[Congressional Record Volume 155, Number 108 (Friday, July 17, 2009)]
[House]
[Pages H8316-H8328]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                   RESTORE OUR AMERICAN MUSTANGS ACT

  Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 653, I call up 
the bill (H.R. 1018) to amend the Wild Free-

[[Page H8317]]

Roaming Horses and Burros Act to improve the management and long-term 
health of wild free-roaming horses and burros, and for other purposes, 
and ask for its immediate consideration in the House.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Holden). Pursuant to House Resolution 
653, the amendment in the nature of a substitute printed in the bill is 
adopted and the bill, as amended, is considered as read.
  The text of the bill, as amended, is as follows:

                               H.R. 1018

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``Restore Our American 
     Mustangs Act''.

     SEC. 2. REFERENCE.

       Except as otherwise expressly provided, whenever in this 
     Act an amendment or repeal is expressed in terms of an 
     amendment to, or repeal of, a section or other provision, the 
     reference shall be considered to be made to a section or 
     other provision of the Act of December 15, 1971 (commonly 
     known as the ``Wild Free-Roaming Horses and Burros Act''; 16 
     U.S.C. 1331 et seq.).

     SEC. 3. POLICY.

       The first section is amended by striking ``in the area 
     where presently found, as''.

     SEC. 4. DEFINITIONS.

       Section 2 (16 U.S.C. 1332) is amended--
       (1) in paragraph (b), by inserting ``born or present'' 
     after ``unclaimed horses and burros'';
       (2) in paragraph (c), by striking ``which does not exceed 
     their known territorial limits,'';
       (3) in paragraph (d)--
       (A) by inserting ``and any associated foals'' after ``his 
     mares''; and
       (B) by striking ``and'' after the semicolon;
       (4) in paragraph (e), by striking the period and inserting 
     a semicolon;
       (5) in paragraph (f)--
       (A) by striking ``(1) which'' and all that follows through 
     ``(2)'';
       (B) by inserting ``, in accordance with section 3(d),'' 
     after ``from an area''; and
       (C) by striking the period at the end and inserting a 
     semicolon; and
       (6) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(g) `thriving natural ecological balance' means a 
     condition that protects ecosystem health, the ecological 
     processes that sustain ecosystem function and a diversity of 
     life forms, including those species listed under the 
     Endangered Species Act of 1973, and further ensures that wild 
     horses and burros, livestock and wildlife species are given 
     fair consideration in the allocation of resources on those 
     lands where said species are authorized or managed consistent 
     with the requirements of the Federal Land Policy and 
     Management Act of 1976 (Public Law 94-579) and other 
     applicable law; and
       ``(h) `fatally injured or terminally ill' means an animal 
     exhibiting one or more of the following:
       ``(1) A hopeless prognosis for life.
       ``(2) A chronic or incurable disease, injury, lameness, or 
     serious physical defect (including severe tooth loss or wear, 
     club foot, and other severe congenital abnormalities).
       ``(3) A condition requiring continuous treatment for the 
     relief of pain and suffering in a domestic setting.
       ``(4) An acute or chronic illness, injury, physical 
     condition or lameness that would preclude an acceptable 
     quality of life for the foreseeable future.''.

     SEC. 5. INVENTORY AND DETERMINATIONS.

       (a) Section 3(a) (16 U.S.C. 1333(a)) is amended as follows:
       (1) By striking ``is authorized and directed to'' and 
     inserting ``shall--
       ``(1)''.
       (2) By striking ``, and he may'' and inserting a semicolon.
       (3) By inserting before ``designate'' the following:
       ``(2)''.
       (4) In paragraph (2) (as so designated)--
       (A) by striking ``their'' and inserting ``the'';
       (B) by inserting ``of wild free-roaming horses and burros'' 
     after ``preservation'';
       (C) by striking ``wherein'' and inserting ``where'';
       (D) by striking ``deems'' and inserting ``, considers''; 
     and
       (E) by striking ``desirable. The Secretary shall'' and 
     inserting ``desirable;
       ``(3)''.
       (5) In paragraph (3) (as so designated), by striking the 
     period after ``public lands'' and inserting a semicolon.
       (6) By striking ``He shall'' and inserting the following:
       ``(4)''.
       (7) In paragraph (4) (as so designated), by striking ``of 
     this Act.'' and inserting ``of this Act;''.
       (8) By striking ``All'' and inserting the following:
       ``(5) ensure that''.
       (9) In paragraph (5) (as so designated)--
       (A) by inserting ``related to wild free-roaming horses and 
     burros are'' after ``activities'';
       (B) by striking ``shall be'' both places it appears;
       (C) by inserting ``relevant State'' after ``in consultation 
     with the'';
       (D) by striking ``of the State wherein such lands are 
     located'';
       (E) by striking ``which inhabit such lands''; and
       (F) by striking the period after ``endangered wildlife 
     species'' and inserting a semicolon.
       (10) By striking ``Any'' and inserting the following:
       ``(6) ensure that any''.
       (11) In paragraph (6) (as so designated)--
       (A) by striking ``on any such lands shall take'' and 
     inserting ``are made after taking''; and
       (B) by striking ``which inhabit such lands.'' and inserting 
     ``; and''.
       (12) At the end of such subsection, add the following:
       ``(7) ensure that the acreage available for wild and free-
     roaming horses and burros shall never be less than the 
     acreage where wild and free-roaming horses and burros were 
     found in 1971.''.
       (b) Subsection (b)(1) of section 3 is amended as follows:
       (1) By striking ``(b)(1) The Secretary shall'' and 
     inserting the following:
       ``(b) In order to determine if a thriving natural 
     ecological balance exists with regards to wild free-roaming 
     horses and burros, the Secretary shall--
       ``(1)''.
       (2) In paragraph (1) (as so designated)--
       (A) by striking ``a current'' and inserting ``an''; and
       (B) by striking the period after ``public lands'' and 
     inserting a semicolon and the following:
       ``(2) update the inventory every two years; and
       ``(3) make the inventory available to the public on the 
     Website of the Bureau of Land Management.''.
       (3) By striking ``The purpose'' and all that follows 
     through ``the Secretary'' and inserting the following:
       ``(c) In order to better manage and protect wild free-
     roaming horses and burros, and to achieve and maintain a 
     thriving natural ecological balance, the Secretary, not later 
     than one year after the date of the enactment of this 
     section, shall take the following actions:
       ``(1) Adopt and employ the best scientific, peer-reviewed 
     methods to accurately estimate wild free-roaming horse and 
     burro populations on public lands for purposes of the 
     inventory required in subsection (b).
       ``(2) Develop a policy and standards, with public 
     involvement, for setting consistent, appropriate management 
     levels on public lands, based on scientifically sound 
     methodologies.
       ``(3) Provide a public process, including a period for 
     notice and comment, for finalizing appropriate management 
     level standards.
       ``(4) Publish and distribute these standards to each field 
     office so that the methodology for estimating population and 
     determining appropriate management levels is consistent 
     across public lands.
       ``(5) Train Federal personnel on the use of these standard 
     techniques to estimate population and determine appropriate 
     management levels.''.
       (4) By striking ``shall consult with'' and inserting the 
     following:
       ``(6) Develop and finalize the standards in consultation 
     with--''.
       (5)(A) By inserting ``(A)'' before ``the United States 
     Fish''.
       (B) By inserting ``(B)'' before ``wildlife agencies''.
       (C) By striking ``wherein'' and inserting ``where''.
       (D) By striking ``such individuals'' and inserting ``(C) 
     individuals''.
       (E) By striking ``such other individuals'' and inserting 
     ``(D) individuals''.
       (F) By striking ``he'' and inserting ``the Secretary''.
       (G) By inserting ``to'' after ``determines''.
       (6) In subparagraphs (A) through (C) of paragraph (6) (as 
     so designated), by striking each comma and inserting a 
     semicolon.
       (7) In subparagraphs (A) through (D) of paragraph (6) (as 
     so designated), by moving the margins of such subparagraphs 4 
     ems to the right.
       (8) After paragraph (6) (as so designated), by inserting 
     the following:
       ``(7) Identify new, appropriate rangeland for wild free 
     roaming horses and burros, including use of land 
     acquisitions, exchanges, conservation easements, voluntary 
     grazing buyouts, and agreements with private landowners to 
     allow for the federally supervised protection of wild horses 
     and burros on private lands, except that the Secretary shall 
     assess the effects of new range for wild free-roaming horses 
     and burros on rangeland health, riparian zones, water 
     quality, soil compaction, seed bed disturbance, native 
     wildlife, and endangered or threatened species and transmit 
     the results of the assessment to the Committee on Natural 
     Resources of the House of Representatives and the Committee 
     on Energy and Natural Resources of the Senate.
       ``(8) Establish sanctuaries or exclusive use areas, except 
     that the Secretary shall assess the effects of sanctuaries or 
     exclusive use areas for wild free-roaming horses and burros 
     on rangeland health, riparian zones, water quality, soil 
     compaction, seed bed disturbance, native wildlife and 
     endangered or threatened species and transmit the results of 
     the assessment to the Committee on Natural Resources of the 
     House of Representatives and the Committee on Energy and 
     Natural Resources of the Senate.
       ``(9) In identifying or designating any new rangeland, or 
     establishing any sanctuary or exclusive use area for wild 
     free-roaming horses and burros, the Secretary of the Interior 
     and the Secretary of Agriculture shall take into account and 
     avoid any potential conflicts with wind, solar, geothermal, 
     oil, natural gas, energy transmission, and mineral resources 
     potential of the lands affected by the identification, 
     designation, or establishment.
       ``(10) Research, develop, and implement enhanced surgical 
     or immunocontraception sterilization or other safe methods of 
     fertility control.''.
       (c) In subsection (b) of section 3, by striking ``(2) 
     Where'' and inserting ``(d) If''.
       (d) In subsection (d) (as so designated) of section 3--

