Denny Rehberg

Mr. REHBERG

Mr. REHBERG. Mr. Speaker, I rise today because I wish to speak to America about our current energy crisis. While prices rise at the pump to over $2 a gallon in some places and Californians are forced to contend with blackouts, this Nation is still in a position to extricate ourselves from this crisis and once and for all prevent future energy and fuel shortages. There is no quick fix or one-stop-shop solution to this problem. Through a balanced approach combining research and development, capital investment and conservation measures, we can once and for all provide our Nation with clean, abundant energy. We must commit ourselves to developing cheaper and more efficient ways of harnessing renewable sources of energy. We can now only meet a fraction of our energy needs with solar, hydro and wind powers. If we invest in developing these clean, unending energy sources, we will in time be able to satisfy much of our demand without using a drop of oil or a lump of coal. While research and development will take time to show their benefits, there are things we can do now to ameliorate our situation. Building new power plants will start us on the road to providing energy for the near future. Improving our energy infrastructure will deliver what energy we have to homes, businesses and industries in a more efficient manner. Finally, we must face the reality that energy is wasted. Eliminating this waste will not be easy, but a small sacrifice now will avoid the necessity of even greater sacrifices later. Fellow citizens, by turning your lights out at night, buying energy-efficient appliances and taking public transportation, you can reduce our collective energy need drastically. Every time you turn off a light you will be brightening the light of America's future. I have confidence in American solutions to America's energy problems. Ingenuity, self-sacrifice and faith in science and the future will deliver us into an era in which we will no longer have to worry about our energy needs.

Mr. REHBERG

Mr. REHBERG. Mr. Chairman, I could not agree more with the last speaker when he says introduce legislation if Members want to change it, do not do it through a rider. Mr. Chairman, I had a hearing in Lewistown, Montana a couple of weeks ago. I had just short of 300 people there. It took 8 hours. There is not consensus on this. When I came to Congress, I made the determination I would try and change the rhetoric when it came to natural resources policy so we do not dig ourselves into corners and then have to litigate our way back out. The President dropped a bad piece in our laps. We are trying to pick up the pieces. We will do the best we can. We want full disclosure and full debate, but let us not close the door to a reasonable conclusion to something that is very emotional in my State of Montana. Over 80,000 acres of private property were included in this monument. What reasonable President, if he had gone through the appropriate process of debate and consideration, would have allowed that to happen? Secretary Norton recently sent out a letter to over 200 local officials asking their opinion. She has stated the position that she will not make changes without adequate consideration and due process. There is only one reason this amendment has been introduced, and that is to shut the door further on what we believe the President did in the first place. Mr. Chairman, I hope my colleagues will vote against this amendment.

Mr. REHBERG. Mr. Chairman, this is not a rollback of environmental laws. Critics of the mining industry charge that reviewing the Clinton- Babbitt 3809 regulations constitutes a rollback of environmental laws. This is not true. The industry is not fighting to lessen any necessary environmental regulations governing hardrock mining on Federal lands. In fact, it supports and complies with all existing environmental statutes and supports the addition of any new rules consistent with the recommendations of the study on hardrock mining on Federal lands completed for Congress by the National Academy of Sciences. The new 3809 regulations are extremely burdensome, complex and counterproductive, and contradict the NAS report. They go far beyond filling the narrow regulatory gaps identified by the report and add onerous regulatory burdens that will deter mineral exploration in mining activity in the western United States. Unnecessarily strict new performance standards and expanded liabilities are created under the new regulations that the amendment before the House would keep in place. This would greatly disrupt the preexisting coordination between the Bureau of Land Management and the western States regarding the environmental regulations of mining. A number of new performance standards are prescriptive, one-size-fits-all requirements which are inconsistent with the Academy's recommendations that mining regulations should be based on site-specific performance standards. There are strong environmental laws in effect that will not be rolled back or lessened in any way by suspending the new 3809 regulations. For instance, the disposal of mining wastes is strictly regulated on Federal, State and private lands through the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act and the Clean Water Act, as well as numerous State laws and regulations protecting groundwater resources. All facets of mining are covered by equally comprehensive legal frameworks. The mining industry pays millions of dollars each year to comply with laws to ensure the protection of the environment. That is hardly the mark of an industry trying to flout its responsibility by fighting to roll back environmental laws.

