Denny Rehberg

Mr. REHBERG

Mr. REHBERG. Mr. Chairman, here we are addressing an issue we have addressed many times over the last several years. I find myself in a precarious position because I do support the agriculture appropriations bill, and I think the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Bonilla) deserves a pat on the back for the fine work he has accomplished over the last several months in putting this piece of legislation together. The issue I am talking about today is country-of-origin labeling. The thing we cannot kid ourselves about is that the actions that were taken within the Committee on Appropriations will effectively delay country- of-origin labeling's implementation, but, unfortunately, it probably kills it because there is that attempt that is occurring. This was an issue supported by the House of Representatives and passed, supported by the Senate and passed, and ultimately signed by the President of the United States. What I find ironic is the opponents say this would be costly, difficult to implement, and it is not a safety issue. I brought along a number of articles today that kind of take the wind out of the sails of that argument. I find interesting that, in the Auburn Journal in northern California, one of the areas that has been allowed to be implemented is seafood. Fruits and vegetables are shortly behind. The only ones that are not being able to be implemented are cattle. So I draw Members' attention to an article in the Auburn Journal dated May 25, 2005. What this article says is, ``Seafood savvy now know where their meal grew up.'' It states, ``In the seafood section at Raley's supermarket, small blue containers line the shelves, filled with red and tan fish. Labels on the clear wrappers give traditional information about the seafood type and nutritional facts. In the bottom right-hand corner, however, a new label is attached: a small white rectangle with bold black print that reads `Product of Ecuador,' `Product of China,' or `Product of U.S.A.' ``Raley's has been labeling its seafood products since January, said Keith Allen, Auburn Raley's meat department manager. While the burden of labeling falls on grocers, it has not been difficult for the meat department staff to adjust to the change. `It is just a matter of putting the sticker on the package,' he said Monday. ``By naming the country of origin, the labels give savvy customers the opportunity to choose fish from countries with high sanitation standards and better growing conditions. Several customers have already commented on the change, Allen said. ``Annette Eastman, shopping at Raley's Tuesday morning, said she was glad to see the new labels. She would prefer not to buy seafood from countries such as Mexico because she worries that the quality of the water where the fish that are raised is poor. `` `I would much rather buy something from the U.S.A.,' she said, pointing to the fish fillet labeled `Product of the U.S.A.' Another shopper, Tammieh Vernon, also said the labels would influence her seafood purchases.'' Interesting as well, I pulled this article off the Internet. The title: Country-of-origin labeling good news for Texas shrimp enthusiasts. May 15, 2005. ``Texans who are picky about where their shrimp comes from can now rest assured that they are getting exactly what they want. As of April 4, labeling of fish and shellfish for country of origin and method of production became mandatory. The announcement by the USDA requires retailers to notify their customers of the country of origin of the seafood they buy. `` `It is a win/win situation for Texas,' said Agriculture Commissioner Susan Combs. `Texans love to buy Texas products, and this way they will know they are getting the quality they love. In turn, sales will increase, providing a boost to Texas shrimp producers and the State's economy.' ``With these new rules and regulations, more Texas consumers will have the opportunity to buy Lone Star State shrimp. This new regulation enables consumers to quickly differentiate between domestic and imported products, said D'Anne Stites, Texas Department of Agriculture's coordinator. ``Country-of-origin labeling or COOL regulations will make marketing easier as customers can see firsthand what they are getting. Stites said, `Consumers will be able to ask for Texas shrimp with the knowledge of what is available in front of them.' '' So it is a marketing issue, very clearly. But I think the people of America want to know where their livestock does in fact come from. It was interesting to see that Japan shut our markets down on Christmas Eve of 2003 and still have not opened them. Unfortunately, 23 percent of our exports go to Japan. And why did they not open their markets and why did they close them in the first place? Because we could not prove that our livestock that we are exporting to Japan did not come from Canada. So it is not a trade issue. In some ways, it is a safety issue; and that is unfortunate. I might also point out on May 25 of this year the USDA closed its border to cattle from Durango, Mexico. Agriculture Secretary Mike Johanns on Tuesday announced that USDA Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service has closed the U.S. border to cattle from Mexico's state of Durango due to inadequate health inspection programs there. The ACTING Chairman. The gentleman's time has expired.

