Congressman Tim Walberg: Yes, it was a fabulous trip.  A real learning experience for me and I think an enriching experience for all members on the trip.  To be in nine different countries in a little less than eight days.  Forty-five-thousand miles and ultimately four continents out of seven.  It was quite a trip.

RM: What was the stated purpose of the trip?  Was it a fact finding trip?

CTW: Fact finding but also it was an encouraging trip for the purposes of saying to five African nations we support your efforts and encourage you to continue on developing the African brigades, the five African brigades that will be stationed strategically around the continent with the intended purpose of being a clear and identifiable ally and partner in the war on terror especially dealing with radical jihadists.  And to meet with the presidents and prime ministers of countries like Mauritania, Burkina Faso, Ghana, Burundi and Ethiopia was important.  It was good to meet with ministers of defense as well as prime ministers and presidents of each of the countries and to find they are committed to being a part of this process; that resources, troops are being developed.

We had the opportunity to really move forward with the signing of a contractual relationship between Burundi and the ambassador to the African states, African Union, this past week as well.  Got that off the ground and as a result the paper should have been signed either Monday of this week or this week sometime which will allow the first battalion troops from Burundi to head over to Somalia by the end of this month so that was a key factor.

The other (purpose) was in Europe with the Czech republic and Poland, our intended efforts to put in a missile defense system in each of those countries.  Russia is not entirely happy with that and that's something they're going to have to contend with.  We have to contend with the fact that Europe and the United States, especially Alaska, runs a risk to remain uncovered by a defense system that can strategically take out any missiles that have been lofted in our direction or the direction of our ally.

Right now the citizens of the Czech Republic and Poland have some concerns basically centered around health risks, what the radar systems mean to them.  It gave us an opportunity to talk with members of government there including presidents and prime ministers to inform there that it's an issue we want to address.  We're concerned that their people feel satisfied on it and to ensure them that we have radar instillations all over our country and have had those instillations in place for many many years without negative impact.

It's a process that we want to move rapidly but move in such a way that all of our allies are with us.  The presidents and the majority of the government entities in each of the countries are with us but they have to address their citizens just like we do.

The final point was in Afghanistan.  I had a direct opportunity to go in and meet with commanders in the field, the top commander internationally, who is our own General McNeil and talk about what's happening there in a realistic fashion.  What are the negatives as well as the positives.  We had a good interchange on those ideas.

RM: I've actually got five friends on active duty, a brother at West Point and four more friends awaiting deployment in about a month in a National Guard unit that's being deployed.  Did you get to spend much time with any of our troops on the ground?  How are their spirits?

CTW: Yes.  We made a point to make that a significant part of each visit whether it was in Al Dhafra Air Base in Abu Dhabi, I personally met with five Michiganders who are deployed.  Of course they are in a support situation providing support services from that air base for Iraq and Afghanistan.  Doing a significant job.  Having a resource there that's virtually no other place in the world including the U-2.

And their spirits were high.  Very strong.  That's a base that's not on the front line of course even though they fly in regularly.

And in Afghanistan, that's the real deal.  In Kabul where we met with the troops.  I met with five Michiganders including one from my own home community of Adrian who had been now on his third deployment.

They were all very realistic.  They felt that their mission was just, that it was the right thing to do.  They're committed to it.  They believe that it's going to be long term, not necessarily in fighting format for ten years but they believe minimum there will be troops on the ground in some form, some fashion, whether it be training, supervisory or peace keeping for at least ten years.

They see realistically in Afghanistan the troops they work with are solid people.  By in large.  The overwhelming majority of the Afghan troops.  They are men and women who are willing to `take the hill' as they described it.  You just tell them what needs to be done and they will go do it without regard to their own lives in most cases.  They are, however, not ready for the most part to take leadership positions right now and that includes setting strategy.

We found the same information coming from the top commanders, General Cone and General McNeil.  General Cone who's responsible for all the training of the army and the police forces, he definitely says our greatest concern is with police.  There's still a strong culture of corruption within the local police forces that we have to contend with.  They just did an audit where they found to be the case eight-thousand police were vetted as being solid people of integrity.  Nine-thousand, however, had to be suspended or demoted because of corruption and that remains a concern that they have there.  So the same thing we (heard) from our troops.  The troops are going back to that.