Mr. REHBERG

Mr. REHBERG. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. REHBERG. Mr. Speaker, agriculture is the number one industry in the State of Montana. That is why the two pieces of legislation I introduced, along with the gentleman from South Dakota (Mr. Thune) and the gentlewoman from Missouri (Mrs. Emerson) are so important to me and to rural America. The heart of America is her rural communities. The Montana farmers and ranchers who work the soil understand that our State's motto, Oro Y Plato, gold and silver, is truly the gold of ripe wheat fields and the silver of water resources. The harvest of the farmer and rancher translate into the gold and silver of economic health in rural communities. Families spanning generations have sustained themselves in agriculture, but it is no longer feasible. The past few years have brought disasters and record low prices to the ag economy. While safety nets are important to producers, especially in lean years, America's farmers and ranchers do not want to be dependent upon the government. So we must develop a long-term market-oriented approach to Federal farm policy to give producers the tools to help themselves and at the same time to bring much-needed economic growth to their communities. Short- term financial aid is helpful; but long-term planning, along with creative, innovative opportunities, are vital lest America's rural families lose their farms and small towns die with them. We need to encourage producers to add value to their product. Value- added ventures will enable producers to reach up the marketing chain and capture profits generated from processing their raw commodities. Two barriers prevent producers from pooling together and adding value to their products: first, though farmers are experts in their own fields, often they do not have the technical expertise needed to launch complex value-added business ventures; second, producers are strapped for cash. Even if they had enough capital to initiate development of value-added processing, many of the combined players in the market could squeeze producer-owned entities out before they become profitable. Something needs to be done to level the field for producers. Developing value-added agricultural industries will bring increased economic development along with the spirit of hope to Montana and other rural States. And that is good for our pocketbooks, it is good for our communities, and it is good for our quality of life.

