Denny Rehberg

Mr. REHBERG

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

Mr. REHBERG. I continue to reserve, Mr. Chairman. Parliamentary Inquiry

Mr. REHBERG. I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to my good friend from Georgia (Mr. Kingston).

Mr. REHBERG. I yield the gentleman an additional 15 seconds.

Mr. REHBERG. Mr. Chairman, at this time I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to another physician who clearly understands the cost of health care, the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Gingrey).

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

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

Mr. REHBERG

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

Mr. REHBERG

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

Mr. REHBERG. Mr. Chairman, I just want to real briefly say I was here when it was created. I was a congressional staffer. And talk about the law of unintended consequences. I might point out the people from the other side of the aisle fought us on the creation of the Equal Access to Justice law. It was never intended to be used for the purposes it is currently being used for. So I guess I'd better apologize to the people of America for having been a supporter of Equal Access to Justice. And, in fact, as a staffer, I helped talked my Congressman that I worked for into it. I was his small business aide; his name was Congressman Ron Marlenee of Montana. I helped talk him into it because it made sense. It was supposed to give an opportunity for small business to be able to counter the lawsuits that were going to occur against them by the government coming in oftentimes with frivolous regulations. The other side has figured how to turn it into a jobs bill for trial lawyers. They very effectively, in the Endangered Species Act and some of the other environmental acts, figured out how to use it to stop development within the United States. So, unfortunately, in about the early 90s, we, as small business advocates, were the ones that helped push this through. The only group at that time that was exempt was the IRS. We wanted everybody to be under this law, giving the small businesses an opportunity to protect themselves. It has been twisted. They have done everything they possibly can to turn an industry into suing on behalf of people and then making money off it. It never was intended for this purpose. We need to get back to its original purpose. It would be fun to go back and find out how some of the people that are talking about what a great law it is now, whether they were supporters at the time because, if I remember correctly as a young congressional staffer, a lot of the people that are supporting it today were our biggest opponents back in the early 80s when we wanted to create this on behalf of small business. So I hope you will support the Congresswoman's amendment. I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. REHBERG. As chairman of the Committee on Appropriations Subcommittee on Education, we have no objections to this amendment. I have often said--jokingly, of course--that the reason the Internet is so successful in America is that the government hasn't figured out how to screw it up yet. Well, they are doing everything they can to screw up education. We can finally get an institution or a structure that is able to move very quickly to meet the needs of students, and this government is trying to create a bureaucracy to keep them from being successful, and it's inappropriate. The Department of Education is attempting to define, through a new regulation, what it means for someone graduating from a proprietary school to be gainfully employed. Wouldn't that be nice if we applied that same standard to our public school system around the country, that our students had to be gainfully employed before they received any money? This is a prime example of Federal overreach. Fear of this regulation is having a real economic impact now even before it goes into effect. Schools are already scaling back program offerings because of the threat of this ``gainful employment'' regulation. And if it goes final, approximately 5.4 million students could be shut out of higher education by 2020. Portions of the regulation are set to go into effect July 1, 2011, so it is necessary to include this language in the continuing resolution. Waiting for the fiscal year 2012 appropriations process will be too late for these schools. Business groups ranging from the National Restaurant Association and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce support this as well as various State Chamber of Commerces. They all support the amendment and oppose the regulation. I hope you do the same. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. REHBERG

Mr. REHBERG. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order on the gentlelady's amendment.

Mr. REHBERG. Mr. Chairman, the amendment proposes a net increase in budget authority in the bill. The amendment is not in order under section 3(j)(3) of House Resolution 5, 112th Congress, which states: ``It shall not be in order to consider an amendment to a general appropriations bill proposing a net increase in budget authority in the bill unless considered en bloc with another amendment or amendments proposing an equal or greater decrease in such budget authority pursuant to clause 2(f) of rule XXI.'' The amendment proposes a net increase in budget authority in the bill in violation of such section.

Mr. REHBERG. Mr. Chairman, the amendment is not in order under section 3(j)(3) of House Resolution 5, 112th Congress, which states: ``It shall not be in order to consider an amendment to a general appropriations bill proposing a net increase in budget authority in the bill unless considered en bloc with another amendment or amendments proposing an equal or greater decrease in such budget authority pursuant to clause 2(f) of rule XXI.'' The amendment proposes a net increase in budget authority in the bill in violation of such section. Again, Mr. Chairman, I ask for a ruling of the Chair.

Mr. REHBERG. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order on the gentlewoman's amendment.

Mr. REHBERG. Mr. Chairman, the amendment proposes a net increase in budget authority in the bill. The amendment is not in order under section 3(j)(3) of House Resolution 5, 112th Congress, which states: ``It shall not be in order to consider an amendment to a general appropriations bill proposing a net increase in budget authority in the bill unless considered en bloc with another amendment or amendments proposing an equal or greater decrease in such budget authority pursuant to clause 2(f) of rule XXI.'' The amendment proposes a net increase in budget authority in the bill in violation of such section. I ask for a ruling of the Chair.

Mr. REHBERG. Madam Chairman, I reserve a point of order on the gentleman's amendment.

Mr. REHBERG. Madam Chair, the amendment proposes a net increase in the budget authority in the bill. The amendment is not in order under 3(j)(3) of House Resolution 5, 112th Congress, which states: ``It shall not be in order to consider an amendment to a general appropriations bill proposing a net increase in budget authority in the bill unless considered en bloc with another amendment or amendments proposing an equal or greater decrease in such budget authority pursuant to clause 2(f) of rule XXI.'' The amendment proposes a net increase in budget authority in the bill in violation of such section.

Mr. REHBERG. Madam Chair, I reserve a point of order on the gentleman's amendment.

Mr. REHBERG. Madam Chair, the amendment proposes a net increase in budget authority in the bill. The amendment is not in order under section 3(j)(3) of House Resolution 5, 112th Congress, which states: ``It shall not be in order to consider an amendment to a general appropriations bill proposing a net increase in budget authority in the bill unless considered en bloc with another amendment or amendments proposing an equal or greater decrease in such budget authority pursuant to clause 2(f) of rule XXI.'' The amendment proposes a net increase in budget authority in the bill in violation of such section.

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

Mr. REHBERG. We accept this amendment. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. REHBERG. I reserve a point of order on the gentleman's amendment.

Mr. REHBERG

Mr. REHBERG. I make a point of order against the amendment because it proposes to change existing law and constitutes legislation in an appropriation bill and, therefore, violates clause 2 of rule XXI. The rule states in pertinent part: ``An amendment to a general appropriation bill shall not be in order if changing existing law.'' The amendment directly amends existing law. I ask for a ruling from the Chair.