Denny Rehberg

Mr. REHBERG

Mr. REHBERG. I thank the gentleman from Nebraska for yielding. No, the point is there was more than just clean water dropped into the Potomac. It was done in the dead of the night. It would not have needed to be done in the dead of the night if it was being done legally or aboveboard. And if you want to talk about the oil spill in Montana, the Yellowstone River is in fact a navigable stream. Yes, in fact, the EPA did a good job. No, in fact, we haven't, to my knowledge, yet--and that is still yet to be open to interpretation because we are waiting--there has been no loss of life among the fish. We will wait and see. Certainly, some of the ramifications will be down the road as a result of the studies that occur. And we do appreciate the EPA coming in. But, again, it was a navigable stream. And this amendment strips what we are trying to do to protect nonnavigable from being expanded beyond the original intent.

Mr. REHBERG. Confusion--you've heard the word confusion. There is no one confused. That pesky Supreme Court has ruled against the environmental community of America saying you're trying to overextend your authority or belief in the authority of the regulatory agencies. There is no confusion here. It's a private property right. When the Clean Water Act was written, as the courts have made their decision, whether it was the U.S. Supreme Court or the Fifth Circuit, they've made a determination that ``navigable'' means navigable. Thank goodness. Finally, a court that gets it; a court that understands, that makes the right decision. There is no confusion here. The confusion is that there is an element within American society that wants to regulate all water to the detriment of private property rights. They want to make a determination that if there is a stock water pond and a duck lands on it, we get control. If there's an independent stream, meaning it goes underground, and then occasionally when it rains too much and there is going to be moisture, we want control. This is what we're talking about in America today, overregulation. When we talk about jobs--where are the jobs--a lot of it is because of overregulation. Might I remind my colleague from Virginia, when I first got to Congress, one of the biggest issues was sewage dumped in a river--what river? the Potomac--in the dead of night. When their sewer system was full, the D.C. Government took their sewage and dumped it into the Potomac. And you know what happened? We thought, finally, us western Congressmen and -women, that there was going to be parity, there was going to be equality, there was going to be a recognition that many of the rules and regulations were difficult, there needed to be an infrastructure bill that was going to come and clean up our waters. And what did the Virginia, Maryland, and D.C. Representatives do to Congress? They got an exemption from the decision to continue to allow some of the things that were occurring in the Potomac. You want to talk about the endangered species and the bridge south of here going across the Potomac? There was an Endangered Species Act. We westerners, said, Thank God. Finally there's going to be equality. There's going to be parity. You are going to recognize that some of the things that we're having to deal with in the West just don't necessarily work as easily as you think they're going to. What did the Representatives from D.C. and Virginia and Maryland do? They helped Congress and the bureaucracy turn their backs on those various regulations. This is clearly understood. This is clearly defined. We don't want the Federal agencies mucking around in an issue that they don't understand. This is clearly an East versus West or an urban versus rural debate. Finally, finally, the courts have said, enough is enough. You've gone too far. There is no confusion. The only confusion is they want to create confusion. They want to make an argument so they can ultimately start overregulating one more time to the cost of our jobs, to the cost of our economy, frankly, in some cases, like in the Potomac, to the cost to our environment. Shame on them. Work with the western colleagues to clearly understand how to manage natural resources for the betterment of the natural resources, for clean water. Let the people that have allowed us the opportunity to have the clean water have it in the future. That's private property. That's a clear understanding of State regulations. One of the reasons we're even going through the whole states' rights issue in the water issue and the adjudication process in places like Montana is so that we can clearly understand that it's a states' rights issue, that we'd better understand water--especially the headwaters. And, frankly, the downstream States are the beneficiaries of the clean water that we're sending them. Don't further hamstring us. Don't tie our hands. Don't allow additional regulatory oversight for the various agencies that are helping to create a problem. And we'll have better clean water. Society will have a better environment. We will have a better America. And as a result, we will have the jobs that we want. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. REHBERG. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

