had particular things in mind that he knew about because I couldn't at first think of any.

Mr. Chairman, my chairman says I should accept the amendment, and I am going to accept the amendment.

In other words, Congressman Olver couldn't quite figure out what the amendment would actually do, and Congressman Walberg offered no specific examples of what he wanted to prohibit. In the end, it was easier just to swallow it than get into a big fight over a very vague amendment.

Conservatives are celebrating a victory, but the commenter that brought this to my attention seems worried:

That simple, huh? No opposition? Walberg walks away thinking he scored a major victory, but does anyone understand what that amendment affected? It seems like the democrat in charge of opposing the amendment could not even figure it out. I think Waberg might have just catapulted himself onto the national stage with the help of the democrat leadership.

Congratulations on your victory, Congressman Walberg. Now, if we could just figure out what that actually means...

Labels: 110th Congress, Affirmative Action, Issues, Tim Walberg, Transportation, Walberg Voting Record