And one point that was brought out to me by those that I talked to was their concern that their families be receiving resources, communications and assistance to the fullest extent because they believe that generally speaking other than those who are injured, maimed or certainly killed in the line of defense are the families needs who are away from their soldier and who generally don't have strong communications about what's going on.  And that's just part of war.  But also physical needs that need to be met in the process.

So I told them that I would communicate that back to appropriate authorities in Congress.  To make sure that we continue to upgrade what we do with the families of our troops.

RM: Now back here in the States I wanted to ask you about one of the issues that sort of dominated Congressional news for a few months.  SCHIP.  Most folks are familiar with the issue but can you tell us why you came down where you came down?  The Adrian Telegram came down on your side but why did you come down that way?

CTW: The Jackson Citizen Patriot came down on my end as well which was pretty cool to have two significant news organizations come that direction.

My position is very clear.  I believe, Nick, that money meant to help poor children should go to poor children.  It shouldn't be diverted to help families already on private health care insurance earning upwards of sixty-thousand dollars a year.  It shouldn't go to illegal immigrants or childless adults.  In our state of Michigan the majority of SCHIP dollars go to childless adults.  That's not right.  I also believe that we need to do all due diligence in making private health insurance more affordable and accessible.  That's the direction that has lasting value.

The Democrats, as you remember, passed three bills dealing with SCHIP and in total these bills would have moved, I hope you're sitting down, 2 million children from private to government health insurance.  It would have covered families earning up to $83,000 a year in certain cases, it would raise taxes on every private health insurance plan, it would have reduced benefits for 14,000 plus seniors in my district, the 7th district.  It would have given illegal immigrants the benefits, it would have reduced access to prescribed oxygen equipment, wheel chairs for senior citizens through the Medicare Advantage program, it would have harmed health care services, nursing facilities and inpatient rehabilitation services.  Try twenty-two million new smokers over the next ten years to pay for the program which is unreal and obscene to think that that's what we countenance.  Especially if our desire is to stop people from smoking, encourage them to get off, then we wouldn't have the dollars to fund the program.

On the other side of the ledger, Nick, I introduced an alternative Children's Health Insurance Bill with my House and Senate colleagues.  That bill would have renewed coverage for all children currently receiving coverage.  It would have provided health insurance tax credits so parents can buy private health insurance for their kids.  Sadly, the response thus far from the Democrat leadership has been attack ads against me for doing that, saying I don't care for kids.  But so far my constituents I think have got the message and understand that we are in the process of helping kids.  Of helping Michigan residents and trying to keep the abusive government entities off of them.

RM: This was an issue too that, well, really, the bad guys sort of came out of the woodwork trying, and failing pretty spectacularly I think to tag you on the issue.  You had Governor Granholm here at home, you had some other political opportunists in Lansing and even folks like Nancy Pelosi.

And I wanted to ask, what's your relationship like with the Speaker of the House?  Do you exchange pleasantries?  Does she completely ignore you?  Does she call you dirty names and try to bore holes through you?

CTW: Nancy doesn't deal with many people and it's been interesting to see some of the lions and bears of the house like John Murtha kowtow to her out of intense fear.  She pretty much has her agenda set and is going that direction and isn't asking for assistance from Republicans certainly and not much from Democrats either.  However I've got a picture in my office with my family and myself standing next to Nancy Pelosi with the swearing in.  I've been at picnics with her where we exchange pleasantries.  When I see her in the hallways of the Capitol we exchange pleasantries but beyond that the relationship is that she's the Speaker, she's the leader of the House.  I will support her when she's right but when she's wrong and when she goes against what's right for my district and puts me in a situation of backing down from what I told my district I would do I have to oppose her.

I'm going to do it appropriately.  I don't want to be a person who sticks sharp sticks in someone's eyes unnecessarily but I was elected just like her to represent a district and I will do that first and foremost.

RM: She did sort of throw you a bone here.  I read that the Democrat majority in the House scheduled a whopping three complete five day work weeks next year so congratulations there.