Mr. REHBERG

Mr. REHBERG. I rise to speak briefly about the language that is about to be stricken from this bill, which has come to be called the ``hard science amendment.'' I offered this language in committee on behalf of ranchers in Montana. They sat across the table from me and shared the significant concerns they have over the lack of a scientific basis being used by the FDA in developing rules and regulations affecting their ranches and the livestock industry. For me, this isn't faceless regulation. The consequences of these regulations have faces. They wear cowboy boots. Agriculture is the number one industry in Montana. The State raises 2.6 million cows and calves annually, 180,000 hogs and pigs, 230,000 sheep, and I know of at least 600 goats. The cattle industry alone is responsible for $1.4 billion in sales every year. Ranchers in Montana and across the United States have a strong incentive to preserve a healthy food supply for the American public, and that means making sure their animals are healthy. The use of antibiotics in livestock significantly improves the health of animals, which in turn lowers the risk of food borne illnesses which may show up later in the process. FDA has refused to release risk assessments on the impacts antibiotics may have on humans who consume these meats. And while they have not released any credible evidence to support their efforts, FDA bureaucrats are still pushing ranchers to remove these valuable antibiotics from livestock production. This is of grave concern to Montana ranchers, and I will keep fighting alongside Montana producers to get this problem addressed. In fact, I would like to submit letters from those organizations into the Record. I hope to work with my colleagues on the Appropriations Committee as well as the Energy and Commerce Committee to work with FDA in order to ensure that they examine the facts before moving forward with regulations that will significantly impact Montana's number one industry. National Cattlemen's Beef Association, Washington, DC, June 14, 2011. Hon. Denny Rehberg, House of Representatives, Rayburn House Office Building, Washington, DC. Dear Representative Rehberg: On behalf of the membership of the National Cattlemen's Beef Association (NCBA), I want to thank you for your amendment during the House Appropriations Committee markup of the Fiscal Year 2012 Agriculture Appropriations Bill which would require the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to use hard science in its regulatory actions. For years now, the beef industry has seen many rules, regulations, and guidances that have been based on personal agendas and political science rather than hard facts and data. As such, NCBA supports your amendment and will work to keep it in the underlying bill. The FDA has a huge impact on America's cattle producers. From drug approvals and regulation, to feed and some foods safety activities, our industry finds itself dealing more and more with FDA. We believe that FDA has a role to help our industry and to help keep our consumers safe, but we have seen repeated attempts to strip cattle producers of the use of fully tested and approved drugs and technologies. The attack on ranchers' use of antibiotics to prevent and treat disease in cattle is one of many instances. It is time that Congress exercised its right to perform regulatory oversight of Federal agencies, and your amendment will go far in calling attention to the concerns we have with FDA. It is our hope that FDA will heed this message and return to using risk assessments, facts, and widely accepted peer reviewed data in its regulatory decisions, rather than allowing activist groups and some administration officials to drive their personal and skewed views of science, food production, and regulation. Thank you for your efforts and we look forward to helping you work to maintain this language in the bill. Sincerely, Bill Donald, President.

Mr. REHBERG. Madam Chair, I move to strike the last word.