Mr. REHBERG. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. REHBERG. Mr. Chairman, I yield 10 seconds to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey).

Mr. REHBERG. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from South Dakota (Ms. Herseth).

Mr. REHBERG. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentlewoman from Oregon (Ms. Hooley).

Mr. REHBERG. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Wyoming (Mrs. Cubin).

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

Mr. REHBERG. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. As my colleagues noticed, this is about marketing essentially, and it is about the fact that an entire industry was created in places like Texas to take advantage of cheap Mexican calves, bringing them across the border, fattening them up, and selling them in our food system without any knowledge of where they come from. Born, raised, and processed means we are proud of USA agriculture, USA livestock. There is an unintended consequence, Mr. Chairman. The unintended consequence is the gentleman from Texas's (Mr. Ortiz) very own State loves the country-of-origin labeling that was mandated by that same farm bill on fish. I will read one more time that quote: ``It's a win- win situation for Texas,'' said Agriculture Commissioner Susan Combs. ``Texans love to buy Texas products, and this way they'll know they're getting the quality they love. In turn, sales will increase, providing a boost to Texas shrimp producers and the State's economy.'' They love it when it works to their advantage. They are opposed to it when they think it might change something. This is a good piece of legislation. It may not, it may not be a health issue to the gentleman from Texas, but it obviously is a health issue to some of our trading partners. On December 23, when the cow was found in the State of Washington that had Mad Cow disease, it took exactly 24 hours for 60 of our trading partners to shut off our exports, 60 of them. One-third have now reopened those markets. Our largest export market has not, and that is Japan. So it is a health issue with them. The problem that exists right now, and it was very quietly done, but on May 21, as I mentioned before, the state of Durango in Mexico can no longer send live cattle to the United States along the Texas border because they were mixing cattle between two regions within their state, one that has the ability to be exported and the other that does not. These are the trading partners that are sending us their livestock that we do not have the ability to label where it came from. Unfortunately, bovine TB is contagious, infectious, and a communicable disease. It affects cattle, bison, deer, elk, goats, and other species, including humans, and it could be fatal. We want to know where our livestock came from. Is it so simple that we cannot understand that we currently exempt some of the issues or some of the products like beads and ball bearings and bolts and nuts and buttons, feathers, hair nets? There are not many exceptions to the labeling laws in this country: rags, ribbons, screws, sponges, wicking, candle, and livestock. Livestock because it is about the pocketbook. I am here to stand before the Members today and ask them to support the amendment. Give us the opportunity to show that labeling livestock will be met with the same kind of enthusiasm by the consumer and those of us who are truly cattle producers. I am a producer. I still have to deal with this. Perhaps I will have to pay for it. But I know the American consumer will want the opportunity to purchase my livestock because I know where it came from. It is a closed herd. It was born, it was raised, and it is processed in America. That is what makes America great, is the opportunity to label. Voluntary does not work. If voluntary worked, we would be doing it now. But it does not. Why? Because the meat processors and the supermarkets will not allow us the opportunity to have it labeled. They say they can. They say they might. But we cannot make them, and when we cannot make them, we have no influence nor ability to do it. Fruits and nuts will soon have country-of-origin labeling as well. It has been allowed to move forward, and what they did is they segregated our support for country-of-origin labeling. They let the fish go. The Texas producers love it. They let fruits and nuts go. California and the rest of the producers will like it. But they will not let livestock go for purely economic reasons. It is time we send a message to those that are standing in the way and allow us the opportunity to tell the American consumer born, raised, and processed in America means something. Buy American. (Mr. HAYES asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks at this point in the Record.)