[[Page H8318]]

       (1) by striking ``determines'' and all that follows through 
     ``horses and burros to be'' in subparagraph (B) and inserting 
     ``has exhausted all practicable options for maintaining a 
     thriving natural ecological balance on the range, the 
     Secretary may provide that wild free-roaming horses and 
     burros are'';
       (2) by striking ``for which he determines'' the first place 
     it appears and inserting ``so long as the Secretary has 
     determined'';
       (3) by striking ``and for which he determines he can 
     assure'' and inserting ``and the Secretary can ensure'';
       (4) by striking ``(including'' and all that follows through 
     ``That, not'' and inserting the following: ``by requiring 
     that--
       ``(1) no'';
       (5) in paragraph (1) (as so designated)--
       (A) by striking ``animals'' the first two places it appears 
     and inserting ``wild free-roaming horses and burros'';
       (B) by striking ``such'' the first place it appears and 
     inserting ``the''; and
       (C) by striking ``and'' after the semicolon and adding the 
     following:
       ``(2) each individual adopter shall execute an appropriate 
     attestation, pursuant to section 1001 of title 18, United 
     States Code, affirming that adopted animals and their remains 
     shall not be used for commercial purposes; and
       ``(3) wild free-roaming horses and burros may not be 
     contained in corrals or short-term holding facilities for 
     more than 6 months while awaiting disposition.''; and
       (6) by striking subparagraph (C) and paragraph (3).
       (e) Redesignate subsection (c) of section 3 as subsection 
     (e) and in such subsection--
       (1) by striking ``Where excess animals have'' and inserting 
     ``When a wild free-roaming horse or burro has'';
       (2) by striking ``a period of'';
       (3) by striking ``is authorized'' and inserting ``shall,'';
       (4) by inserting a comma after ``transferee'';
       (5) by striking ``to'' before ``grant'';
       (6) by striking ``title to not more than four animals to''; 
     and
       (7) by striking ``at the end of the one-year period'' and 
     inserting ``title to that animal''.
       (f) Redesignate subsection (d) of section 3 as subsection 
     (f) and in such subsection--
       (1) by striking ``Wild'' and inserting ``(1) Except as 
     provided for in paragraph (2), wild'';
       (2) by redesignating paragraphs (1) through (4) as 
     subparagraphs (A) through (D), respectively;
       (3) in subparagraph (A) (as so redesignated), by striking 
     ``(c) except for the limitation of subsection (c)(1)'' and 
     inserting ``(e)'';
       (4) in subparagraph (C) (as so redesignated), by striking 
     ``(b)''and inserting ``(h)'';
       (5) in subparagraph (D) (as so redesignated), by striking 
     ``; or'' and inserting a period; and
       (6) in paragraph (5), by striking ``(5)'' and all that 
     follows through ``burro'' and inserting the following:
       ``(2) No animal ever covered under this Act''.
       (g) By inserting after section 3(f) (as so redesignated) 
     the following:
       ``(g) Not later than one year after the date of enactment 
     of this subsection, for the purposes of carrying out a 
     successful wild free-roaming horse and burro adoption program 
     the Secretary shall--
       ``(1) implement creative and more aggressive marketing 
     strategies for the adoption program, including the use of the 
     internet or other media to showcase horses and the adoption 
     program;
       ``(2) explore public outreach opportunities, including 
     agreements with local and State organizations that are using 
     horses for rehabilitation, therapy, or prisoner programs;
       ``(3) provide resources to properly screen and train 
     potential adopters;
       ``(4) conduct tours of Bureau of Land Management facilities 
     for interested parties;
       ``(5) develop volunteer mentor and compliance check 
     programs for assisting the agency in facilitating successful 
     adoptions;
       ``(6) develop a program through which potential adopters 
     may be offered an economic incentive for successful 
     completion of the adoption process; and
       ``(7) take any and all other actions that the Secretary 
     determines to be necessary and useful towards expanding the 
     wild horse and burro adoption program.
       ``(h) The Secretary may not destroy or authorize the 
     destruction of wild free-roaming horses or burros unless the 
     Secretary--
       ``(1) determines that the wild free-roaming horse or burro 
     is terminally ill or fatally injured; and
       ``(2) ensures that the terminally ill or fatally injured 
     wild free-roaming horse or burro will be destroyed in the 
     most humane manner.
       ``(i) If the immediate health or safety of wild free-
     roaming horses or burros is threatened, such as in severe 
     drought conditions, the Secretary may temporarily remove 
     animals from the range.
       ``(j) The Secretary may remove from the range wild free-
     roaming horses and burros determined to be a threat to the 
     health and well being of native plant or wildlife species.
       ``(k) Except in cases of removal under subsection (d), (i), 
     or (j), if the Secretary removes wild free-roaming horses or 
     burros from an area, the Secretary shall provide a public 
     notice on the Website of the Bureau of Land Management 30 
     days prior to the planned removal.
       ``(l) The Secretary shall--
       ``(1) track the number of wild free-roaming horses and 
     burros injured or killed during gathering or holding in a 
     centralized database system;
       ``(2) determine what information on the treatment of 
     gathered wild free-roaming horses and burros in holding and 
     adopted wild free-roaming horses and burros could be provided 
     to the public to help inform the public about the treatment 
     of wild free-roaming horses and burros; and
       ``(3) ensure that such information is easily accessible on 
     the Website of the Bureau of Land Management.''.
       (h) By striking subsection (e) (relating to sale of excess 
     animals).

     SEC. 6. PRIVATE MAINTENANCE.

       Section 4 (16 U.S.C. 1334) is amended--
       (1) by striking ``animals removed'' and inserting ``animals 
     returned to public land''; and
       (2) by inserting ``pursuant to section 3(h)'' after 
     ``agents of the Secretary''.

     SEC. 7. COOPERATIVE AGREEMENTS.

       Section 6 (16 U.S.C. 1336) is amended by inserting ``and 
     other private entities'' after ``landowners''.

     SEC. 8. JOINT ADVISORY BOARD.

       Section 7 (16 U.S.C. 1337) is amended--
       (1) by striking ``nine'' and inserting ``12'';
       (2) by striking ``Governments'' and all that follows 
     ``management.'' and inserting ``Governments and shall include 
     at a minimum three representatives of the livestock industry; 
     three representatives of the environmental community; three 
     representatives of the animal protection community; and three 
     scientists with expertise in wildlife management, animal 
     husbandry, or natural resource management.''; and
       (3) by adding at the end the following new sentence: 
     ``Nomination of members of the board shall be conducted by 
     public notice and comment in accordance with the Federal 
     Advisory Committee Act (5 U.S.C. Appendix) and shall be for a 
     term of four years. No individual shall serve more then two 
     consecutive terms.''.

     SEC. 9. CRIMINAL PROVISIONS.

