Congressman Denny Rehberg

Offers further insight into public concerns with healthcare

BILLINGS, MT - Montana’s Congressman, Denny Rehberg, today sent a letter to Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius following her visit to Montana to discuss the health care legislation that was signed into law earlier this year. Polls at the time of passage indicated that Montanans strongly opposed the measure, and recent reports indicate that time has not improved the bill’s popularity. Rehberg has sponsored legislation to repeal the bill.

“I wish the authors of Obamacare had taken the time to listen to Montanans before they passed it instead of after, but I’m glad that they’re finally willing to hear what the folks I’ve been hearing from for years have to say,” said Rehberg, a member of the Health and Human Services Appropriations Subcommittee. “Americans still need health care reform that addresses costs and access, and unfortunately, the bill that passed addresses neither for rural states like Montana. At this point, the easiest solution is to start from scratch.”

Rehberg, who was the only member of Montana’s delegation to hold open, public meetings in Montana as the health care reform law was drafted and passed, cited the public sentiment he heard at those meetings as the justification for his vote. That negative public sentiment was also reflected in statewide polls, that indicated strong opposition to the bill.

“Unfortunately, the unpopularity of Obamacare is only a symptom of the serious deficiencies in the bill itself,” said Rehberg. “Far from fixing the problems we face, this job-killing bill makes things worse by hamstringing the economy and targeting small businesses for increased regulation and expenses.”

Letter:

Dear Secretary Sebelius,

Thank you for taking the time to visit Big Sky Country and discuss the health care needs of rural Montana. While it certainly would have been preferable for you to discuss the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA) with Montanans before it was actually passed into law, I’m pleased you got a chance to talk to folks in a couple of communities.

As I’m sure you heard during your visit, quality health care is particularly challenging in a state like Montana where less than one million people are spread over 147,000 square miles. Having held 72 open and public listening sessions in Montana this Congressional term alone, I would like to share with you some of the rural health concerns I’ve heard from around the state.

As with most of the country, Montana’s economy is driven by small businesses which provide more than 98 percent of the jobs in our state. I have heard from a wide variety of small business owners who have expressed concern about the new obligations contained in the PPACA. Whether it’s the mandate to offer health insurance, new taxes on Health Savings Accounts (HSAs) and Flexible Savings Accounts (FSAs), increased insurance premiums, or the requirement that all vendors are responsible for additional IRS paperwork for purchases of $600 or greater, many businesses have stopped hiring or are being forced to reduce their workforce to comply with these new obligations. In short, these burdensome obligations impact job creation.

I have also heard from many of Montana’s seniors and their doctors with concerns about Medicare. Not only does the PPACA cut $575 billion from Medicare, the new law does nothing to deal with the most pressing issue facing Medicare today – the need for a permanent fix to the reimbursement rate cuts for doctors providing service to Medicare patients. Many doctors have told me that if these cuts go into effect they will no longer be able to afford to offer services to their Medicare patients. In a state where some patients must travel for hours to reach their doctor, it may be impossible to find an alternative provider.

Additionally, I have heard concerns about the cost of the new high risk pool program. We discussed this when you testified before the House Labor, Health and Human Services, Education Appropriations Subcommittee earlier this year. While I agree that changes are necessary to address the health insurance needs of those with pre-existing conditions, current estimates indicate this temporary program is going to cost up to three times the original estimate of $5 billion. It’s unclear how you intend to pay for this shortfall. Furthermore, because this estimate was so inaccurate I have serious concerns as to the accuracy of the cost estimates of permanent programs.

Many of my constituents are also opposed to the individual mandate to purchase health insurance. As you know, a recent ballot initiative in Missouri found that 71 percent of voters opposed the individual mandate. While no such equivalent survey has been conducted in Montana, it only takes one open, public listening session to realize that folks here share this concern.

Thank you again for visiting Montana. I hope you’ll keep the thoughts of Montanans in mind as we continue to address the problems facing America’s health care system.

WASHINGTON, D.C. – Montana’s Congressman, Denny Rehberg, today released the following statement after Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi called members back to Washington to vote on yet another multi-billion bailout.