Mr. REHBERG. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. REHBERG

Mr. REHBERG. Mr. Speaker, I would like to call attention to one of my favorite cities in America: Bozeman, Montana. Nestled in the scenic Bridger mountain range, Bozeman draws visitors from around the world for its first-class outdoor recreational activities. Yet it is more than a gateway to Montana's natural splendor. It is a dynamic center of commerce. A recent study by the American Cities Business Journal named Bozeman as the best small-business market in the United States among cities with fewer than 100,000 people. This comes as no surprise since Bozeman has first-rate public schools, has become a center of science and technology in its home to Montana State University. Bozeman is the kind of community where parents can let children play in the neighborhoods and where people still wave and say hello when one passes them on the street. The experts have now discovered what many of us in Montana already knew: Bozeman is a place with everything a business needs to succeed. I congratulate the city of Bozeman for becoming the best small business market in the country.

Mr. REHBERG

Mr. REHBERG. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Idaho for taking on this issue which is something that Montana has been calling for since the early eighties. When we finally got an appointment to the Ninth Circuit, we threw a party. We had not had one since the Kennedy era. It is not about economic ties. I am not going to make the argument that I do not like the decisions that they make. In fact, I do not have to make the argument. The U.S. Supreme Court made the argument when they overturned 24 or 25 other cases. But there is a precedent within the United States for reapportioning the work, and it is called the United States Congress. It is no surprise that the judges do not like it. Who less likes reapportionment than United States Congressmen? We are the ones who complain the most, except in my case; I represent the whole State, so I cannot complain. But the State of California would love nothing more than to create the Supreme Court West. Back in the eighties when we tried to get it, all the appointments were going to California. We had a problem with our President at the time. We tried to make the argument. Economic ties. If you want to make the argument about economic ties, what social and economic ties does Montana have to California other than the fact they are coming up and buying our property? The biggest problems that we have within the State of Montana are Federal problems that need to be addressed as locally as possible. I give great credit to Justice Sid Thomas who has now brought people to Montana to hear these cases. Why? Because he recognized as a matter of fairness that Montana deserved every bit as much of a right to have those cases heard in Montana as it did in California. It makes logical sense to divide up the court. It makes logical sense. In the executive branch, when the populations shift, usually the needs shift. What do we do with the bureaucracy? And I do not mean that in the negative term. The bureaucracy usually moves to where the issue or the problem is existing. In the judiciary, it does not seem to do that. Why do the lawyers vote overwhelmingly not to split it? They are not stupid. They are not going to go against a judge that may someday judge against their case. They are covering their rear ends. So it makes logical sense. Montana has been asking for it. Now is the time. I thank the gentleman from Idaho for sponsoring this legislation.

Mr. REHBERG

Mr. REHBERG. Mr. Speaker, today the House will consider H.R. 5009, legislation to extend water service contracts between the United States and specific water users in Montana. The bill is non-controversial and the House Resources Committee unanimously passed H.R. 5009 on September 22, 2004. My legislation affects 5 water entities in central and southwest Montana, including the City of Helena and 4 specific irrigation contractors. It permits the Bureau of Reclamation and these local water entities to extend their existing long-term water service contracts for up to another 2 years, so that the parties may negotiate new long-term contracts. This bill is a legislative fix to a bureaucratic situation. Most of the contracts addressed in my legislation are due to expire on December 31, 2004. Contract renewal negotiations between these local water districts and the Bureau of Reclamation have been delayed by Missouri River Endangered Species Act studies and other issues. Without this legislation, the water service contracts would expire at the end of the year and the local entities would lose significant water service. The contract extensions will maintain the current water supply for the specified areas under the current terms and conditions during the renegotiation process. I urge my colleagues to support this important measure and vote in favor of maintaining water supply in Montana.