Mr. REHBERG

Mr. REHBERG. Mr. Speaker, I pay tribute today to an act of heroism. In Glendive, Montana, just about as far east as the state stretches, a young woman is alive today, just as all the hopes and dreams for her future still are, because a firefighter by the name of Richie Crisafulli risked his life to save hers. Richie Crisafulli is the Assistant Fire Chief for the West Glendive Fire Department, but he is more than a firefighter. He is a father, a husband, an EMT, a coach, and a community leader. In the early morning hours of March 25th, a fire broke out in the home of a Glendive family. Smoke alarms went off and three of the four family members home at the time made it outside. But a teen girl lay sleeping in a basement bedroom. Assistant Chief Crisafulli, who lived a few blocks away from the fire, heard the call come in, and though he had no rescue gear, responded immediately. When Crisafulli arrived the family directed him to the room where the young woman was still inside. Richie attempted to enter the house, but the smoke from a fire in the laundry room was overwhelming without the proper equipment and he was forced to retreat. Undeterred, and inspired by an idea from another one of Montana's finest, Dawson County Sheriff Deputy Ross Canen, who had just arrived at the scene, Crisafulli took Canen's stocking cap, filled it with snow, covered his mouth and nose with it and headed back inside. The make-shift respirator worked. Crisafulli located the girl, and led her through the blazing, smoke- filled home to safety. West Glendive Fire Chief Tim Mort had this to say: ``He's an absolute hero. There is little doubt in my mind that young woman is alive today because of the actions of Richie Crisafulli.'' To Richie Crisafulli's credit, he has remained humble in the face of the ensuing praise, saying the story was not about him, but more about the department and the people he both serves and serves with: ``My grandfather was a part of this fire department from the beginning. I'm proud to be able to follow in my family's footsteps and honored to serve with my fellow firefighters. If it would have been one of my four kids, I'm sure someone else would have done the same.'' Fearless in response and humble in praise--Richie Crisafulli went above and beyond the call of duty and I applaud him today. May he and his family be blessed, just as I know the grateful family of the young woman he rescued are, now that their daughter and sister is alive today to love and be loved by her family and friends.

Mr. REHBERG

Mr. REHBERG. Madam Speaker, last month, I received a letter from Sergeant First Class Bart Holder, a Montana native who is currently serving our country in Afghanistan. Like many soldiers, Sgt. Holder chose to transfer his GI Bill benefits to his daughter, Madison. Thanks to her father's GI Bill benefits and an academic scholarship, Madison's freshman year tuition was fully paid for. And that's exactly how it should be. But earlier this Spring, Madison was told that, as a result of changes made by Congress to the GI Bill, her benefits would no longer cover the full cost of her tuition. She was told that she would need to find several thousand dollars to make up for the shortfall. This bill, the Restoring GI Bill Fairness Act would bridge that gap for veterans and students like Madison who chose their college before Congress capped their GI Bill payments last December. The GI Bill is about keeping a promise to the men and women who serve their country and the cause of freedom. On the battlefield, soldiers don't leave men behind, and we shouldn't strand students in the middle of their education by reducing their benefits without warning. Congress changed the rules in the middle of the game and veterans and their dependents who made sound fiscal decisions based on the old formulal shouldn't have to pay the price. I am proud to be a co-sponsor of this bill. And I urge all of my colleagues to vote yes on this important piece of legislation.

Mr. REHBERG

Mr. REHBERG. I thank the gentleman from Louisiana for his leadership on this issue to repeal the funding of ObamaCare, and I rise in support of the resolution. It is impossible in the short time I have to describe the many reasons that justify defunding, repealing and replacing ObamaCare. Today, I want to mention one--the adverse impacts for those on Medicare. In Montana, this is a huge issue because our population is quite a bit older than in other States. Folks have paid into Medicare all their lives, and they rightfully expect the benefits to be there for them, but Medicare is going broke and will be bankrupt in 11 years. Supporters of the new health care law say they've strengthened Medicare, and point to the closing of the doughnut hole on prescription drugs. Let's examine that a little more carefully. The cost to the government to fix the doughnut hole is about $27 billion between now and 2019, but ObamaCare cuts Medicare benefits and reimbursements by more than $500 billion. These cuts aren't being used to save Medicare. They're being used to pay for the cost of the new entitlements in ObamaCare. For seniors in Montana and in the rest of America, this is not a good trade. But that's not all. Most people aren't even aware that ObamaCare includes a $210 billion tax increase on Medicare. Again, that money isn't going to be used to save Medicare. This tax will go to pay for the cost of new entitlements. ObamaCare cuts Medicare benefits, increases Medicare taxes, and doesn't do anything to protect Medicare; and the new Medicare cuts and taxes, along with hundreds of billions of dollars in new taxes, penalties and fees, won't take effect until after the 2012 election. That's not a coincidence. This is a classic bait and switch. We get all the small benefits up front and get hit with a pile of burdens after the 2012 election--just one of the many reasons to defund ObamaCare now. That's the first step toward replacing it with real reform in order to rein in health care costs and to improve access.