       Section 8 (16 U.S.C. 1338) is amended--
       (1) by striking ``Any person who'' and inserting ``(a) Any 
     person who''; and
       (2) in paragraph (4) of subsection (a) (as so designated)--
       (A) by striking ``except as provided in section 3(e),'';
       (B) by inserting ``, transports for processing,'' after 
     ``processes'';
       (C) by striking ``the remains of a'' and inserting ``a live 
     or deceased''; and
       (D) by inserting ``for consideration'' after ``burro''.

     SEC. 10. LIMITATION OF AUTHORITY.

       Strike section 10 (16 U.S.C. 1339) and redesignate section 
     11 as section 10.

     SEC. 11. REPORTS.

       Section 10 (as so redesignated by section 10 of this Act) 
     is amended as follows:
       (1) By striking ``After the expiration'' and all that 
     follows through ``thereafter'' and inserting ``(a)(1) Not 
     later than one year after the date of enactment of this 
     subsection and annually thereafter''.
       (2) By striking ``will submit to Congress a joint report'' 
     and inserting ``shall submit to the Committee on Natural 
     Resources of the House of Representatives and the Committee 
     on Energy and Natural Resources of the Senate a joint 
     report''.
       (3) By striking ``he'' and inserting ``the Secretaries''.
       (4) By inserting after subsection (a)(1) (as so designated) 
     the following:
       ``(2) The report shall also contain the following--
       ``(A) the number of acres managed by the Bureau of Land 
     Management and the USDA Forest Service for wild free-roaming 
     horses and burros;
       ``(B) the appropriate management levels on public 
     rangelands;
       ``(C) a description of the methods used to determine the 
     appropriate management levels and whether it was applied 
     consistently across the agency;
       ``(D) the number of wild free-roaming horses and burros on 
     public lands;
       ``(E) a description of the methods used to determine the 
     wild free-roaming horse and burro population;
       ``(F) any land acquisitions, exchanges, conservation 
     easements, and voluntary grazing buyouts that the Secretary 
     has acquired or pursued for wild free-roaming horses and 
     burros;
       ``(G) any sanctuaries or exclusive use areas established 
     for wild free-roaming horses and burros;
       ``(H) programs established for immunocontraception 
     research, development, and management level implementation;
       ``(I) the extent to which fertility control is being used 
     by the Secretary to control the population of wild free-
     roaming horses and burros;
       ``(J) the percentage of the Bureau of Land Management 
     budget devoted to contraception annually;
       ``(K) the ratio of animals the agency has contracepted and 
     put back on the range; and
       ``(L) which herds have been administered contraception and 
     with what results.
       ``(3) Each report submitted under paragraph (2) shall be 
     made available to the public on the Website of the Bureau of 
     Land Management.''.
       (5) By inserting ``(b)'' before ``The Secretary of the 
     Interior''.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. After 1 hour of debate on the bill, it shall 
be in order to consider the amendment printed in part A of House Report 
111-212 if ordered by the gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. Rahall) or 
his designee, which shall be considered as read, shall be debatable for 
10 minutes equally divided and controlled by the proponent and an 
opponent and shall not be subject to a demand for division of the 
question. It shall be in order to consider a further amendment in the 
nature of a substitute printed in part B of House Report 111-212 if 
offered by the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Hastings) or his 
designee, which shall be considered as read and debatable for

[[Page H8319]]

30 minutes equally divided and controlled by the proponent and an 
opponent.
  The gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. Rahall) and the gentleman from 
Washington (Mr. Hastings) each will control 30 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from West Virginia.


                             General Leave

  Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may 
have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and 
insert extraneous material on H.R. 1018.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from West Virginia?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to bring before the House today 
H.R. 1018, the Restore Our American Mustangs Act, legislation that will 
save the taxpayers money while saving tens of thousands of wild horses 
and burros from slaughter.
  Earlier this year, the Bureau of Land Management made a truly 
shocking announcement. This Federal agency tasked with managing our 
magnificent public lands and resources announced future plans to 
destroy, i.e., slaughter, 30,000 healthy wild horses and burros 
entrusted to their care by the American people.
  The announcement was even more stunning given that Congress enacted 
the Wild, Free Roaming Horse and Burro Act of 1971 declaring that these 
iconic animals were ``living symbols of the historic and pioneer spirit 
of the West'' and ``are to be considered an integral part of the 
natural system of the public lands.''
  How in the world can a Federal agency be considering massive 
slaughter of animals the law says they are supposed to be protecting?
  At my request, the Government Accountability Office conducted a 
complete review of the program, and they documented its numerous 
shortcomings.
  The bill before us amends the 1971 act to implement the suggestions 
made by GAO and give the agency as many options as possible to avoid 
destroying these animals. Most significantly, this legislation will 
move the agency toward increasing the acreage available to wild horses 
and burros.
  When the original act passed in 1971, 20 percent of BLM land was open 
to the horses. Today, they are only allowed on 13 percent of BLM land. 
The agency has never justified the removal of horses and burros from 
these missing acres.
  This bill will also require consistency in management planning, with 
publication of standard operating procedures for managing these animals 
across all of our public lands. It will require better accounting 
methods so the agency can be certain how many animals are truly out on 
the range. It will strengthen the adoption program so that many more 
eligible horses and burros can go to adoptive homes. And it will 
authorize cooperative agreements with individuals and nonprofits so 
that large numbers of animals might be moved onto non-Federal land. 
Each of these provisions will make this program more cost-effective and 
will make it more efficient.
  Despite these improvements, opponents of this bill are going to claim 
today that it will be expensive to implement. Their solution is to 
simply pass the same narrow bill prohibiting slaughter approved in the 
last Congress. You're going to hear that this bill goes so far that it 
should be called welfare for horses. That's what they will claim.
  This is a funny line, but it uses high cost estimates to gloss over 
the fact that since the last Congress we have the benefit now of a 
comprehensive GAO report identifying many more strategies that we must 
pursue. Commissioning a good report and then ignoring its 
recommendations I hardly think is a way to save money. Stopping 
slaughter is an important step, and I'm pleased to see my friends on 
the other side of the aisle are now supporting that, but we do need to 
do more.
  To be very clear, the pending bill, H.R. 1018, contains no direct 
spending. We are not creating an entitlement for horses. So the welfare 
joke falls completely flat.
  Any increase in funding for the wild horse and bureau program would 
be the result of appropriations, not this authorization bill. 
Increasing the number of Federal acres available to horses and burros 
from the current 13 percent of BLM land back to the 20 percent 
available to them in 1971 should not cost the taxpayers anything. It is 
merely a 7 percent management adjustment, nothing more.
  Our friends across the aisle always claim that BLM owns too much 
land. Now, we don't think so, but they certainly own enough to 
accommodate horses and burros. Furthermore, the management efficiencies 
in other parts of this bill will actually save money, and here is what 
we are doing: increasing adoptions, contraception and reducing 
overcrowding that will relieve the agency from having to round these 
animals up and care for them in long-term holding facilities, an 
expensive proposition.
  The status quo is the worst of both worlds. It requires the BLM to 
hold these animals in expensive, long-term storage right up to the 
point when the money runs out, and then the agency has to kill 
thousands of them.
  And witness these photos. These are American wild mustangs. And this 
is their fate. This is their fate held in captivity, abused. This is 
not what America is all about. This is not what America approves.
  H.R. 1018 will give the agency new and better tools to avoid this 
outcome and will save money in the process.
  At the appropriate time, I will be offering a manager's amendment 
further clarifying that the restoration of the missing acreage is a 
goal rather than a legal requirement, and so I would urge my colleagues 
concerned about the cost involved to support that amendment at the time 
and then support this legislation on final passage.
  I reserve the balance of my time, Mr. Speaker.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself as much time 
as I may consume.
  (Mr. HASTINGS of Washington asked and was given permission to revise 
and extend his remarks.)
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, across our Nation, Americans 
are struggling to pay their bills; 9.5 percent of Americans are out of 
work. This is the highest unemployment rate that America has 
experienced in over a quarter of a century. President Obama and his 
economic advisers expect the number of jobless to climb higher, into 
the double digits.
  After bailouts for Wall Street and a stimulus bill that has cost 
hundreds of billions of dollars and still isn't creating the jobs that 
the Democrats promised, the national deficit has now hit $1 trillion, 
and that is an historic and worrying amount that President Obama says 
keeps him awake at night.
  Mr. Speaker, Americans are hurting. Our economy is in a recession. 
Two million jobs have been lost since the stimulus bill passed this 
Congress in February. Government spending is going through the roof. In 
fact, the Congressional Budget Office estimates that since January, the 
Obama and Pelosi budgets will lead to increased spending of $2.6 
trillion over the next 10 years.
  So, Mr. Speaker, with this backdrop, what is the response of this 
Democrat Congress to month after month of lost jobs, record 
unemployment, out-of-control spending, and skyrocketing deficits? Their 
response is to vote on a bill to create a $700 million welfare program 
for wild horses and burros.
  Mr. Speaker, if the American people want an illustration of just how 
out of touch this Congress has become on spending, they need to look no 
further than what's happening here on the floor of the House with this 
issue of wild horses and burros.
  In the last Congress, the House passed legislation to ban the 
commercial slaughter of wild horses and burros. It was a one-page bill, 
and CBO estimated that it would cost taxpayers less than $500,000 a 
year. Now we're just 2 years from that time period and we're looking at 
a bill that, again, bans slaughter of these animals but then proceeds 
to spend a CBO estimate of $700 million to create a new welfare program 
for wild horses.
  Mr. Speaker, that's right. Under the fiscal plan of this Democrat 
Congress the amount they want to spend on wild horses from the last 
Congress, which was $500,000, to this Congress, is $700 million.
  So let's take a look at what the taxpayers' dollars would be spent on 
in