Mr. REHBERG

Mr. REHBERG. Mr. Speaker, I'd like to submit this article from the Daily Interlake in Kalispell, Montana for the Record. The Plum Creek Timber Company, Inc. is the second largest private timberland owner in the United States, including 1.3 million acres in my home state of Montana. Last month, Plum Creek received the Patriot Award for contributing to national security through its personnel policies that support employee participation in the National Guard and Reserve. On May 19, 2004, Brigadier General Randy Mosley of the Montana Army National Guard visited Plum Creek's Columbia Falls, Montana office and presented the award, on behalf of the Department of Defense, to Art Vail, Flathead Unit Manager; Tom Ray, General Manager of Resources; and Hank Ricklefs, Vice President of Manufactured Products. Plum Creek Senior Forester, Don Sneck from the Flathead Unit submitted the nomination for the award but was unable to attend the ceremony because he is presently serving in Iraq. He has served in the guard for 20 years and today flies a helicopter air ambulance, evacuating injured soldiers from southern Iraq to Kuwait. This is Don's third deployment in the last two years. I congratulate Plum Creek on receiving this prestigious award and thank Don for his hard work on behalf of Plum Creek, his home state of Montana and his country. [From the Daily Inter Lake, May 20, 2004] Plum Creek Honored for Soldier Support (By Candace Chase) Brig. Gen. Randy Mosley of the Montana Army National Guard brought certificates and thanks Wednesday to Plum Creek Timber Co. in Columbia Falls. The company and three of its executives received patriot awards for contributing to national security by supporting their employee citizen soldiers. Don Sneck, an employee and deployed guardsman, submitted their nominations. Mosley honored Henry Ricklefs, vice president of manufactured goods; Tom Ray, general manager of resources; and Art Vail, Flathead unit manager. They received certificates at a management meeting in the Plum Creek board room. In remarks before the ceremony, Mosley said he couldn't over-emphasize the importance of an employer's support for deployed soldiers in Iraq. ``It's an environment fraught with danger and uncertainty,'' he said. ``We want to concentrate on what is in front of them.'' Sneck couldn't attend the ceremony he initiated because he still serves in Iraq. Mosley said Sneck flies a helicopter air ambulance, evacuating injured soldiers from southern Iraq to Kuwait. ``There is no better sight than an air ambulance coming in,'' Mosley said. According to Mosley, Sneck has served in the guard for 20 years. His unit has deployed three times in the last two years. When not called to active duty, Sneck works as a senior forester at Plum Creek Timber. Another Plum Creek employee soldier did attend the patriot award ceremony. Staff Sgt. Tavia Syme of the 889th Quartermaster Co. has returned to her job after deploying in Iraq. The reservist said she worked in water purification. Syme said she had a tough time adjusting to heels in her administrative assistant job after 14 months in combat boots. Syme estimated that about 20 to 25 others perform double duty as Plum Creek employees and part-time soldiers. She said she appreciated her company's support as expressed in regularly shipped care packages of goodies such as pretzels, jerky, hard candy and greeting cards. The company also sponsored a welcome-home brunch for Syme. As part of the award ceremony, the general showed a video called ``A Soldier's Journey'' which documented the experiences of soldiers like Syme before and during recent deployments. ``These are all Montanans--all soldiers who deployed,'' Mosley said. ``Some are still deployed.'' The general said that the nation intentionally organized the armed services with dependence on the Reserves and Guard. Once viewed as a strategic reserve, Mosley said changing times now require citizen soldiers to deploy in seven days or less. ``All of a sudden you receive a phone call and your world is turned upside down,'' he said. According to Mosley, the country has now deployed the largest force of reserves and guardsmen since World War II. ``This doesn't work without the support of their bosses,'' he said. Mosley serves as assistant adjutant general for the Montana Army National Guard.