Mr. REHBERG

Mr. REHBERG. Thank you, Chairman Rogers. Madam Speaker, I rise to express my deep frustration with this extension. Here we go again, debating another continuing resolution. I am starting to feel like Bill Murray in ``Groundhog Day.'' In that movie, the main character wakes up every morning to relive the same day again and again. He never moves forward because he is stuck on Groundhog Day. Last year, Republicans in the House put the country on notice that we would try to reduce spending by $100 billion this year. The Senate knew, and the American people knew, and they gave us a substantial majority in the House. We worked responsibly and openly on a continuing resolution to meet that goal. After considering scores of amendments and engaging in long days of thoughtful debate, we succeeded. In response, the Senate majority leader summarily dismissed our good-faith efforts and recessed the Senate for a week. Despite giving us an unprecedented 3 years of trillion-dollar deficits, the majority leader dismissed our efforts to reduce spending less than 2 percent from the total fiscal 2011 budget. In the interest of continuing our work on behalf of the American taxpayer and finding some common ground, Republicans are offering this 2-week extension, another continuing resolution made necessary only because the Democrat leadership refused to adopt a budget last year. It is like Groundhog Day all over again. During this short extension we propose to save $4 billion--too much for Senator Reid. He suggests a freeze on spending for 30 days while he contemplates our proposal. The national debt will increase another $136 billion during that time. This is part of a big stall. Keep stalling. Keep implementing unaffordable health care entitlement programs. Keep threatening, keep spending, all the while ignoring the will of the people. But the growing $14.5 trillion national debt is dragging our country into economic ruin, and a looming health care law with $2.5 trillion in new spending, when fully implemented, is about to bury us. And make no mistake, I am not happy that funding for the implementation of health care law continues in this continuing resolution. At some point soon, before it is too late, the majority leader and his Democrat colleagues need to meaningfully address our spending problem. Unfortunately, all indications are that our good-faith effort to find common ground with this 2-week extension will not bring the Senate to the table to negotiate. The President and the Senate majority hold the balance of power in Washington D.C., but they stand against the majority of Americans. I will support this measure, but I have been pushed to my limit. ``Groundhog Day'' may have been an entertaining movie, but it shouldn't be the basis for a system of government. It's time for the Senate to get to work.

Mr. REHBERG

Mr. REHBERG. Thank you, Mr. Boren. And I thank the chairman for allowing this opportunity. It's one of those situations where you'd like to believe the administration is not trying to creep into an area that is not necessarily something they would try and slip by anyone. But when you talk about gun control, we get very serious about the Constitution and the creeping of various rules and regulations in areas that Congress has specifically stayed out of, didn't want us to be involved in. And so there is always that lingering thought in the back of your mind like, what's going on here? Now I don't tend to believe that I would be a scary individual, but if I were living in one of those four States, I would be in this category of having purchased two long rifles because I happened to buy a hunting rifle for myself and my son, who was of age. For Christmas I went out and bought two, and it throws me into that category. I would like to think I'm not considered a gun runner for a Mexican cartel or something like that, but that's the effect of a regulation like this. And so I hope that we will seriously consider this not necessary. We took the action that created regulation on handguns, we understand that. But when it comes to a long rifle--we're talking hunting rifles, we're talking about other types of rifles that are out there--this doesn't really make sense. So I really thank Mr. Boren for taking the lead on this amendment. It's really important to those of us who are active firearm users.