CTW: Yeah, you know, basically all of the promises they made, their six for 06 have not come to fruition.  We sit here today ready to deal with an energy less energy bill.  It's the third such bill that's come through.  A bill that will raise significant taxes on energy providers as well as citizens who have to pay the energy bills.  It continues to hurt our auto industry, the manufacturing base in Michigan let alone all around the country and that's come up at a point where it looks as if they don't even have support from their own caucus fully on it and it may not pass.

The efforts that this leadership has had so far have not been very successful without anything of significance getting through.  If it has gotten through the House and Senate, ultimately in almost every case it's been vetoed by the President and those vetoes have been upheld.  So I guess I could say the one thing good that the Democrat leadership is doing and Speaker Pelosi herself, is they're doing things in such a way that the American public isn't being hurt any further because sometimes when the Congress does nothing that's the best thing that could happen.

RM: I mentioned political opportunists earlier and here we are now less than a year away from the next election.  And it looks like your opponent is going to be Mark Schauer, the current Michigan Senate Minority Leader.  There are a lot of differences between you and Schauer.  What are, say, the top three that pop right to mind?

CTW: Where to begin.  I guess I'll make it as short as possible so it's succinct.  Senator Shauer is a consistent and strong advocate for more government spending, higher taxes, he was the sponsor of the tax bills that just went through.  In fact, he voted against the first approach to it because it wasn't enough.  He wanted it at 4.6% but ultimately accepted that 4.35 that went through.

On the other side of the ledger, I've worked to eliminate waste, never voted for a tax increase in sixteen years in the State House because it wasn't necessary.  We proved it.  I voted for tax cuts in the State House approximately twenty-six, twenty-seven tax cuts that spurred on our economy.

Senator Shauer voted to give drivers licenses to illegal aliens while I believe we need to secure the border and oppose amnesty and I would never support and have opposed drivers licenses for illegal aliens.

Senator Schauer supports partial birth abortion.  There are many people who support abortion on demand but very few in the nation let alone in my district who support partial birth abortion.  I believe in a culture of life and I think some of the recent outcomes even in the embryonic stem cell issue have proved that those who support the culture of life were right all along.  So those are just some differences between Mark Schauer and myself.

Bottom line, he believes in government, that that's the ultimate that makes people's live work.  I believe just the opposite.  That it's the private sector, that it's the genius and creativity and responsibility of individuals, communities and businesses that makes this great system work.

RM: Now he had some primary challengers a few months ago who've since dropped out of the race and one of them, David Nacht, was the subject of, well, the victim of an anti-Semitic attack from Schauer's chief of staff.  He was basically going around the district telling folks that no one would vote for a jew.  Even the Battle Creek Enquirer said they were "odious" comments and not just a slip of the tongue but an intentional introduction and attack on the man's faith.

I bring that up because you're a Christian.  A minister.  And you've been attacked for your faith over the last two, three years.  Longer than that.  It's something the left just doesn't seem able to understand or, at the very least they're not willing to accept it or let it go.  And now we see on the national stage a guy like Mike Huckabee is being roundly criticized for his faith.  They use anti-Christian attacks against you, against Huckabee, they use anti-Semitic attacks against David Nacht.  Do you anticipate that remaining an issue again in your race next year?  Is that something you're sadly used to dealing with?

CTW: We're used to dealing with it.  When I ran for office, Nick, in 1982 I said very clearly and I've said ever since then that I am a Christian.  That's the filter and worldview that I look through as others look through other worldviews.  We all have filters.  But that's who I am.  And I have made it very clear that while I will not wear my religion on my sleeve, and I think that's been apparent for many years, I will not hide my faith.  My faith brings a consistent ethic and hopefully integrity to this ballgame we call politics that I find myself in.

Had one of my staff made an anti-Semitic remark or lets say an anti-religious remark, whatever that remark might have been to whoever it may have been placed, they would not have been on my staff following that.  That is not something this country should accept, will accept or should ever countenance.

I'm going to have to contend with it.  There's no doubt in my mind that some of the opponents, I'm talking special interests, 527s, will use my faith against me.  That's been true in every single race I've run.  And I hope that as they do that I have the opportunity to display and speak as I've spoken in the past, and I think the unique thing about our citizens and our voters is that when they have the facts and they're given clearly and they're given the respect of being allowed to make their own decisions based upon the facts they usually do right.