Mr. REHBERG

Mr. REHBERG. Madam Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Madam Chairman, oftentimes I think that maybe Montana creates some of its own problems for itself because we encourage people to come to Montana and make movies like ``A River Runs Through It'' or ``The Horse Whisperer'' and do stories on Jeremiah Johnson, but it gives an unnatural opinion or vision to people on the east coast that frankly shocks me. I just do not understand how anybody that truly loves their park could support an amendment like this. I was Lieutenant Governor before I was a Congressman so I was intimately involved in the negotiations on this process. I am also a land manager. I make my living understanding the mineral cycle and the water cycle, understanding what it is like to overgraze and undergraze and overlog and underlog, that there are various cycles that exist within society. So if I could put it to the sponsors in language that they can understand, maybe I ought to talk like Ranger Rick and suggest to them that when a bull and a cow get together, they have calves. And when you have calves, eventually you overpopulate. They have used the number 4,000 killed. That is over 20 years. Last year three were shot, because they needed to be. Nobody wants to shoot them. But some of them are uncontrollable. But the problem is 40 percent of the herd in Yellowstone Park are infected with brucellosis. Do you not care enough about your bison to want to have a healthy herd? They abort their calves. They kill their own calves because of a health issue. The proponents are loving their park to death. Give us the opportunity to use the memorandum of understanding that is in place to manage the herd for the betterment of the park. What are the odds of getting Bruce Babbitt, Glickman, and Mark Racicot in the same room and getting them to sign an agreement? It is called the consensus process. In fact, it was so good, we set up a consensus council in Montana to keep people from divvying in the corners and suing their way back out, to find middle ground. They liked it so well, Mr. Glickman and Mr. Racicot, that they have asked me to carry legislation in Congress to create a national consensus council, to bring this kind of a solution to the national level. There are a number of things I want to talk about real quickly. One is human health. It is called undulate fever. One gets it, and it is a strain of brucellosis, from lifestock, sometimes elk, sometimes bison, sometimes cattle. One gets it, they have it forever. And it shows up in the CDC right next to anthrax in severity. It is a bacteria, not a virus. Brucellosis through humans is called undulate fever, and it is right up there with anthrax. Herd health: 13,000 elk in Yellowstone Park and the surrounding area have brucellosis. It is another problem we are going to have to address. This is going to get even more expensive to try to solve. We cannot ignore the elk problem that have brucellosis as well. Cattle: This is strictly a matter of prevention. Is it not interesting we have 93 million head of beef in America today and we had one case of mad cow, one mad cow situation in the State of Washington. And look at all the protocol we are putting in place today to try to keep it from entering into the human food chain and into the livestock food chain, but when we have 50 percent of the herd in Yellowstone Park, it does not seem to be a problem because it is the icon. It certainly is to us as well, but we want a healthy herd. No degradation to the ecosystem? To my friend from Virginia, maybe his natural resource management skill is mowing his lawn, but he ought to go out and take a look at Yellowstone and see what the over 4,000 head of bison are doing to their riparian area. They are eating the grass down to nothing. They are creating a parking lot along those rivers and streams. They are overpopulated. The reason the National Academy of Science established a figure of between 2,300 and 3,000 head is that there is a finite ecosystem. They cannot overpopulate because if they overpopulate, they destroy their environment. If we managed federal properties on the Bureau of Land Management properties with cattle the way the National Park Service is ignoring the overpopulation, you would throw us in jail because we are overpopulating and we are destroying the environment.

Mr. REHBERG. I yield to the gentleman from Washington.

Mr. REHBERG. I have not.

Mr. REHBERG. Madam Chairman, the gentleman makes my point exactly because if we could tell the wolves to stay behind the fence the same way we are trying to expect the bison to respect the fences of Yellowstone Park, we would not have a problem. Reintroduce the wolves into Yellowstone Park. The problem exists when they get outside of Yellowstone Park and they start decimating domestic herds, taking away the livelihood of Montana families who are just trying to pay for their kids in schools and their college education and their shoes for their families as well.

Mr. REHBERG. Madam Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?