Mr. REHBERG

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

Mr. REHBERG. Mr. Chairman, I am not the Speaker of the House. I am not the majority leader. But you know what I do? I represent more people in the United States Congress than anybody sitting in this body, consistently. After every census, I have the most population. I probably have more town hall meetings as well. I probably have more hospitals, more highways, more of everything in my congressional district. And I have had more town hall meetings, probably, than anyone, 75. And in those 75, they all tell me the same thing: They do need health care reform. They need to control the cost of health care. But they get it. They understand, this does not do it. You would not need waivers for unions and big businesses if it was working. You would not need legislation to fix the 1099 on the penalty for the $600 purchases if it was working. You wouldn't have to cook the books, as they attempt to do, by counting a $750 billion tax increase as a reason to suggest that if we repeal it, it's going to cost the government something. That's funny money. It's not true. Nobody in America believes it. Get out. Listen at your town hall meetings. Travel around my State. Do the 75 town hall meetings like I did. And you will find you cannot control the cost of health care if you leave defensive medicine out. We gave an opportunity for people to join the Federal system. It was turned down by the Democrats in committee. They voted it down on a party-line vote. This is not the way to reform health care. It was done very quickly. In fact, the sponsor of the bill said I didn't need to read the bill. That's what I have staff for. It was so large, it was done so quickly, there was not enough input that the people of America know this is not the right thing to do. It's a job killer. It's going to bust our budget. In the end, it does, in fact, cost us $2.6 trillion to implement in the first 10 years. Please support this. Let's begin defunding ObamaCare.

Mr. REHBERG. Mr. Chair, if I may respond.

Mr. REHBERG. It doesn't matter which clause they want to draw from. The chairman said there is no impact. My amendment scores at a savings of $100 million in the current fiscal year. That is substantive savings, and I again ask for a ruling from the Chair.

Mr. REHBERG. Mr. Chairman, may I inquire as to how much time remains on both sides?

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

Mr. REHBERG. My Democratic friends using the deficit argument is simply a diversion to draw attention from the real issue: the huge cost of this program. At this time I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from Texas, Dr. Burgess.

Mr. REHBERG. I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. REHBERG. Mr. Chair, I wish to be heard on the point of order.

Mr. REHBERG. I have been advised by the chairman of the Committee on Budget that my amendment complies with all applicable rules of the House. The point of order that my amendment violates clause 10 of rule XXI, known as the cut-go rule, is inapplicable in this case. The cut-go rule does provide a point of order against amendments to appropriations bills that cause an increase in mandatory spending over the 5-year scoring window. However, that rule contains an important exception. The point of order applies only to provisions that are modifications to substantive law. My amendment does not constitute such a modification; rather, it is a temporary provision limiting the use of funds in this act for the implementation of the law in a particular fiscal year. As the chairman of the Committee on the Budget stated, my amendment does not make a modification to substantive law in a year after the year for which the bill makes appropriations. Accordingly, the prohibition contained in clause 10 of rule XXI does not apply to my amendment, and the point of order should be overruled. And I respectfully ask the Chair for a ruling.