Mr. REHBERG

Mr. REHBERG. Mr. Speaker, on February 22 I sponsored a roundtable discussion in Missoula, Montana on forest health issues. This discussion included presentations from a wide array of interests. Representing the conservation community were Tom France of the National Wildlife Federation, Cesar Hernandez of the Montana Wilderness Association and Steve Thompson of the Montana Conservation Voters. Forest products industry witnesses were Kim Liles of the Pulp and Paperworkers Resource Council, Jim Hurst of Owens and Hurst Lumber, Sherm Anderson of the Montana Logging Association and Roger Johnson of Pyramid Mountain Lumber. County governments were represented by Commissioners Barbara Evans of Missoula County, Alan Thompson of Ravalli County, Dale Williams of Flathead County and Rita Windham of Lincoln County. Providing creative ideas practiced on non-federal lands were Garry Orr of the Salish-Kootenai Tribes and Tom Schultz with the Montana Department of State Lands. Finally, the scientific and academic communities were represented by Drs. Chuck Keegan and Carl Fiedler of the University of Montana and U.S. Forest Service fire ecologist Steve Arno. This roundtable, and one scheduled for April 18 in Hamilton, will provide me with firsthand accounts of what is working and not working regarding management of Montana's forests. As a member of both the House Committees on Agriculture and Resources, that have jurisdiction over forest management, I am seeking ``made in Montana'' solutions to our current challenges in forest management. I encourage my colleagues to read the following article by Sherry Devlin on the Missoula roundtable that appeared in the February 23 Missoulian. I also highly recommend reading the testimony of Kim Liles who is a papermaker for Smurfit-Stone Container in Frenchtown, Montana and a member of Hellgate Local 8-0885 PACE International Union. [From the Missoulian (MT), Feb. 23, 2001] Rehberg Gets Earful on Forests Industry officials say control should stay with local experts (By Sherry Devlin) The rest of the country should just ``butt out'' and let Montanans manage the national forests in their back yards, a Eureka sawmill owner told U.S. Rep. Denny Rehberg's forest- management roundtable Thursday. ``I'm not going to tell the people of New York City how to manage Central Park,'' said Jim Hurst, owner of Owens and Hurst Lumber Co. ``So why should they be telling us how to manage the Kootenai National Forest? I say they should butt out.'' Montanans, Hurst said, can work their way through even the thorniest forest-management issues. It's the national dictates--of presidents, congressmen and bureaucrats--that make people dig in their heels. So went the conversation during a four-hour, four-panel series of roundtable discussions at the University of Montana, called by Rehberg--he said--to learn more about forest-management issues and to look for common ground. ``Is there anything that we can all agree on?'' he asked. ``Yes,'' said paper maker Kim Liles. ``I share everyone's concern for the health, conservation and beauty of this great state. I most certainly do not want to destroy the environment.'' ``Yes,'' said environmental lawyer Tom France. ``If it's not just a rush to get timber off the hill, but a rush to do right by the land.'' ``Good,'' said Rehberg, the Republican elected in November to Montana's single seat in the House of Representatives. ``People have this preconceived notion that I have a preconceived notion about forest management. And I don't. I am serious about the consensus process.'' Collaboration can work; it can yield timber cutting and endangered-species recovery, said France, an attorney for the National Wildlife Federation in Missoula. Loggers and environmentalists have been able to look at specific pieces of land and agree upon ``appropriate timber harvest'' that ``lays lightly on the land,'' he said. ``It works best when we are discussing specific tracts of land in our own, local area.'' ``Let's start talking about salvage logging in burned areas and restoration projects in the urban-wildland interface,'' said Anne Dahl of the Swan Ecosystem Center. ``We are very capable of making good decisions as a community.'' ``We need to start over and practice sustainable forestry on the millions and millions of acres of forest land that Don't get distracted, Thompson advised, by focusing your energy on a repeal of President Clinton's roadless initiative--the last administration's controversial ban on road building and logging on 58 million acres of undeveloped national forest land. ``Many of the forest issues that we face are very polarized, very difficult,'' France said. ``They are not easily resolved by even powerful congressmen in Washington, D.C. I encourage you to focus on the places where we can actually make progress on the ground.'' Loggers--who sat with Rehberg on another of the roundtable panels--emphasized that there will be no consensus unless the discussion and decisions are local. ``To manage our national forests from an office back East is unacceptable,'' said Liles, who works at Smurfit-Stone Container Corp.'s Frenchtown linerboard plant. ``The national folks don't have to experience the economic devastation their policies cause. They don't know us or our geography. We have very good people right here in Missoula, Montana, in the Forest Service. We need to allow them to do their jobs.'' Hurst told Rehberg that federal land management policies have bankrupted his community and broken its spirit. ``Eureka, Montana, is going broke,'' he said. Earlier this month, he laid off 40 percent of his employees. Local management