Mr. REHBERG. Madam Chairman, I have all the sympathy in the world for Wyoming losing its brucellosis status, because you know as well as I do it costs millions of dollars to prove to everyone again that you are brucellosis free. So you have got a situation that I do not envy and we do not want to happen. And that makes the point exactly. Why are we doing what we are doing with mad cow with the one case in Washington? Because of the devastating effect it could have. It is all a matter of preservation and prevention and protection of it occurring. Now, one of the points that was made is there is no proof. Well, that is part of the difficulty. We want Yellowstone Park to be as natural as possible. You have to actually physically, visually be there to see it occur. So we do not know where it is coming from. But we do know, through common sense, that it can be transferred from elk to cattle and bison to cattle. So rather than it even occurring, as my colleague from Wyoming clearly understands, you spend the money and you take the time and the effort to see that it does not happen. How can anybody argue with wanting to have the most healthy herd of bison in Yellowstone Park and ultimately the most healthy herd of elk in the greater Yellowstone area, which is what we are attempting to accomplish?

Mr. REHBERG. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I oppose this amendment. Oftentimes in Montana I have to try to go back and explain some of the dumb things that Congress does, and I usually explain to them that we are a reflection of society, that there is no literacy test to run for Congress. They usually think that is pretty humorous. But unfortunately there seems to be no common sense test and sometimes in the courts as well. This is one of those times when I am glad not to be a lawyer, because as I look at the dueling cases that are occurring in the court, I look at the kinds of decisions the judge made in Washington, D.C. And I invited this judge to come to Montana and actually take off his robe, get out from behind the desk and come out and learn something about what he is deciding on, as opposed to other judge who lives out there who understands the problem. On November 20 of 2003, the district court judge back here in the case involving the limited use of snowmobiles in Yellowstone Park implied that the U.S. Government should consider strapping respirators on the resident bison of the park. Let me just read some of the dialogue that occurred between the judge and a witness. ``What about the animals? How are they protected? I mean how are their breathing abilities protected? If the park rangers are provided respirators,'' which they did not need them, by the way, that was a gimmick, ``what are the animals provided? Is there a safe haven for them somewhere? For the bison. ``Well, has anyone studied that, though?'' This is the judge. ``I mean in the film I saw, that's part of the evidentiary record. It was a 6-minute film.'' A film, by the way, that was inaccurately put together by the animal rights people. ``Have you seen that?'' he said. ``I saw bison being herded by snowmobilers.'' I hope not because it is illegal and somebody should have done something about that. ``Has anyone conducted any study on the impact of the quality of air they're breathing while being herded by snowmobilers?'' ``Shouldn't there have been, though? That's a major concern, that the bison are dying off.'' They are not dying off. And in fact, in 1963 there were 400. Now there are 4,000. They have overpopulated themselves. ``Especially if the park rangers have respirators. They don't have respirators, obviously. What do they have?'' If this judge is so impressed by inaccurate films, I would hate to be the one to tell him there is no Yogi Bear and Boo Boo out there either. He ought to get his facts straight before he decides to judge on something so very important. Listen to what the Court decided in Montana, a new winter access plan. As a result of many, many years of discussion and testimony and compromise and consensus, they came up with the idea that less than 1 percent of the entire park could have snowmobiles on it. There are 2.2 million acres; and at about 180,000 acres, you can actually hear snowmobiles. You have to be on the snow-covered road, in single file, less than 35 miles an hour, with a guide. When it was unlimited, it got up to a number of 1,100. They have capped it at 780, and they have gone beyond that, and they have said it cannot go into one entrance at the 780 per year, you have to spread them around; and they set the numbers for the four entrances into the park. It does not bother the wildlife. In fact, as we were looking at the picture, the snowcoach and the bison standing next to each other, a gentleman behind me said perhaps they ought to check that snowcoach for brucellosis, as close as it is. They are not afraid of these machines. Go out there and find out; you will see it for yourself. In 4 decades, not one single violation of clean air standards. I saw a handout sent, a Dear Colleague, that suggested 250 miles of snowmobile trails. Yes, there are, in Yellowstone Park. 14,000 miles of snowmobile trails in Idaho, Montana, and Wyoming. Well, see, the sponsors of this amendment do not understand the difference between recreational snowmobiling and sight-seeing and destination points. The 250 miles of trails in the park matter, because they are to places like Old Faithful, Tower Falls, Paintpot, Geyser Basin. They are destinations where people want to go and look at these opportunities. The final point is, look what you are doing to the communities. Over the years, we encouraged West Yellowstone, the Jackson area, Gardner, Cody to become gateway communities, to set up the infrastructure so they would not have to be built in the park; to create the motels, to create the restaurants, to create the gift shops, to create the recreational opportunities for the sightseeing to become available. Then what comes along? Somebody that does not want to reasonably consider the fact that they have to pay for their children's clothes, for their children's education, for their retirement. They come in and say we are going to cut you in half. We are taking half of your income away. Our communities cannot withstand that. I hope someday they understand the kind of devastation they have created for these communities and these families with this kind of legislation. I hope this judge will get out from behind his desk, come out to Montana, accept my invitation, and actually learn something, use some common sense, rather than making the kinds of inquiries that I hope were a joke about putting respirators on bison.