Mr. REHBERG. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, my amendment is simple and straightforward. This amendment denies any funding provided by this bill to be used by the department or agency funded through the Labor-HHS title of the bill to support ObamaCare. It will create a firewall so that funds from this bill cannot be used for that purpose. ObamaCare included mandatory funding for several provisions normally funded through the discretionary appropriations; for example, a $1 billion implementation fund. So, unfortunately, resources will be available to Health and Human Services. This amendment can slow but not completely stop the process. I have tried everything within my power to write an amendment that would completely defund implementation yet withstand a point of order. This is the best I can do today. I liken the situation with this bill to trying to drive a car to the moon. A car is the wrong vehicle for that purpose, but a car can take us on the first leg of the trip. It can get us to the launching pad. And I will continue to do everything I can to finish the journey. My goal, and the goal of the majority of Americans, is to repeal the new health care law. Until then, my objective is to defund it entirely and stop its implementation. It is impossible at this time to describe the many reasons that justify defunding and repeal. Let me begin with my belief that the law is unconstitutional. It runs contrary to our most fundamental concepts of limited government and individual liberty and responsibility. It's a law designed by those who wish to control every health care decision made by health care providers and patients, by every employer and employee, by every family and individual. It will control every aspect of one-sixth of our economy. This unaffordable program will cost $2.6 trillion in the first 10 years if fully implemented. Ninety percent of that cost is for Medicaid expansion and insurance subsidies. Roughly half of the Federal Government's costs will be paid through new taxes, penalties, and fees on individuals and businesses. The other half is covered by cuts in Medicare benefits. The tax increases and regulatory burdens will be a significant drag on economic growth and job creation, and other costs to States, businesses and individuals are not included in the $2.6 trillion figure. This is a job killer. How foolhardy to create a new entitlement program when we cannot pay for the ones we already have and cannot meet our current operating expenses without borrowing beyond our ability to repay. This is madness. The structure of this bill was built on a foundation of multiple mandates, the individual mandate that requires people to purchase insurance whether they want to or not, mandates on States to create and operate insurance exchanges and to expand Medicaid dramatically, mandates on employers to provide insurance or be penalized, mandates regarding the precise terms of insurance policies that everyone ultimately must purchase, and on and on. Our forefathers would be appalled to see the power over our health and lives that we are surrendering to government. They had firsthand experience with unfettered government control, and they carefully designed a Constitution to limit the government's power. We've learned nothing from them. Never has there been such a complete transfer of power to our government with such blind faith and hope that government will get it right when our experience in every other context is so totally to the contrary. This is an experiment, a huge gamble imposed on us by those who did not read the legislation or fully understand its consequences. We are already catching glimpses of how government power will be exercised. Large corporations and unions have been granted waivers for mandates they cannot meet; large corporations with armies of lawyers and unions who hold a special place in the hearts, minds, and political campaigns of those who enacted this bill. Will Government be so accommodating to you? There are problems with the existing health care system, but this law only makes matters worse. The law must be repealed so that it can be replaced with incremental, market-oriented, affordable measures to improve, rather than transform, our current health care system. In the meantime, implementation must be stopped. There's a second reason to defund implementation. The law's individual mandate has been declared unconstitutional by two Federal judges. Judge Roger Vinson has written a powerful opinion that strikes down the entire law. The administration and Congress are on notice of the substantial risk that the Supreme Court will uphold Vinson's decision. If that occurs after a year or more of litigation, billions of dollars spent by the Federal Government to implement the law and by States, businesses, individuals, and taxpayers to comply with the law will have been completely wasted, thrown away. In light of the crisis created by our ballooning debt and anemic economy, it is fiscally irresponsible to go forward with implementation until the court challenge is finally resolved. For these reasons, I urge you to support my amendment. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. REHBERG. Mr. Chair, I am pleased to yield 5 minutes to my good friend from Texas (Mr. Burgess).

Mr. REHBERG. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to a new member of the Appropriations Committee, a great addition, the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Graves).

Mr. REHBERG. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute. I respectfully do refer to it as ``ObamaCare.'' You would think that he would want his name attached to his signature legislation. But in four quick years, this Congress and this President have made what is a spending problem into a spending crisis. We wanted to create jobs. You wasted time on the health care reform that did not control the costs. They call it affordable health care. Unfortunately, all it did was add people. It didn't control the costs of health care, and that is one of the reasons it needs to be repealed. We wanted to build an economy; they wanted to build government. So we call it what it is. It is ObamaCare. It is a travesty. It is Big Government. It is not controlling health care costs, and it needs to be repealed. Today we are going to try to defund it, to the best of our ability; and if we are not successful this time, we are going to try again and again and again until we either have a Senate that is willing to pass it or a President that understands that we cannot do this to the American people. At this time I yield 5 minutes to my good friend, the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. King).

Mr. REHBERG. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute. Does anybody honestly believe in America that by repealing ObamaCare it's actually going to cost the government money? It just doesn't pass the smell test. Yes, the way the CBO is scoring it based upon the questions that they are asked show it is. But nobody, honestly nobody in this country honestly believes that when you repeal a piece of legislation it's going to end up costing you money. I now yield 5 minutes to one of the few people that clearly gets the entire picture, a doctor, one of our Members from the State of Georgia (Mr. Price), who understands that defensive medicine was entirely left out of this, but, of course, we know why. And it's one of the issues driving the cost of health care.