“While Montana’s economy continues to hemorrhage jobs and our families struggle to pay their bills, Speaker Pelosi summoned Congress back to Washington to force a vote on yet another bailout for her home state of California, a state that has been unwilling to make the tough fiscal decisions necessary to balance its budget. Montana has a balanced budget, so it’s beyond insulting to be forced to pay off California’s debts. But that’s exactly what Speaker Pelosi is asking taxpayers to do. Montana’s families know that you shouldn’t balance the checkbook with a credit card. If your checking account is overdrawn, the painful reality is you’ve got to spend less. There is no justification for what Nancy Pelosi is doing to taxpayers.”

BILLINGS, MT – Montana’s Congressman, Denny Rehberg, today contacted Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano urging her to immediately freeze additional funding for the soon-to-be-one-way Port of Entry at Whitetail in Montana and to conduct a review before completing the $8.5 million project. The funding for the port has been a matter of national criticism for some time, all the more now that Canada has decided to close its side of the port, effectively making the port available only for Canadian entry into the United States.

“After hearing from the folks who live in northeast Montana, I can say that despite the popular myth that government waste is embraced by those who are supposed to benefit from it, Montanans aren’t happy about how their tax dollars are being wasted,” said Rehberg, a member of the House Appropriations Committee. “$8.5 million is too much to spend for a press release and a ribbon cutting ceremony, and at this point, that looks to be the only benefit this project has. It’s my job to safeguard tax dollars, and I’m making sure this boondoggle doesn’t slip through the cracks.”

When it comes to the ‘so-called’ Stimulus, Rehberg has been a vocal critic of ongoing waste and an advocate for accountability and transparency. For example, he expressed frustration when the cost of the Billings Federal Courthouse ballooned from $35 million to almost $60 million as a result of the influx of stimulus funding. He has also fought against wasting millions of dollars creating the political highway signs crediting the ‘so-called’ Stimulus with funding for construction projects.

“I recommend that the Department of Homeland Security conduct a thorough review to determine whether the Port of Whitetail should remain open,” wrote Rehberg in his letter. “Furthermore, I recommend that the Department freeze any further ARRA spending at the Port of Whitetail until this review can be completed. I believe the Department would do a great disservice to the American taxpayer if it completed construction at the Port of Whitetail and later closed the Port due to lack of use.”

Dear Secretary Napolitano:

Last week, the Canada Border Services Agency (CBSA) announced its intention to close Saskatchewan’s Port of Big Beaver on April 1, 2011. As you know, Big Beaver is the sister location to Montana’s Whitetail Port of Entry.

The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 allocated $420 million for the modernization of land ports operated by Customs and Border Patrol. According to Recovery.gov, $8.5 million of this allocation is to be spent modernizing and upgrading the Port of Whitetail.

Given that fewer than five vehicles per day pass through Whitetail, its proximity to the Port of Scobey just 12 miles away, and the upcoming closure of its Canadian counterpart; my constituents and I question the wisdom of spending millions of taxpayer dollars modernizing the Port of Whitetail.

Last Fall, following widespread concern about the cost of port modernization projects on the Northern Border, your office appointed an independent committee to conduct a 30-day review of the project allocations. During this review, the independent committee visited the Port of Whitetail and a handful of other ports before making several recommendations in a document entitled 30-Day CBP Port Modernization Review: Summary and Department Response. Among their recommendations, the independent committee suggested that:

“The Department should conduct periodic studies to determine whether any ports of entry should be closed. Although permanent closure of a port of entry involves a number of complex considerations (international relations and impacts on local residents to name just two), some of the facilities that currently exist are separated by only several miles and have low traffic volumes.”

According to that same document, the Department of Homeland Security responded to this suggestion, saying that: “This recommendation will be taken under advisement and reviewed in consultation with the interagency.”

While I understand the need for interagency consultation, I believe that CBSA’s closure of the Big Beaver port dramatically impacts the current plans for the rehabilitation and expansion of the Port.

Due to the Canadian decision to close the Port of Big Beaver, I recommend that the Department of Homeland Security conduct a thorough review to determine whether the Port of Whitetail should remain open. Furthermore, I recommend that the Department freeze any further ARRA spending at the Port of Whitetail until this review can be completed. I believe the Department would do a great disservice to the American taxpayer if it completed construction at the Port of Whitetail and later closed the Port due to lack of use.

If you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to contact my Washington, D.C. office at (202) 225-3211.