RM: What is the one thing you want Michigan residents to know about Tim Walberg?

CTW: I want them to know that I sincerely see this as a privilege to represent them.  I see it as a high responsibility and I want them to know that while we may disagree on various issues I want them to know that when I have ultimately said "this is what I'll do and if you elect me I will do it" that that's exactly what I will do and have done.  I want them to know that at the very least, whether you agree or disagree, you can count on Tim Walberg to stand on principles that he's clearly delineated for them and on that basis I've been elected numerous times and I hope as a result in the future I'll continue to be reelected to represent these people.

RM: One thing you've been doing that I think is pretty exciting is using the web and technology to keep your constituents in-the-loop on what's happening in Washington.  I know you've started your own blog now which is great.  I think you and McCotter are the two guys in the State doing it and it's awesome.  And you've been using these new virtual town hall meetings over the phone.  What's the reaction been like in the 7th?  Are those well attended?  

CTW: It's been great.  You know, I like to do town hall meetings live and up close and personal too and we've done about one-hundred of those since January 4th in the District.  Town hall, coffee type meetings.  But due to the schedule that Speaker Pelosi had us on initially we weren't able to get back to the District when people were available for these meetings.

So to use the technology of an online or a virtual town hall meeting, using the telephone and dialing in to several thousand constituents in a given area in a given hour period of time and saying to them with a robocall from me, "we'd like you to join, if you'd like press 1 and you can be put in directly to the conversation.  If you'd like to ask a question, press star 3 and you'll be put into the cue to express your point of view or ask a question of the Congressman."

We have received nothing but positive support from that.  There have been some Democrats who've emailed us saying "thank you for doing this.  Even though I didn't vote for you in the past and probably won't vote for you in the future this is the way government representation ought to work, going directly to the people, so while some I'm sure didn't like the robocall coming in at dinner time, we try not to do it at dinner time, or at Monday Night Football time, and we try not to do that either, we have not been pushy, they can hang up and no harm no foul.

On the blog, that's not of my generation.  I'm a little bit older but it is what is now.  But I've got a great staff who knows it and uses it and now I use it more than I ever would have before so it also give us an opportunity to look at blogs like yours which I understand has now become the number one conservative blog in our state, RedState, Human Events, National Review Online, etcetera have been things that we look at as well on a regular basis and monitor.

And with our blog, hopefully when we tell people about, well I hate to say soft news, it's a little bit more interesting news for a broader spectrum, when I talk about my trip to nine countries in Africa and Europe and the Middle East last week and explain what I learned and who I saw and who I talked to or talk about an SCHIP issue it provides people at least information that they can use to make decisions for themselves personally and ultimately decisions about who they want to represent them.

RM: Real quick before you have to run, have you made an endorsement in the Presidential Primary?  Will you make an endorsement?

CTW: I have not.  I probably will keep my powder dry until we have our nominee.  The Republican side, there's much to respect with each of them.  There are some who have issues that I would like to see changed but when I compare them to any on the Democrat side, people ought to believe me when I say this, it's not just because I'm a Republican, but their issues are so so different from the positions I take on almost anything I'm very encouraged that when we actually get a candidate on both sides the American people and my district, the 7th District people will make the right decision.

And when they say the jury is out on who will be the next President it surely is. It's going to be a humdinger of a race and I'm very hopeful as well as confident that the Republicans do have a chance.

RM: Thank you, Congressman, for your time.  Was there anything else you'd like to cover before you run?

CTW: I guess I would just reiterate in relationship to the message I want to send back to the 7th that I'll do what I said I will do and I understand that in tough times, and Michigan is having tough times, we will bounce back.  We're wolverines.  Not in the sense of taking a stand between Michigan and Michigan State but (the historic report at least) because we're tenacious.

I believe Michigan will come back.  But we will not come back as quickly if we continue to push for higher taxes, if we continue to push more regulation.  I'm interested in encouraging our people to do what they can and should do for themselves because I believe they will.  They'll save, they'll invest.  They'll have their children, they'll deal with life and death issues very responsibly for the most part if we give them that opportunity to have dollars in their own pockets and the freedom to do for themselves, the choices that they alone should make.

RM: Congressman Walberg, thanks again!