[[Page H8320]]

this vast increase of public spending. It would mandate a wild horse 
census be conducted every 2 years. It provides enhanced contraception 
and birth control for these horses. It would spend and somehow acquire 
or move 19 million acres of public and private land for the specific 
purpose of giving these horses more places to roam around.
  Mr. Speaker, 19 million acres is roughly the size of the 
distinguished chairman's State in West Virginia. That's the size of 
what we're talking about. And after we do that, Mr. Speaker, $5 million 
will then be spent to repair the damage that these horses will do on 
these lands. And then, of course, there are new mandates that 
government bureaucrats perform home inspections before Americans can 
adopt a wild horse. That's the spending that would be encompassed in 
this $700 million.
  So again, just to repeat, just to be sure that everybody understands, 
the taxpayers are being asked to buy up millions of acres of land for 
the enjoyment of wild horses, and then taxpayers will have to pay $5 
million a year to repair the damage that these horses will do to those 
lands.
  Mr. Speaker, I must say only in Washington, D.C., does this make 
sense. Our country is in the middle of the worst recession in a half 
century. Over 14.5 million Americans are unemployed and can't find 
jobs. How in the world can the Democrats in this Congress hold a vote 
on this bill?
  Americans are hurting. Republicans are focused on creating the jobs 
in this country, but this Democrat Congress seems to be more worried 
about hundreds of millions of dollars for wild burros and wild horses.

                              {time}  1115

  With that, Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Speaker, before recognizing the distinguished 
subcommittee chair, I do want to say I'm joined in cosponsoring this 
legislation by the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Grijalva) and by my 
colleague from Kentucky (Mr. Whitfield).
  At this point, I will yield 3 minutes to the distinguished chairman 
of our National Parks, Forests, and Public Lands Subcommittee, the 
gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Grijalva).
  Mr. GRIJALVA. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I rise today in support of the 
Restore our American Mustangs Act, H.R. 1018, a bill that will ensure 
wild horses and burros continue to have a place to roam on our public 
lands.
  Mr. Speaker, as a steward of our public lands, I have been appalled 
by the proposal of the Bureau of Land Management to euthanize tens of 
thousands of healthy wild horses. According to the recent report by the 
Government Accountability Office, the BLM's Wild Horse and Burro 
Program is terribly inefficient and ineffective, and the BLM's so-
called solution to this inefficiency is to simply put the animals they 
care for to death.
  Mr. Speaker, there has to be a better way.
  The better solution includes more options and more rigorous 
management. The ROAM Act will provide both. It includes reasonable 
tools such as the use of fertility control, the establishment of 
sanctuaries, and a much more robust adoption program, all leading to a 
more humane and constructive scheme.
  Mr. Speaker, the amended bill being considered today has taken into 
account input from a range of stakeholders, including the 
administration, wild horse advocacy groups, and, based on their 
experiences and their efforts in the field, this bill has been put 
together.
  Perhaps most significant, the bill provides a definition for the term 
``thriving natural ecological balance,'' which appears in the 1971 law 
but was not defined. The definition makes clear that the management of 
horses and burros should seek to achieve a balanced, multiple-use of 
public lands, ensuring the health of all aspects of the range.
  Testimony given to the Natural Resources Committee under 
consideration of this bill from the Director of the Game and Fish 
Department in my home State of Arizona highlighted the need for such a 
definition, and the bill provides one.
  The amended bill is a solid foundation from which to correct the 
problems with BLM management of wild horses and burros and to begin to 
restore these animals to their natural, rightful place on our public 
lands as intended by the original 1971 law.
  I strongly urge my colleagues to vote in favor of the bill before us 
today and to reject the substitute. The substitute has no cost savings. 
It guts H.R. 1018. It continues the costly practice of holding animals 
in pens that cost $27 million a year to taxpayers. And it's a carte 
blanche for the BLM to kill, outright, up to 30,000 horses they have 
sitting in their holding pens.
  This amendment is expensive and inhumane, and I urge its defeat.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I'm pleased to yield 7 
minutes to the gentlewoman from Wyoming (Mrs. Lummis) who has an 
absolute hands-on experience with the issue that we're dealing with 
here today. She's also a member of the Natural Resources Committee.
  Mrs. LUMMIS. I thank the gentleman from Washington for yielding.
  I am from Wyoming, a State that has many wild horses on its public 
lands. I also have a degree in animal science, and I may be the only 
Member of this body who has ridden a BLM wild horse. My sister adopted 
two. This bill is not respectful of the grass resource.
  Let's talk about the ecology and the environment of the plains of 
this great country. Wild horses graze differently than cattle, sheep, 
elk, and deer. And the reason is they have a solid hoof; whereas, 
buffalo, elk, deer, and cattle have a split hoof. When a solid-hoofed 
animal is pounding our fragile soils in the West, they are tamping or 
compacting that soil so it does not accept water that is needed to 
sustain very shallow, very fragile topsoil and the important diversity 
of grass species that are supported and are needed by every animal that 
grazes those lands and every endangered and threatened species that 
uses those same lands.
  Furthermore, wild horses are there year-round. Livestock is only 
there at certain times of the year. Wild horses that were not native to 
these lands, in the spring, create tremendous damage when the thawing 
occurs that creates great rises and disruptions of the soil.
  Furthermore, when they graze, they pull plants out from the roots. 
Some of these species are, themselves, threatened and endangered grass 
and flowering plant species. That is why the Wyoming Nature Conservancy 
has opposed this bill.
  Let me read you what the Wyoming Nature Conservancy has to say: H.R. 
1018 is an affront to efforts that have united conservation and ranch 
interests to achieve real, on-the-ground results throughout the West. 
Western rangeland supports population of native plants, wildlife, 
livestock, and wild horses. It is our position that effective 
management of this rangeland must be based on science, not emotion.
  This bill is based on emotion and not science.
  Furthermore, when flies congregate on wild horses in the summer, the 
horses tend to gather closely and try to roll to prevent the flies from 
staying on them and laying their eggs. Consequently, they're destroying 
sage grass habitat.
  Sage grass is a threatened species that is headed for the endangered 
species status if we do not control the activity of species that 
interfere with the recovery of the sage grass.
  In other words, this bill is elevating wild horses above threatened 
and endangered species, above all the plant and animal species that 
share the same habitat in the West, and this is inappropriate land 
management, grass management. It creates an unsustainable situation. 
That is why Wyoming's Democrat Governor has also opposed the bill.
  Governor Dave Freudenthal of Wyoming: H.R. 1018, to be frank, props 
up a program in need of sweeping reform. The current adoption program 
is full and is not responsive to the real issues of wild horse 
management. By increasing expensive holding facilities where many of 
these animals live out their lives because they are unadoptable, H.R. 
1018 ignores the reality that wild horse and burro populations are out 
of control and doesn't get to the real problems that cripple our 
ability to truly manage these animals.
  Furthermore, Wyoming's highly respected premier Game and Fish 
Department: Simply put, we are very concerned that expanding the 
management