Sincerely,

BILLINGS, MT - Montana’s Congressman, Denny Rehberg, released the following statement regarding the closure of the Canadian border crossing at the Whitetail Port of Entry near Scobey, MT. The port made national news (http://www.nyegateway.com/2009/09/wasting-millions-of-stimulus-money-on-remote-montana-canada-border-posts.html) recently when it was announced that $8.5 million in stimulus funds are being spent to modernize the port, which averages only five vehicles per day making it the least used port of entry on the U.S./Canadian Border.

Rehberg hosted listening sessions yesterday in Daniels and Sheridan Counties where the port situation was a hot topic of conversation. With the news that the Canadian government was closing its side of the border, the Whitetail Port will now only allow cars to enter the United States from Canada. U.S. travelers will be unable to enter Canada at that crossing. However, the Scobey Port of Entry remains open, just 12 miles away.

“You might expect the folks actually living near the Whitetail Port to be the port modernization’s biggest cheerleaders, but after personally talking with many of them, that’s just not the case. As taxpayers, they’re on the hook to pay for these wasteful projects, and they’re not happy about it.

“In fact, the ’so-called’ stimulus has literally wasted billions of dollars on projects that were approved with little to no public input or Congressional oversight. This money should have been used to pay down America’s huge national debt or beef up security along the northern border instead of being used to remodel a barely utilized, one-way port of entry. It’s no wonder Montanans from across the state are telling me they’re outraged by the wasteful spending going on in Washington. They rightly believe their tax dollars shouldn’t be wasted building a nicer, more modern port for Canadian travelers.”

Rehberg is the co-chairman of the House Northern Border Caucus.

WASHINGTON, D.C. – Montana’s Congressman, Denny Rehberg, has cosponsored legislation to cut all non-defense/homeland security/veterans affairs spending by five cents for every dollar in fiscal years 2010 and 2011. Rehberg has offered several solutions for spending reform in Congress.

“If the State of Montana can save a nickel for every dollar it spends, there’s absolutely no reason the federal government shouldn’t be able to do the same,” said Rehberg, a member of the House Appropriations Committee. “The record deficits are adding to a record debt that is bogging down economic recovery and destroying jobs. Montanans have tightened their belts, and it’s way past time for Congress to follow their lead.”

Rehberg has been leading by example among his colleagues in the House. This legislation is only the most recent example of him putting taxpayer money where his mouth is. Earlier this year, he decided to forgo earmarks and sponsored legislation to apply the money saved back to the national debt. He has also offered amendments in all of his Appropriations Subcommittees to freeze spending levels and has sponsored a Constitutional Amendment to require a balanced budget.

When Democrats took over control of Congress in 2006, the federal budget was well on its way back to the surpluses prior to 9/11. Since the majority changed, however, the federal deficit has quadrupled and the debt has ballooned to $13 trillion – more than $40,000 for every man, woman and child in America.

H.R. 5542, which Rehberg cosponsored, mandates a five percent across-the-board reduction in federal spending that isn’t going toward defense, homeland security or veterans affairs. That cut is roughly equivalent to one made by the state of Montana earlier this year in order to balance the budget.

“When it comes to spending reform, I’ve led by personal example, sponsored legislation and offered amendments,” said Rehberg. “Unfortunately, this majority is more interested in talking about the deficit from previous years than in doing something about the deficit today. That’s got to change, and this bill embodies that.”

WASHINGTON, D.C. – Montana’s Congressman, Denny Rehberg, has joined with House colleagues from both parties in urging the Chairman and Ranking Member of the Committee on Education and Labor to protect programs that meet the unique needs of rural schools. The letter relates to the pending reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, also known as No Child Left Behind. Eighty-five-percent of Montana’s schools are classified as either rural or frontier.

“Rural interests have really taken a back seat lately, and when it comes to education, Montana’s students can’t afford to be at the back of the bus,” said Rehberg, a member of the House Rural Education Caucus. “Everyone knows about the challenges faced by inner city schools, but the unique challenges affecting rural districts are less well known, but just as important. Unfortunately, the Obama Blueprint for education is a one-size-fits-all plan that doesn’t address the needs of rural schools.”

The letter expresses support for the Rural Education Achievement Program (REAP), and asks the government not to force rural school districts into a situation where they are competing for funding against urban schools with more resources. The letter also expresses concerns about the urban-based “turnaround models” recommended by President Obama’s Blueprint.