Mr. REHBERG. I yield to the gentleman from Minnesota.

Mr. REHBERG. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I want to point out my statistic, it is less than 1 percent of Yellowstone Park you will be able to hear snowmobiles, it is .082. I might remind some of my colleagues throughout Congress that there are other parks that have snowmobiling, and they will get you next. North Carolina; Washington has four; Maine; Colorado has four; Oregon; Pennsylvania; North Dakota; Ohio; California; Wisconsin has two; Iowa; Utah has two; and Michigan. Trust me, you are next.

Mr. REHBERG

Mr. REHBERG. Mr. Speaker, I remember working in Washington during Ronald Reagan's transition in 1980. It was heartening to see the change in attitude and renewed patriotism among the public and in Washington. You see, in those days so many Americans felt discouraged about their government and their future. And then the sheriff rode into town. He brought with him a wholesome, Western perspective. His optimism was contagious, and he had a love for this country and its people as big and as colorful as the Montana sky. His was a kind of hope that people hadn't seen in our Nation since well before Vietnam, Watergate, and the tough economic times that he came to vanquish. ``Sheriff'' Reagan's determination and infectious charm disarmed this town of its grip on the American taxpayer, in favor of limited government, free enterprise, and a renewed faith in the power of the American Dream. Abroad, our President's unwavering stand for liberty brought down the Iron Curtain, ended the Cold War, and helped restore freedom to millions of people around the world. He made us--made me-- proud to be an American. Several years ago, that sense of pride motivated me to successfully lead the effort in Montana to change the name of our annual Republican Lincoln Day Dinners to Lincoln-Reagan Day Dinners, in honor of the two greatest Republicans, Abraham Lincoln and, of course, Ronald Reagan.

Mr. REHBERG

Mr. REHBERG. There is an old adage, the louder your opponents protest, the more you know you are successful with what you are doing. That is exactly what is happening with Medicare's new prescription drug coverage. Those who voted against the new prescription drug benefit are protesting what we have done because they do not think seniors are smart enough or capable enough to choose the prescription drug plan that is best for them. They want the program to fail for preliminary reasons. All these protests are designed to draw attention away from the fact that for the first time more than 7 million low income seniors and younger people with disabilities are now eligible for much needed assistance. According to the National Council on Aging, a national voluntary network of organizations and individuals dedicated to improving health and independence of our seniors, low income Medicare beneficiaries should absolutely apply for a new Medicare approved drug discount card and its $600 annual transition assistance benefit. Despite the shrill protests of those who voted against it and want it to fail, the power to save on prescription drugs is now in the hands of the seniors, and Republicans will help.