[[Page H8321]]

of free-roaming horses and burros to all public lands would have 
devastating impacts to the long-term sustainability of the public's 
fish and wildlife resources and their habitats in the West.
  The list goes on and on of opponents. These opponents are people that 
manage fish and wildlife. These are people who manage grass resources. 
These are people who have boots-on-the-ground experience and know that 
you cannot elevate one nonnative species over native species of plants 
and animals and have an ecologically sustainable grass resource and 
prairie system.
  Chairman Rahall, I have great respect for your knowledge of the 
mining laws that are so important to my State and your State, but I can 
tell you respectfully, Mr. Chairman, that wild horses are a problem in 
Wyoming, and I'm very hopeful that you will choose not to import the 
problem to your State of West Virginia. But if you do, you will find, 
of course, that you can sustain mammals in terms of a number of mammals 
per acre. In Wyoming, it's the number of acres per mammal, and it can 
vary anywhere from 35 acres to sustain one mammal to over 100. Because 
of that, the consequences of overgrazing are enormous.
  Today's population of wild horses stands at approximately 36,000, and 
we know that the wild horse program stipulates that the total 
population of wild horses on public land should not exceed about 28,000 
in order to promote a thriving ecological balance.
  Mr. Chairman, we are talking about ecological balance. Yes, this is 
an expensive program, and I concur with the remarks of my ranking 
member from Washington. But I want to emphasize the disrespect that 
this bill places on our sensitive, fragile grass resources in the West 
that, during times of drought and during times of heavy pressure, are 
unavailable to sustain this feral horse population, nonnative, that is 
in need of control.
  Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Virginia (Mr. Moran).
  Mr. MORAN of Virginia. I thank my very good friend, the chairman of 
the committee. I was struck by the comments of the gentlelady from 
Wyoming referring to what she calls a feral horse problem here and the 
idea that we might be likely to vote on the basis of emotion rather 
than pure science.
  Well, I'm going to give some hard-and-fast numbers. But first in 
response to that, it seems to me that we should reflect upon the fact 
that virtually all of our heroes are depicted in statues on horses. If 
they were killed in battle, their horse has the two front hooves up in 
the air. If they were wounded, one hoof is up.
  Now, there's nothing scientific about that. It's all about emotion. 
It's about inspiring the American people. It's about what this country 
was about. And one of the things this country was about is its wild, 
open spaces where horses and buffalo were free to roam.
  Now the argument is made they are nonnative. Well, the cows are 
nonnative, too, and in large measure this is to provide more room for 
cow grazing.
  Let me get to some hard-and-fast numbers, because I strongly support 
Mr. Rahall's bill, because not only is it fiscally responsible, it is 
the right thing to do. Mr. Hastings' substitute is not the best 
solution.
  The House has voted three times on this issue with overwhelming 
bipartisan support every time. This bill provides cost-effective, on-
the-range management for our mustangs.
  The Bureau of Land Management's program really isn't working very 
well. They're rounding up wild horses, only to keep them in holding 
pens. It's not good for the horses and it's wasting money, frankly.
  Now, when you spend two-thirds of your program feeding captive wild 
mustangs in costly pens, you ought to figure out if there isn't a 
better alternative. Mr. Rahall's bill and Mr. Grijalva's is a much 
better alternative to let them live in the open range but to reduce the 
population through humane birth control measures.
  The gentleman suggests this is welfare for horses. The U.S. 
Geological Survey, the Journal of Wildlife Management, and the GAO all 
agree that this saves more than $6 million as well as saving 30,000 
horses. Mr. Hastings' amendment would be voting to slaughter 30,000 
wild horses.

                              {time}  1130

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. RAHALL. I yield the gentleman 2 additional minutes.
  Mr. MORAN of Virginia. I thank my very good friend, the chairman, the 
gentleman from West Virginia.
  I can't imagine that we want that picture that Mr. Rahall showed on 
the floor, which was only a half dozen horses, magnified 5,000 times. 
Mr. Hastings' amendment will cause 5,000 times that slaughter, 30,000 
slaughtered horses.
  Now, as to this wild horse welfare, the reality is that the 
Geological Survey has figured that by implementing herd reduction with 
birth control, Mr. Rahall's bill, H.R. 1018, saves more than $6 million 
a year. The U.S. Geological Survey says it will save $7.7 million a 
year. What is planned is to use a much less expensive, far more humane 
process of population control, contraceptive measures to humanely 
reduce the number of horses while allowing them to use the range. We're 
talking about federally owned Bureau of Land Management land. We're not 
talking about letting the horses loose in everybody's backyard in 
Wyoming or any other State. We're talking about BLM lands. What the GAO 
found, and I quote, ``reducing authorized grazing levels would likely 
be cheaper than wild horse removals to achieve the same reduction in 
forage consumption.''
  Well, that's the economics of this. This is fiscally responsible. 
This saves money, according to experts. But there's also something to 
be said for the other, the noneconomic, nonpragmatic issue. It seems to 
me that it is wrong for this Congress to vote to slaughter 30,000 wild 
horses. Basically it was their land, and we took it from them. Let's go 
with Mr. Rahall's amendment and do the right thing. I thank my 
colleagues.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, before I yield time to my 
friend from Utah, I just would point out to my friend from Virginia 
that the amendment that I am going to offer later on is precisely word 
for word a bill that he voted on 2 years ago.
  With that, Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to my friend from Utah (Mr. 
Bishop).
  Mr. BISHOP of Utah. I thank the gentleman.
  I guess one of the problems I have is that I have actually read this 
bill and some of the amendments that are going to be proposed here. It 
seems that we are in a situation where we are more concerned--or at 
least the leaders of this Congress are more concerned--about homes for 
horses than we are homes for Americans or jobs for Americans. And from 
the very few people that still have jobs, we are now going to take $700 
million, at the minimum, from their pockets to try to create a solution 
to a problem this Congress has solved.
  In years past, the land managers in this country have pled with this 
Congress not to take away the management tool; yet year after year in 
proposal after proposal, we in Congress have, indeed, micromanaged 
those individuals. We have stopped the ability of a sale from these 
horses even though the contract for the sale prohibited resale for 
slaughtering purposes. That no longer is a tool that they have. We have 
tried to reduce the ability that they have of running an adoption 
program until today. It is no longer effective because of our efforts 
on this floor to micromanage. There is an effort--even the 
administration complained about a provision that will be in the bill 
and that will remain in this bill about the process of taking a horse 
that has died of natural causes to a rendering factory that could be 
construed as a felony. The administration complained about that, and we 
have done nothing to take out that micromanagement element to it. In 
years past the Secretary of the Interior did have the right to 
euthanize old, sick or lame horses; but we have also narrowed that down 
to the point that that could only happen with a terminally ill horse as 
a means of a mercy approach.
  In addition to that, other elements that this House passed in the 
agriculture bill and in finance bills have totally eliminated the 
abilities of those in the private sector who have

[[Page H8322]]