Under the turnaround models, schools that do not live up to the Obama Administration’s benchmarks would be forced to fire principals, teachers and staff in order to continue receiving federal funding. The turnaround models do not account for the inability of many rural schools to recruit and hire new educators.

“Rural states aren’t asking for any special favors or advantages,” said Rehberg. “I’ve talked to educators from across Montana, and they just want a level playing field and a chance to compete fairly.”

“With the reauthorization of ESEA, we have a chance to change America’s education system for the better,” said Dave Puyear, Executive Director of the Montana Rural Education Association. “If we miss that chance, it will be five years before we are able to fix our mistakes. I thank Rep. Rehberg for supporting rural educators and giving voice to our concerns. Our chance to protect Montana’s kids is now, and I hope the bill will consider rural and urban students as equals.”

The letter is included below:

Dear Chairman Miller and Ranking Member Kline:

As Members representing rural districts, we would like to offer our comments on the upcoming reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) and the issues facing rural education. Your attention to these concerns is greatly appreciated.

SUPPORT THE RURAL EDUCATION ACHIEVEMENT PROGRAM
We would like to express our strong support for the Rural Education Achievement Program (REAP), an important tool that provides funding to rural districts for a wide variety of purposes including hiring new teachers, providing professional development opportunities, and bringing new technology to the classroom.

REAP is specifically designed to help level the playing field for small and high-poverty rural school systems. In many of these districts, federal formula programs do not produce enough resources to carry out the purposes of the grant. In addition, small and rural school districts are often forced to forgo federal education dollars because they lack the personnel and the resources to apply for competitive grants. REAP enables school districts to undertake significant reform by allowing them to combine their funding and by providing them with necessary additional funds.

We are deeply concerned that the Administration’s Fiscal Year 2011 budget proposal would allow the Secretary of Education to set aside an unspecified amount of REAP dollars to fund competitive grant initiatives. We strongly encourage the Committee to reject redesigning any component of REAP to provide for competitive grants. In addition, we strongly oppose any changes that allow the Secretary to set aside funding for national rural activities because the program is already facing more demand than it can meet. We, however, support changes to REAP which would allow federal funds to be even more closely targeted to rural, in-need districts.

PRESERVE FORMULA FUNDING
We are concerned by the Administration’s proposal to shift all or portions of program funding, including Title I allocations and REAP funding, to competitive grants and the impact this will have on rural education.

To begin funding these federal programs through competitive grants will lead to greater inequality of federal aid. The districts with more administrative resources are the ones who will be able to apply for competitive grants and the districts without the administrative capacity will be left behind. We ask that you maintain formula funding to ensure rural schools have equal access to much needed federal funding.

SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT AND ACCOUNTABILITY
Also at issue are the current School Improvement Grant (SIG) intervention models authorized under the Race-to-the-Top (RTTT) competition and highlighted in the Administration’s Blueprint for Reform. We are deeply concerned that limiting turnaround models to four – three of which lack a strong basis in research – unfairly hampers the efforts of rural communities to invest in turnaround.

As mentioned earlier, rural schools lack the capacities of their urban and suburban counterparts and are often at a distinct disadvantage in recruiting and retaining highly qualified and effective personnel. For these reasons, we ask that additional research-based turnaround models be permitted that would allow rural communities the flexibility they need to address school improvement adequately.

In closing, the policies of the last ESEA did not sufficiently account for the vast differences in school districts throughout the country, making it incredibly difficult for smaller school configurations with limited resources to meet the demands required under the law, particularly as they relate to highly qualified teachers and Supplemental Education Services (SES). During this reauthorization, we encourage you to look at those areas of the law that have failed our rural schools and communities, and ask that you promote policies to support rural schools and enable them to overcome the unique challenges they face.

Thank you for your time and consideration. We look forward to working with you on this critical reauthorization.

Sincerely,

WASHINGTON, D.C. – Montana’s Congressman, Denny Rehberg, today offered an amendment during the initial stages of next year’s Labor, Health and Human Services, Education Appropriations Bill reducing the cost to the taxpayer by $13 billion.

“While talking about spending freezes next year, House Democrats are blowing up the spending this year to compensate,” said Rehberg, a member of the House Labor, Health and Humans Services, Education Appropriations Subcommittee.  “This slight of hand is at best ineffective and at worst completely dishonest and cynical.  This freeze is empty rhetoric because it won’t actually reduce spending, or even hold it steady.  Montanans expect better.  My amendment essentially implements the spending freeze a year early – locking last year’s funding level in place.”