works, Hurst said. ``Look at Alberta, the most prosperous piece of real estate in North America. Why is that? Why is Alberta so prosperous when Montana is the Appalachian West? The key there is the province has all the control over the natural resources. The local people have control.'' Sherm Anderson, who owns Sun Mountain Logging Co., told Rehberg he could help by educating people back East about forests and how they live and grow and die. ``If I were king and could change one thing, it would be the perception that our forests--if we don't touch them--will stay the same forever,'' he said. ``You can't legislate perception,'' Rehberg said. ``But if people could understand how a forest operates,'' Anderson said, ``maybe we could get some intelligence back into our national forest management.'' Forest Service officials were not invited to participate in any of the day's roundtable talks, but several sat in the audience of more than 100 people who crowded around Rehberg and the panelists to listen. And Maggie Pittman, a spokeswoman for the agency's Northern Region office in Missoula, asked Rehberg to include agency officials next time around. ``We are thrilled that Denny Rehberg is holding this forum,'' Pittman said later. ``It's a wonderful way for Denny and his staff to get up to speed fairly quickly. We would have enjoyed a place at that table today. There are some misperceptions that we would like to talk about, but also we consider ourselves a key part of the conversation. ``Public land managers need to be part of the discussion about public land management.'' Testimony of Kim Liles Representative Rehberg, ladies and gentlemen. I am happy to be here with you today, to have an opportunity to express my concerns and that of my co-workers regarding our ability to continue to earn a living in the natural resource based industries. I am a member of The Pulp and Paperworkers' Resource Council, a grassroots organization representing over 350,000 workers in the pulp and paper, solid wood manufacturing and related industries. I am also employed by Smurfit-Stone Container and I am a member of Hellgate Local 8-0885 PACE International Union. First of all let me say that I am an environmentalist like I hope everyone in this room is. I share everyone's concern for the health and conservation of our natural resources, our environment and the beauty of our state. I hope that just because I am employed in the timber industry, people don't assume I want to destroy the environment, or degrade our environmental controls. I most certainly do not and neither do those I work with and for. We all enjoy this great state and most of us are outdoorsmen, Hunters, campers, mountain bikers, snowmobilers and fishermen. We have a vested interest in being good stewards of the land as much as anyone else. Today, America has 630 wilderness areas encompassing 102 million acres of land under federal control. The National Forest System with 155 national forests, encompassing 200 million acres of land, has in the past been guided by the concept of multiple use for sustained yield--a policy of wise conservation. These uses have always included managed timber harvesting, recreation of all sorts, including skiing, fishing, hunting, camping, snowmobiling and others. These forests have also at the same time been managed for wildlife and the environment. I as well as my co-workers and others involved in natural resource based industries are deeply concerned with the management of our public lands. To manage our National Forests and public lands from an office back east, by the stroke of a pen is unacceptable. These people do not have to live with outcome of their actions. We can be better served by people here locally and on the State level. They are in touch with the needs of the area and have the know how, ability and a vested interest in being good Stewards of the land as well. Whether we want to admit it or not this is about jobs, it's about economies, families and communities. How many school closures, plant shutdowns, and economically devastated families and Montana used to be about 7th in the nation in average per capita income. Today we are now 50th in that category. We are however #1 in one area, that being heads of households holding two jobs to support their families, a very sad commentary. In Montana since 1989, over 17 mills have been shut down, over 2,000 jobs have been eliminated. That is jobs in the timber industry alone, that is not including mining jobs and support industry jobs that have also been eliminated. The cumulative effect of extreme environmental regulations, regulatory rules and a smothering bureaucracy are having and have had a negative impact on our States economy. I submit to you that we can have both, a vibrant economy utilizing our natural resources, supplying good paying jobs and a healthy and stable environment. We need to find that balance. There is middle ground to be had here. Let common sense be a part of any and all decisions we might make regarding these issues. I am proud to say I'm a native Montanan and have lived here all of my life. I can only hope my four children can also have that opportunity. I see so many young people leaving our state today to earn a living elsewhere simply because there are no jobs that pay a living wage suitable for raising or sustaining a family. What a sad truth that is. Again, we need to find the middle ground here. It seems the pendulum has swung too far in one direction, believe me, I do not want to see it go all the way in the other direction. We need to stop it (the pendulum), in the middle. We can do that, and we must do that.