horses to do anything else except what is left to them, dump these on 
the Federal range, which means that the count the people have been 
talking about by the States--and it is only 10 of them that are 
impacted with the wild horses and wild burros--recognize that there is 
a significant undercount of this problem and this situation. We already 
have dedicated solely to wild horses and wild burros an amount of land 
that is owned by the public that is the size of the State of New York. 
And even with that much land dedicated solely to the purpose of horse 
range, our micromanagement in taking tools away from the land manager 
who went and complained about that has caused us to have an 
overabundance of horses on that land until, indeed, 35,000 horses, we 
have to find other activities for them; and Mr. Speaker, it is 
important to know that by the laws of this country they cannot be 
slaughtered. There is no slaughter of horses. We have banned the 
practice. We have banned the transportation.
  No one is talking about the slaughtering of horses. The closest this 
bill comes to slaughter is the Rules chairman who limited all the 
amendments that were possible under this particular bill. And 
unfortunately because of how we have micromanaged this land, the 
appropriations for our Horse and Burro Program, which will run close to 
$60 million in next year's budget, 75 percent has to be done to the 
excess that we have that has been caused by decisions that we have made 
on this floor.
  Now the solution being presented today is simply not trying to give 
the land managers the tools that they ask. It is to expand the amount 
of land by a size equal to the State of West Virginia for more area at 
a cost of $700 million, according to CBO. However, the agency itself 
said this will be well over $1 billion when we are finished with this 
solution. We have found that we have a problem in this country where 
stimulus bills don't create the jobs we expected, our bloated budgets 
don't create the jobs we expected, our tax increases don't create the 
jobs we expected. So instead of tackling that issue, which would be a 
perfectly legitimate subject today, we're talking about horses, horses 
roaming an area the size of the State of New York. We may be willing to 
ration health care for humans but not health care for horses. We have 
more concern with the habitat for horses than homes for humans, and I 
have a big problem--and I will speak to the amendment now so I will not 
come back--with the concept of the change the gentleman from West 
Virginia is offering. By changing this bill from mandating that the 
size of West Virginia be found somewhere to setting it only as a goal 
makes it a much more pernicious issue. A goal is not a legal 
requirement, but a goal is not defined anywhere in terms in law, which 
means a goal may actually be an incentive to force them to reprioritize 
in a way that the BLM does not want to reprioritize.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. I yield the gentleman an additional 2 
minutes.
  Mr. BISHOP of Utah. A goal in statute may be an element and a door 
opening for lawsuits that will be used against this element. I mean, 
this is the most dangerous of language when it is so vague that no one 
has defined it, no one has considered it, but it may be used against 
us, and especially when the Secretary of the Interior is one of the few 
people in Washington that has the power of condemnation. Not even the 
President of the United States has the ability of going in and 
condemning lands. The Secretary of the Interior does, and we are now 
empowering that Secretary with a vague undefined term of having a goal 
of finding enough land, public or private, the size of the State of 
West Virginia.
  May I state one other thing. The chairwoman of the Rules Committee is 
from New York. The person that was representing this bill from the 
Rules Committee was from Massachusetts. The good gentleman is from West 
Virginia. Last year when we talked about this bill, there were 
gentlemen from West Virginia, Virginia, Kentucky, Ohio speaking towards 
this issue. With all due respect, there are only 10 States that are 
impacted by wild horses and wild burros. Those States I have just 
mentioned have absolutely zero wild horses on their property. If they 
would take these wild horses and provide a habitat for them, I would be 
ecstatic. But until that time happens, we are the ones that are bearing 
the burden, and we understand the issues. And the land managers are 
asking, free their hands so they can solve this problem, and Congress 
does not have the wisdom to listen to the experts to do what they know 
is right to solve this particular problem. This is a conundrum that we 
should not be talking about. We should be talking about how we can make 
life better for Americans with more jobs and a better lifestyle.
  Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to a dear friend, the 
gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Whitfield), one of the cosponsors of the 
legislation.
  Mr. WHITFIELD. Obviously this is a very important issue. And I might 
say that opponents of this legislation--at least some of them--argue 
that under these difficult economic times, the Democrats are spending 
millions of dollars to protect wild horses. Now in my view, it is a 
much more complicated issue than that. This is a classic case of 
competing interests. On one side we have corporations, partnerships, 
individuals who have leased almost 250 million acres of land, owned by 
the taxpayers, from the Federal Government, and on the other side we 
have wild horses.
  Now there's been some question about whether or not these wild 
mustangs were native or not. I'm not an expert in that field, and I 
certainly respect the gentlelady from Wyoming on her comments. But it 
was e-mailed to me that Dr. Kay Kirkpatrick, who is one of the leaders 
and one of the respected experts in this field, has said that these 
wild horses were re-released native wildlife, that they were native. 
They were captured and then re-released. Now because these leaseholders 
do not want wild mustangs grazing on their land, they have been 
successful through lobbyists of changing Federal law to require that 
there only be so many wild mustangs for a certain area of land. And 
because of that, BLM flies helicopters around. They count the wild 
mustangs. If they exceed that number, they move them in these holding 
areas. It is without dispute that these holding areas are the most 
expensive way to deal with these animals. That's why millions of 
dollars are being spent right now.
  I think the reason that the Rahall legislation can help solve this 
problem is this: Number one, it reduces the number of horses in the 
holding areas. Number two, it expands the area for grazing; but most 
importantly, it directs BLM to use immunocontraception to reduce the 
size of the herds.
  Now I can tell you something--when I looked at the conference report 
on the Interior appropriations bill a couple of years ago, we found out 
that these leaseholders of these taxpayer lands were paying the Federal 
Government about 9 cents per acre per year. And I can tell you, the 
farmers of Kentucky and in the East cannot get access to land for 9 
cents per acre per year. So we have this competing interest.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman from Kentucky has 
expired.
  Mr. RAHALL. I yield the gentleman an additional 2 minutes.
  Mr. WHITFIELD. We have this competing interest. We have this 
commercial interest, which we all admire and respect, and we think that 
they should be able to use this land for grazing. The leaseholders 
should be able to use it for grazing, for dude ranches, for recreation, 
for whatever they might want. But at the same time we have these wild 
mustangs that deserve some protection, particularly when the 
leaseholders are paying about 9 cents per acre per year to the Federal 
Government. So I would urge support of the Rahall legislation because 
it expands the grazing area; it's going to reduce the number of wild 
mustangs; and it's also going to reduce the number held in holding 
areas, which is the most expensive way to take care of these animals. I 
urge support of the Rahall legislation.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 
minutes to the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. King).
  Mr. KING of Iowa. I thank the gentleman from Washington for yielding.

[[Page H8323]]

  I come to the floor to address a subject matter that seems a bit 
surrealistic. We have a love for horses in this country. Most of us in 
this Chamber would agree with that, and I am among those. I can think 
of a lot of happy times around horses, on horses and working with 
horses. We also have a responsibility to manage the resources of this 
country. There seems to be a conviction to try to pull this globe--
under the climate change legislation or the cap-and-tax legislation and 
many other pieces--back to what would have been pre-Garden of Eden 
before man supposedly desecrated the planet.

                              {time}  1145

  And the default position, amazingly for me, is what was nature like 
before man began to compete as a species with the other species on the 
planet? And so that default position that comes from the 
environmentalists from consistently out of the political left would be 
this natural balance of our environment.
  I have just heard the gentleman state that these horses were native. 
But they were not native. They are not indigenous. No surviving species 
of horse was indigenous to this continent nor this hemisphere. They 
were brought here by the Spanish in the 1500s and beyond. The horses 
got loose and began to roam the range, and they competed with the 
existing species that were there.
  So if, really, our default position is back to whatever it was Mother 
Nature gave to us before we competed as a species, then we should look 
at this not as horses as a natural component of the habitat, but an 
unnatural, feral component of the habitat.
  When I hear about the discussion about the millions spent on these 
helicopter cowboys herding these horses around and putting horses into 
holding pens and buying up hay to feed them, I think of visiting the 
National Bison Reserve that is out there in, I have forgotten exactly 
where that was, whether it is in southern Montana or up in Wyoming. I 
remember going there to visit. And I was fascinated. I drove a long way 
to get there because I wanted to see what it was like when the buffalo 
roamed the plain. I have walked into the virgin timberland and stood 
there and imagined what it was like for the pioneers and the settlers 
to walk through that forest. I wanted to be out there to see what it 
was like for the native buffalo.
  What I saw were paddock-style pastures. In order to manage the bison, 
the Federal Government has built a great big old pasture and divided it 
into four quadrants, and there we manage the buffalo by herding them 
into one corner of the pasture and then another and then another, 
harvesting some for slaughter. We sell them for breeding stock and we 
eat them. We do that with buffalo, but we can't do that with horses, 
because somehow a horse has been raised to another level of species.
  This is an amazing thing to me. And as I read through this bill, I 
don't think I have ever been so taken aback by reading through 
language. There is much of it that has been produced in this Congress.
  I listened to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Moran) talk about this 
contraception that is here.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Holden). The time of the gentleman has 
expired.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. I yield the gentleman an additional 2 
minutes.
  Mr. KING of Iowa. I thank the gentleman.
  I think it is important for us to actually read the language on this 
horse contraception. It says: ``Research, develop, and implement 
enhanced surgical or immunocontraception sterilization or other safe 
methods of fertility control.'' Now let that soak in for a little bit. 
This is enhanced contraception for horses. I don't know what that is. I 
think it could be about anything that human beings might use. But I 
suspect that it doesn't include horse abortion for one thing. And so 
I'm implying that there is a different set of standards for a horse 
species than there is for a human species, given the debate we have had 
in this Congress.
  It is a breathtaking step to think about what enhanced contraception 
is for horses. It is one of those things that I don't think will be 
described here on the floor of the House. It is kind of an imaginary 
thing. It is difficult to manage these horses. And I would say that 
abstinence will not be part of this; that is also part of the debate.
  So as I watch what is going on, there has been a real effort here to 
block the humane harvesting of horses. And the HSUS has been successful 
in doing that. There are no horses slaughtered in America that are 
going off for human beings to eat anywhere. Some are being hauled, I 
think against the law, maybe across the border to be slaughtered 
elsewhere; but to manage all of our livestock, all of the species in 
our country, we have to be smart about it.
  What has happened is they have, through legislation and litigation, 
blocked the responsible harvesting of horses. It has taken the market 
of them down from 5 to 600, down to essentially nothing; and the result 
is we have a lot more horses than we need. And now they have the 
audacity to come to this Congress and say, we are going to have to hit 
up the American people for 700 million more dollars in order to take 
care of these extra animals that we decided now we want to keep around 
as national pets.
  I did the math on this. And if you calculate how the increase in the 
horse population because of the restrictions in the harvesting, never 
mind the value of what has happened to the property of the horse 
owners, they will eat up enough hay from enough ground, there will be 1 
billion gallons of ethanol we could produce off of that horse pasture.
  Mr. RAHALL. May I have a time check, Mr. Speaker.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from West Virginia has 12 
minutes remaining with the right to close. The gentleman from 
Washington has 6\1/2\ minutes remaining.
  Mr. RAHALL. I reserve the balance of my time to close.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself as much time 
as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, again, let me repeat that when America is hurting, we 
should be addressing those issues in which to try to resolve those 
problems and those issues that are making America hurt. Unemployment is 
at 9.5 percent, and President Obama says it could go into double digits 
in the near future.
  And so what is our response to that? Our response is to, unlike 2 
years ago, address this issue in a different manner, to address it at 
least partially the same way, but add another $700 million for, as I 
mentioned, and the distinguished chairman acknowledged that we would 
mention, welfare for horses.
  I don't think that that is the proper way we should be debating, 
given the economic environment we have in this country. Yet that is 
precisely where this bill goes.
  With that, Mr. Speaker, I will yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I might consume.
  Mr. Speaker, as I said earlier today in debate on the rule on this 
legislation, this Congress can walk and chew gum at the same time. We 
can address unemployment, we can address health care reform, we can 
address the war, deficits, and at the same time, we do not need to 
allow the status quo to continue as it affects our wild horses and 
burros. These are icons of America, the American mustang. The status 
quo is a national disgrace. It is a disgrace to our heritage. It is a 
disgrace to all for which we stand.
  Those on the other side of the aisle who want to make light of this 
situation, I'm sure if they were to go home to their Main Streets and 
pose a question to their constituents, do you support your Federal 
Government slaughtering 30,000 American wild horses, do you support 
them being held in holding pens, I suggest I know what the answer would 
be. The bottom line, this is the wild horse version of Gitmo, the wild 
horse version of Gitmo.
  The pending legislation seeks to remedy the critical lapse that is 
taking place under the Wild Free-Roaming Horses and Burros Act of 1971 
by invoking a number of commonsense measures. The measure would promote 
the use of better science to determine whether the amount of range that 
is available to wild horses is capable of sustaining them.
  This would be accomplished through maintaining a valid inventory of 
the