The national debt has grown to more than $13 trillion, which is more than $42,000 for every man, woman and child in America.  Despite not passing a budget for the coming year, the Labor, Health and Human Services, Education Appropriations Subcommittee has requested $176 billion for next year.  That figure was $163 billion this year.  Rehberg’s Amendment reduces the 2011 funding figure to the 2010 level.

“I’ve joined Republicans in forgoing earmarks this year, promising it was the first step toward true comprehensive spending reform,” said Rehberg.  “My amendment gave my Democratic colleagues a chance to actually put taxpayers money where their mouths are, and they said no.  When it comes to fiscal reform, the distinction couldn’t be more clear.”

WASHINGTON, D.C. — Montana’s Congressman, Denny Rehberg, joined forces with colleagues from both parties in a letter to President Obama encouraging inclusion of long-term reauthorization of the Secure Rural Schools and Community Self Determination Act (SRSCA) in the President’s budget for fiscal year 2012.  The Secure Rural Schools program addresses the unique challenges of rural education by providing federal funding to counties for local schools and transportation projects.

“It’s critical the President does not lose sight of the unique needs of Montana’s rural communities,” said Rehberg, a member of the House Rural Education Caucus.  “I’m working with colleagues from rural districts in both parties to ensure that Montana and other rural states are not overlooked.  This isn’t a partisan issue.  This is about providing the best education for all our children.”

The Secure Rural Schools and Community Self-Determination Act, signed into law in 2000, provides an alternative source of funding to counties that were once dependent on timber sales from federal lands.  At the time the bill was passed, it was estimated to provide assistance to 700 counties in 39 states.  85 percent of Montana’s schools are classified as either rural or frontier, accounting for 70% of the state’s students.

“This economy has hit rural communities particularly hard, and that makes federal assistance for education all the more important,” said Rehberg.  “We know the President is concerned about the challenges of inner city education, but we hope he doesn’t forget about the challenges we face.”

LETTER:

Dear Mr. President:
 
We respectfully request that you include a long-term reauthorization of the Secure Rural Schools and Communities Self-Determination Act (SRSCA), and the concomitant funding, in your Fiscal Year (FY) 2012 budget request to Congress. 
 
The SRSCA is not an entitlement program, but rather a demonstration of the commitment that this nation made to rural forest counties when they determined that large blocks (193 million acres in total) of our forest lands should be set aside for the benefit of the entire nation.  Indeed this “contract” between the federal government and rural America is part of the very foundation of our national forest system.  President Theodore Roosevelt understood the value of conserving our forest lands and placing them in public trust.  He likewise understood the economic burden this placed on rural counties to provide essential infrastructure like roads and public schools with their tax revenues reduced by the presence of federal lands in these counties.
 
To mitigate these economic effects, President Roosevelt and Forest Service Chief Gifford Pinchot supported a revenue sharing concept that made forest counties a contracted business partner with the federal government.  In 1908, Congress approved a revenue sharing plan specifying 25 percent of all revenues from National Forests would be returned to forested counties.  This law worked well for nearly a century.  However, by the late 1980’s national policies and court rulings substantially diminished revenue generating activity in our national forests.  By 1998, revenues for national forest counties had declined by over 70 percent.  The decline had a devastating impact on 780 counties nationwide and over nine million school children.
 
Recognizing its obligation to rural America, Congress passed the Secure Rural Schools and Communities Self-Determination Act of 2000, and President Bill Clinton signed the bill.  It provided six years of funding.  In 2007, Congress extended the SRSCA for one year.  In 2008, Congress once again provided a four year extension of the SRSCA from 2008-2011.
 
Timber harvests have not rebounded, so both the logic and the need for this program remain as strong today as when President Roosevelt first supported revenue sharing.  The vast majority of the funds provided through the SRSCA are used to directly fund jobs in road maintenance and public works and positions within the public school system.  These are essential services for the citizens of these rural communities and constitute family-wage earner jobs.
 
Failure to extend the SRSCA in 2012 would have a devastating impact on the economies of over 780 of our most rural and most economically depressed counties and school districts across the nation.  In these counties, unemployment is higher than in other regions of the country with rates approaching those experienced in the Great Depression.
 