Mr. REHBERG

Mr. REHBERG. Mr. Speaker, this week, March 18 through March 24, is National Agriculture Week. Agriculture is the number one industry in my State and last week I introduced, along with the gentleman from South Dakota (Mr. Thune) and the gentlewoman from Missouri (Mrs. Emerson), two pieces of legislation that I believe will be very important in ag country. The past few years have brought widespread disasters and record low prices to the agriculture economy. These harsh conditions have prompted some farmers to call for a debate on current farm policy and others to demand a better safety net for producers. While a safety net is important to producers, especially in lean years, America's farmers and ranchers do not want to be dependent on the Federal Government for their livelihood. Consequently, the Federal Government must develop a long-term, market- oriented approach to Federal farm policy that will provide producers with the tools to help themselves, while at the same time bringing much-needed economic development to rural communities. Stakeholders in American agriculture recognize that while short-term financial assistance is helpful, long-term planning and creative and innovative opportunities are necessary in order to stem the loss of small, family-owned farms and preserve small-town economies. Encouraging agricultural producers to launch value-added enterprises will do just that by enabling farmers and ranchers to reach up the marketing chain and capture profits generated from processing their raw commodities. While producers have great interest in pooling together to add value to their raw products, two primary barriers stand in their way: first, producers often do not have the technical expertise to launch extremely complex business ventures, like value-added enterprises. Producers are experts, but they are experts in their own fields. Farmers are often outside their arena when it comes to putting together complex processing plants. Second, producers are currently cash strapped. Even if enough capital could be accumulated to initiate development of producer-owned, value- added processing, many of the consolidated players in the market could squeeze producer-owned entities out before they become profitable. Therefore, something needs to be done to level the playing field for these producers. That is why, together with the gentleman from South Dakota (Mr. Thune) and the gentlewoman from Missouri (Mrs. Emerson), I have introduced two bills to help jump-start value-added initiatives for those producers who need more help to overcome the barriers they face. The Value-Added Agriculture Development Act would grant $50 million to create agricultural innovation centers for 3 years on a demonstration basis. The ag innovation centers would provide desperately needed technical expertise, engineering, business, research and legal services to assist producers in forming producer-owned value- added endeavors. The companion bill, the Value-Added Agriculture Investment Tax Credit Act, would create a tax credit program for farmers who invest in producer-owned value-added endeavors. This program would provide an incentive to invest in value-added production by assisting cash- strapped producers. Specifically, the bill would make available a 50 percent tax credit for farmers who invest in a producer-owned value-added enterprise. Producers can apply the tax credit over 20 subsequent years or transfer the tax credit to allow for the cyclical nature of farm incomes. For example, sugar beet growers in the Yellowstone Valley in Montana have the potential to purchase the Great Western sugar refinery. This legislation could provide much-needed tax relief for the grower, turning a ``maybe'' purchase into a ``possible'' purchase. With our tax credit bill, each grower would claim as much as a $30,000 tax credit for his $60,000 investment towards the purchase of this plant. That may be enough assistance for the producers to remain in a business so important to Montana's economy. I have always said that government does not create jobs, people do. Something government can do, however, is create an environment that gives incentives to entrepreneurs and enables businesses to flourish. That is what this package of legislation does: it provides American family farmers with the tools and incentives they desperately need to transform themselves from price-takers to price-makers. Because of this, the legislation has been endorsed by the Montana Farmers Union, Montana Wool Growers, Montana Farm Bureau, Safflower Growers Associations, R-CALF, Montana Stock Growers, Mountain States Beet Growers Association of Montana, and Montana Grain Growers. Agriculture is Montana's number one industry, and what is good for agriculture is good for Montana. By developing value-added industries, we can bring some economic development to Montana and other rural States. That is good for our pocketbooks, our communities, and our way of life.

Mr. REHBERG

Mr. REHBERG. Mr. Speaker, I was unavoidably detained due to travel delays and was not able to cast a vote on rollcall No. 16. Mr. Speaker, had I been present and not unavoidably delayed I would have voted ``yea'' on this important House Concurrent Resolution.

Mr. REHBERG

Mr. REHBERG. Madam Speaker, today I introduce the Armed Services Appreciation Pay Raise Act, the ASAP Act, to increase the salaries of our dedicated service personnel by 3.5 percent this year. When combined with next year's scheduled pay increase, this act will put an additional $150 per month in their pockets. The issue should transcend politics. As long as there are military personnel collecting food stamps, as long as there are Americans who choose not to serve because they cannot afford to, we obviously have a problem that needs to be solved. More and more is being asked of the men and women in our Armed Forces, especially our active Reservists and National Guard members who have shouldered an increasing burden through our military draw-down. But we have not appropriately rewarded them for their increasingly important role in our national defense. Madam Speaker, I promised the people of Montana that recognizing the contribution of our young men and women in uniform would be the first legislation I introduced as a United States Congressman. Today, I am proud to honor that commitment by introducing the ASAP Act.