[[Page H8324]]

wild horse population on the range and establishment of appropriate, 
scientifically based methodologies to determine management levels.
  Second, the pending bill would increase the amount of range available 
to wild horses, including through private lands controlled by entities 
seeking to establish sanctuaries. Many of us have heard about the 
Pickens Plan. And I'm not talking about the T. Boone Pickens plan, the 
one dealing with wind and solar energy. I'm talking about the one 
advanced by his wife, Madeline Pickens, to utilize private resources 
for the establishment of wild horse sanctuaries.
  The pending legislation makes it a goal, not a requirement, but a 
goal to increase the acreage on which wild horses can roam. By doing 
so, we reduce the number of animals that are culled from the herd and 
placed in holding facilities.
  These holding facilities which have come up during this debate, I 
think it is important to recognize that keeping wild horses and burros 
in these holding facilities costs $21 million annually, or two-thirds 
of the entire cost of the wild horse and burro management program. The 
cost of these holding facilities has been rising dramatically from $7 
million in 2000 to $21 million in 2008.
  So we are attempting to reduce costs here, reduce the holding cost by 
lessening the number of roundups through a combination of what we are 
doing in this bill, making more public land available for wild horses 
and burros, strengthening and reforming the adoption program, enhancing 
measures for fertility control and contraception.
  Third, even with the actions that I have already outlined, there will 
not be enough open range land to sustain all of our wild horses. In an 
effort to contain the costs associated with these holding facilities, 
we seek to bolster the adoption program and implement sterilization and 
other fertility controls. We seek to give the Bureau of Land Management 
the tools with which to do a better job.
  And, finally, what the bill does not allow is the destruction of 
healthy horses; fatally injured or terminally ill animals, yes, but not 
healthy wild mustangs.
  Let us stop the slaughter. Stop the abuse. Save taxpayer money and 
vote for the pending legislation. Let's save mustangs and save tax 
dollars at the same time and support the pending legislation.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. All time for debate has expired.


                    Amendment Offered by Mr. Rahall

  Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Speaker, I have an amendment made in order under the 
rule.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mr. Rahall:
       Page 6, line 20, insert ``, to the extent practicable,'' 
     after ``ensure that''.
       Page 11, line 4, before ``surgical'' insert ``fertility 
     control for mares, stallions, or both, such as''.
       Page 11, line 5, insert ``, humane, and effective'' after 
     ``safe''.
       Page 12, line 11, strike ``and'' and all that follows 
     through line 12, and insert ``or their remains shall not be 
     sold or transferred for consideration for processing into 
     commercial products; and''.
       Page 17, line 6, strike ``at a minimum''.
       Page 19, line 22, strike ``immuno-
     contraception'' and insert ``fertility control''.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 653, the 
gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. Rahall) and a Member opposed each 
will control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from West Virginia.
  Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Speaker, this amendment makes four changes to H.R. 
1018 as reported by our Natural Resources Committee. First, after 
further consultation with experts in the field, the amendment will 
broaden the types of fertility control that would be available to the 
Bureau of Land Management in order to better manage the wild horse and 
burro population.
  Next, the amendment narrows the definition of ``commercial uses'' 
prohibited under the act. The purpose of this change is to clearly 
prohibit the sale of horses and burros for slaughter while clarifying 
that use of these animals on farms or in other commercial operations is 
allowed.
  The amendment also makes a technical change to clarify the membership 
requirements for the Wild Horse and Burro Advisory Council.
  And, finally, the amendment relaxes the requirement that the BLM 
return wild horses and burros to the acres of public land from which 
they have been removed since 1971.
  The CBO cost estimate for this bill was based on the assumption that 
significant land acquisition would be required. That will not be the 
case, however; these horses and burros can be accommodated on existing 
Federal lands. Restoration of those acres remains an important goal but 
would not be a legal requirement.
  This is a good package of small changes which will improve H.R. 1018. 
I urge my colleagues to support the amendment.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the 
amendment.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I want to give credit to my 
friend and chairman of the Natural Resources Committee for the 
creativity that is exhibited in the manager's amendment.
  On the one hand, this manager's amendment is an outright admission 
that we can't afford this costly new welfare program for wild horses. 
And then on the other hand, this amendment doesn't delete, erase, 
strike out or eliminate even a single page, section or word from this 
bill.
  Somehow, we are to believe that adding four little words to this 20-
page bill, without deleting anything from it, somehow makes the CBO-
estimated price tag of $700 million magically go away. Even with this 
manager's amendment, Mr. Speaker, the pricing remains.
  This manager's amendment doesn't eliminate the sections from the bill 
to restore wild horses and burros to 19 million acres of land. By the 
way, it is an area, as we have said before, larger than the State of 
West Virginia. But just to put this in perspective, it is also larger 
than the combined area of New Hampshire, Rhode Island, Delaware, 
Connecticut and New Jersey. So we are not talking about a small piece 
of land. We are talking about a huge area.
  The CBO estimates that complying with the new policies in this bill 
and restoring horses to this 19 million additional acres will cost over 
$700 million. Now, the chairman tries to explain that all we are doing 
is changing this requirement to a goal.
  The American people, I think, are not going to breathe any easier 
when they hear that Congress has a goal of spending $700 million to 
create welfare programs for wild horses and burros.
  So, Mr. Speaker, the manager's amendment doesn't change the real plan 
in the bill at all. The plan is to spend $700 million for welfare for 
wild horses and burros.
  Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I 
yield back my time.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, with that I will yield back 
my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the amendment offered by 
the gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. Rahall).
  The amendment was agreed to.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

                              {time}  1200


  Amendment in the Nature of a Substitute Offered By Mr. Hastings of 
                               Washington

  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I have an amendment made in 
order under the rule.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment in the nature of a substitute printed in House 
     Report 111-212 printed in Part B offered by Mr. Hastings of 
     Washington:
       Strike all after the enacting clause and insert the 
     following:

     SECTION 1. SALE OF WILD FREE-ROAMING HORSES AND BURROS.