Failure to extend the SRSCA would lead to an annual payment loss of 468 million dollars starting in 2012-13.  The economic impacts will be ongoing without an extension.  This includes support for construction, roads, education, conservation, and various other government funded services and projects.  The loss of the funding leads to various businesses throughout the United States, mainly in rural America, losing on an annual basis almost $1.37 billion in revenues, government at all levels losing over $188 million in tax receipts and over 11,000 people losing their jobs in 2012-13.
 
In addition, Title II of the SRSCA has proven to be a substantial asset to rural communities and our forested public lands.  Since 2000, in a very collaborative process, over $350 million has been invested in watershed restoration and forest health projects by Resource Advisory Committees (RACs).  Not one project has been appealed or litigated.  In fact, based on changes in the 2008 Act, the number of RACs has grown from 55 to 116.
 
We are grateful that you appreciate the importance of the Secure Rural Schools and Communities Self-Determination Act.  In May 2008, you stated in an interview with the Eugene Register-Guard, “I completely agree that it’s [SRSCA] an obligation we have to meet.  I think that we’re not meeting it well right now because we’re doing it piecemeal year after year by year. . . .” Those words send a strong message about the need to support this ongoing commitment to rural America.
 
We look forward to meeting with you and your administration to draft legislation to continue this historic partnership with rural America.

WASHINGTON, D.C. – Montana’s Congressman, Denny Rehberg, today offered an amendment during the initial stages of next year’s Energy and Water Appropriations Bill reducing the cost to the taxpayer by $1.2 billion.

“While talking about spending freezes next year, House Democrats are blowing up the spending this year to compensate,” said Rehberg, a member of the House Energy and Water Appropriations Subcommittee.  “This slight of hand is at best ineffective and at worst completely dishonest and cynical.  This freeze is empty rhetoric because it won’t actually reduce spending, or even hold it steady.  Montanans expect better.  My amendment essentially implements the spending freeze a year early – locking last year’s funding level in place.”

The national debt has grown to more than $13 trillion, which is more than $42,000 for every man, woman and child in America.  Despite not passing a budget for the coming year, the Energy and Water Appropriations Subcommittee has requested $34.7 billion for next year.  That figure was $33.5 billion this year.  Rehberg’s Amendment reduces the 2011 funding figure to the 2010 level.

“I’ve joined Republicans in forgoing earmarks this year, promising it was the first step toward true comprehensive spending reform,” said Rehberg.  “My amendment gave my Democratic colleagues a chance to actually put taxpayers money where their mouths are, and they said no.  When it comes to fiscal reform, the distinction couldn’t be more clear.”

WASHINGTON, D.C. – Montana’s Congressman, Denny Rehberg, today voted to end the wasteful practice of posting expensive signs at construction sites around the country indicating that the project is funded by the ‘so-called’ Stimulus.  Rehberg is a cosponsor of H.R. 5679, the End the Stimulus Advertisement Act.  A similar measure failed in the Senate last year (S. Amdt. 2361).

“Montanans overwhelmingly oppose spending their tax dollars on these road signs that serve absolutely no purpose beyond political self-congratulations,” said Rehberg.  “This sentiment was reflected nationally by the votes cast from across the country in the YouCut effort that lets Americans vote on where to cut spending in the federal government.  The ongoing funding of these signs has cost more than $20 million so far, which is why it was the most recent boondoggle to be targeted by the American public for elimination.”

Last year, Rehberg sent letters to Vice President Biden and Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood expressing concerns over money being spent to erect road signs that serve no purpose other than to notify drivers that construction projects are funded by the “Economic Recovery and Reinvestment Act.”  He criticized the wasteful policy on the House floor (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rw7yRzg1wB0) and surveyed Montanans about their opinions.  95 percent of those surveyed said they would rather the stimulus sign funds be used elsewhere.

After the Montana Department of Transportation indicated that they had already spent hundreds of thousands of dollars on these signs, at a cost of $1,746 each, he send a letter to MTDOT Director Jim Lynch, asking him to stop the production of road signs touting that a project is paid for by the so-called “stimulus” act.  He noted at the time that at least six states had voluntarily chosen to spend tax dollars more responsibly.

Aaron Schock introduced H.R. 5679, the End the Stimulus Advertisement Act, earlier this month to prohibit funding for any more “stimulus” highway signs.