Issue Ad Supporting Facts - SUV
Here are the facts behind the latest Citizens for Strength and Security Fund ad “SUV.”
V/O: He’s one of the wealthiest members of Congress...a multi-millionaire...
FACTS: Rehberg worth at least $10 million, among richest Members of Congress
According to Roll Call, in 2010, Rehberg was one of the richest Members of Congress, worth at least $10.9 million. [RollCall.com, 9/16/10, http://bit.ly/Af1Dxz]
V/O: ...but while we face record deficits, Dennis Rehberg billed taxpayers over a hundred-thousand dollars to lease an SUV.
GFX: Dennis Rehberg $127,367 To Lease SUVs -Disbursements of the House, 2001-2011
FACTS: Rehberg billed the taxpayers over $127,000 to lease SUVs
According to records on file with the Clerk of the U.S. House of Representatives, Rehberg has billed the taxpayers $127,367 since 2001 to lease vehicles for his use, including Chevy Tahoes from model years 2003, 2005 and 2007, a 2009 Jeep Patriot and a 2008 Dodge Caliber. [Statements of Disbursements of the House, 2001-2011]
2001-2005 Disbursement Reports: http://bit.ly/GGX9oF
2005 Q4 – 2011 Disbursement Reports: http://bit.ly/zzdQta
V/O: Rehberg promised he’d never support or take a pay raise...
GFX: Dennis Rehberg: “I’ll never support nor take a pay raise.” – Great Falls Tribune/University of Great Falls Debate, 1996
FACTS: Rehberg said he’d never support or accept a pay raise
In a 1996 debate with Sen. Max Baucus, Rehberg said, “I’ll never support nor take a pay raise.” [Debate clip]
V/O: Then voted five times to raise his own pay…
GFX: Voted 5 Times to Raise His Pay; Votes 2002: #322, 2003: #463, 2004: #451, 2005: #327, 2006: #261
FACTS: Rehberg has had at least five opportunities to vote on procedural motions which would have forced up-or-down votes on the automatic pay increase members of Congress receive. In those five instances, Rehberg has opposed considering forgoing that year’s pay increase.
Vote #5: Dennis Rehberg voted for a Procedural Motion that Prohibited an Up or Down Vote on Whether to Permit the $3,300 Congressional Pay Increase for 2007 In 2006, Dennis Rehberg voted for a motion that prevented an up or down vote on that year’s congressional pay increase. Because the motion passed, there was not an up or down vote on the pay increase. The motion to stop the up or down vote passed 249-167. [Vote #261, 6/13/2006; Chicago Tribune, “House Squelches Vote, Gets Pay Raise,” June 14, 2006]
Vote #4: Dennis Rehberg Voted To Stop The Attempt To Force An Up Or Down Vote On The Congressional Pay Increase In 2005, Dennis Rehberg voted for a procedural motion to stop an attempt to force an up or down vote on congressional pay increase. The motion to stop the up or down vote passed 263-152. [Vote #327, 6/28/2005; The New York Times, “Votes in Congress,” July 3, 2005; CQ House Vote, “Matheson’s Latest Effort to Block COLA Defeated,” June 29, 2005]
Vote #3 Dennis Rehberg Voted For A Procedural Motion To Stop The Attempt To Force An Up Or Down Vote On The Congressional Pay Increase In 2004. Dennis Rehberg voted for a procedural motion to stop the attempt to force an up or down vote on the congressional pay increase. The motion to stop the up or down vote passed 235-170. [Vote #451, 9/14/2004; Washington Post, “For the Record,” September 19, 2004]
Vote #2: In 2003, Dennis Rehberg Voted For A Motion To Stop The Attempt To Force An Up Or Down Vote On The Congressional Pay Increase On September 4, 2003, Dennis Rehberg voted for a procedural motion to stop the attempt to force an up or down vote on the congressional pay increase. The motion to stop the up or down vote passed 240-173. [Vote #463, 9/4/2003; Washington Post, “2.2% Pay Raise for Lawmakers Backed,” September 5, 2003]
Vote #1: Dennis Rehberg Voted For A Procedural Motion To Stop The Attempt To Force An Up Or Down Vote On The Congressional Pay Increase In 2002, Dennis Rehberg voted for a procedural motion to stop the attempt to force an up or down vote on the congressional pay increase. The motion to stop the up or down vote passed 258-156. [Vote #322, 7/18/2002; Roll Call, “Lawmakers Give Themselves Pay Increase to $155,000 Per Year,” July 22, 2002]
Media Coverage Characterizes Votes as a Vote for a Pay Increase
Roll Call: Lawmakers Give Themselves Pay Increase to $155,000 Per Year. “With only minimal opposition, House lawmakers late last week voted to give themselves a pay hike for the fourth year in a row, boosting their salaries $5,000 to a total of $155,000.” Roll Call, July 22, 2002.
Washington Post: 2.2% Pay Raise for Lawmakers Backed The House yesterday approved a 2.2 percent pay raise for members of Congress -- slightly less than the average wage increase in private business but enough to boost lawmakers' annual salaries to about $ 158,000 next year.” The Washington Post, Sept. 5, 2003.
V/O: giving himself thousands more per year at our expense.
GFX: Dennis Rehberg $28,900 More Per Year -Clerk of the House of Representatives
Rehberg’s salary has increased by $28,900 while in office
In 2001, when Rehberg took office, the salary for a Member of Congress was $145,000. By 2011, that salary had increased to $174,000, an increase of $28,900. [Legistorm.com, “About Member of Congress Salaries,” http://bit.ly/yveJtS]
V/O: To cut the deficit, tell Congressman Rehberg – cut the waste first. We need a balanced approach, not pay raises and perks
GFX: Call Congressman Rehberg: (202) 225-3211, Oppose HR 2560
HR 2560 currently in the Senate, would return to the House for vote if amended
HR 2560, the “Cut, Cap, and Balance Act of 2011,” is currently in the Senate awaiting action. If it passes the Senate in an amended version, if will have to come before the House again for a vote. On July 19, 2011, Rehberg voted for the House version of HR 2560. [HR 2560, Current Status, House Vote #606, 7/19/11]
In March 2012, GOP activists and the Republican Study Committee are promoting the bill
As of March 1, 2012, www.CutCapandBalanceAct.com is an active website promoting passage of HR 2560. [Website accessed 3/1/12]
The Republican Study Committee also currently promotes the bill on its webpage. [http://rsc.jordan.house.gov/Solutions/debtceiling.htm, accessed 3/1/12]
Criticized by CNNMoney.com for its unbalanced approach
According to CNNMoney.com, however, the plan “could end up exacerbating rather than curing budget problems.” The story also criticizes the plan for being “too stringent on spending” and including “high hurdles” for increasing revenue.
The bill also caps spending at 18% of GDP, which former Congressional Budget Office director Rudolph Penner points out by 2035 wouldn’t even enough to pay for Medicare, Social Security, interest on the debt and defense spending. [CNNMoney.com, 7/19/11, http://cnnmon.ie/yVr4eO]
GFX: Disclaimer: Paid for by Citizens for Strength and Security Fund.
Return to the Media Page