       (a) In General.--Section 3(d)(5) of Public Law 92-195 (16 
     U.S.C. 1333(d)(5)) is amended--
       (1) by striking the period and inserting the following: 
     ``Provided, That no wild free-roaming horse or burro or its 
     remains may be sold or transferred for consideration for 
     processing into commercial products.''; and
       (2) by striking subsection (e).

[[Page H8325]]

       (b) Criminal Provisions.--Section (8)(a)(4) of Public Law 
     92-195 (16 U.S.C. 1338(a)(4)) is amended by striking ``except 
     as provided in section 3(e),''.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 653, the 
gentleman from Washington (Mr. Hastings) and a Member opposed each will 
control 15 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Washington.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I hesitate to call this my 
amendment because actually it was written by Chairman Rahall. This is 
the exact text of H.R. 249 that passed the House in the last Congress. 
It passed the House in April of 2007. It bans the commercial slaughter 
of wild horses and burros. It is less than one page in length, and CBO 
estimated in the last Congress that it would cost under $500,000 a 
year.
  Members of this House voted for this bill just 2 years ago, and at 
that time, Mr. Speaker, the unemployment rate nationwide was 4.3 
percent.
  Fast forward to today, when the unemployment rate today has more than 
doubled to 9.5 percent and is estimated by officials in the Obama 
administration to go into double digits in the near future.
  With this background, Mr. Speaker, we are now considering a bill that 
bans the slaughter of wild horses and creates a new $700 million 
welfare program for wild horses and burros. This House, Mr. Speaker, 
can choose between banning slaughter of wild horses for less than 
$500,000, which is what my substitute would do, or banning the 
slaughter of wild horses with a $700 million price tag, which is the 
subject of the underlying bill. I think, Mr. Speaker, that this is a 
very easy choice.
  Let me repeat again. The vote for the Hastings substitute would ban 
horse slaughter at a cost of $500,000 a year. H.R. 1018 bans horse 
slaughter, just like my substitute, but creates a new welfare program 
for $700 million. I think, in this economic atmosphere that we are in, 
the best option is to adopt my substitute.
  Now, in the interest of full disclosure, Mr. Speaker, I voted against 
that bill 2 years ago because I think there has to be an option for 
slaughter. But given the option today of spending an extra $700 million 
or spending less than $500,000 and still banning slaughter, I think 
that is the proper way to go and that is precisely what my substitute 
does. And so I would urge my colleagues to vote for the substitute.
  I reserve my time.
  Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman from Washington's comments on 
my efforts, and appreciate his full disclosure. I'll probably repeat it 
a few times here in the next couple of minutes, but I do appreciate him 
being up front about it.
  This substitute, which is my anti-slaughter bill from last Congress, 
addresses one piece of a much larger puzzle. While the slaughter issue 
is a disturbing one, the ROAM Act will actually address the underlying 
problems facing the BLM horse and burro program, which has made 
slaughter a possibility. The substitute would address the symptom, 
while the underlying legislation will provide a cure.
  I'm pleased that the gentleman from Washington State now opposes the 
slaughter of horses. When this substitute came before the Congress as a 
free-standing bill last Congress, and which he has already fully 
disclosed, he voted against it. But now he is in support thereof and is 
even offering it on the floor of the House. That is a step forward. 
Unfortunately, this conversion is a day late and several dollars short.
  This substitute was the right approach last Congress, but that was 
before the BLM announced that the program was bankrupt and they were 
going to have to kill 30,000 horses and burros.
  The GAO documented that the BLM program is out of control. First the 
agency was holding 5,000 horses, then 10,000, now it's 30,000. The 
agency now claims killing these animals is the only solution.
  Adopting the Hastings substitute would stop private slaughter, but 
without the other reforms in the underlying legislation, 1018, the BLM 
will have to destroy these animals. The Hastings substitute just 
changes the identity of those who are killing the horses. Only the 
underlying bill actually stops the slaughter.
  This substitute was the right approach last Congress, but that was 
also before the release of the GAO report. Now we have a thorough 
analysis of the obstacles facing the BLM, and a list of recommendations 
to address the root causes.
  The GAO documented the enormous cost of the current BLM approach and 
proposed solutions. The Congress is now in a position to do more, and 
we must do more. H.R. 1018 does more.
  Adopting this substitute would cost money, cost money, not save it, 
because it would allow the BLM to continue pouring good money after 
bad, without fixing the inefficiencies which plague the program in the 
first place.
  Since I authored the legislation Mr. Hastings is now offering as his 
substitute, my colleagues and I have worked with the BLM, the Humane 
Society, the Animal Welfare Institute, the GAO and others to find new 
and more comprehensive solutions. We have apparently succeeded in 
bringing Mr. Hastings up to where we were last Congress, and I hope 
that eventually all of our colleagues will understand that now is the 
time to do more.
  The substitute is too little, too late, should be rejected.
  And I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield one 
minute to the distinguished Republican leader, the gentleman from Ohio 
(Mr. Boehner).
  Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Speaker, I think I must be confused. The 
unemployment rate in our country is at over 9\1/2\ percent, as I speak. 
The unemployment rate in my home State of Ohio is now over 11 percent. 
Two million Americans have been put out of work since the stimulus bill 
was signed into law. Our budget deficit is already this year over $1 
trillion and expected to reach nearly $2 trillion. And faced with this 
news, what's the House doing today? Talking about a $700 million 
welfare program for wild horses and burros.
  Is it any wonder, Mr. Speaker, that our constituents may be confused 
about their Congress?
  Let's get this straight. We're debating a bill to spend millions of 
dollars to save wild horses, but yesterday, Democrats in the House 
blocked Republicans from offering an amendment to prevent Federal 
dollars from being spent on saving unborn children. Oh, yeah. $700 
million today to save wild horses and burros, and yesterday, we weren't 
even allowed to offer an amendment to save the lives of unborn kids. 
That doesn't make any sense to me. But I think, Mr. Speaker, most of my 
constituents would look up and go, well, that's just Washington being 
Washington. And it doesn't make any sense that we're debating a welfare 
program about wild horses when the American people really want to know, 
where are the jobs?
  Debating this bill, I frankly think, is an insult to the American 
people who are out there looking for work; small businesses who are 
looking for customers trying to keep their doors open.
  And if Democrats want to do something serious here in this House, 
they should join with Republicans and focus our efforts on those things 
that will help create jobs in America, which, after all, is the number 
one priority of the American people.
  Probably ought to do a few other things. If we're going to talk about 
creating jobs and keeping jobs in America, maybe we ought to scrap 
Speaker Pelosi's national energy tax, which is going to cost us about 
2\1/2\ million jobs every year over the next 10 years. Or maybe we 
should shelve the government takeover of health care that's being 
debated in several of our committees as we speak, which is going to 
take the health care, the private health care, away from millions of 
Americans and shove them into some government-run system, and on top of 
all that, has a giant tax on small businesses. It taxes employment, and 
it's even going to lead to even greater job losses in our country.
  But if we're serious about wanting to create jobs, maybe, maybe we 
could work together to bring the American Energy Act to the floor of 
this House, our all-of-the-above energy strategy which will create well 
over a million new jobs here in America, bring us more energy to the 
marketplace with lower prices, reduce our dependence on

[[Page H8326]]

foreign sources of oil. And guess what? If we do all of the above, 
we'll actually have much cleaner air than the bill that passed here 
last month.
  Mr. Speaker, I think American families and small businesses deserve 
better than what they are getting out of this Congress. They expect us 
to work together on their behalf. They expect us to deal with issues 
that will help get this economy moving again, and help create jobs; not 
to be debating a $700 million program, welfare program to save wild 
horses and burros.
  I think the gentleman's amendment is a good amendment. His amendment 
will cost $500,000. That's $699,500,000 less than the underlying bill. 
It will be at least a step in the right direction, and maybe our 
constituents, Mr. Speaker, would think that we've got some sense for 
once in our lives.
  Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I 
am prepared to close.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to yield 3 
minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Gohmert), a member of the 
Natural Resources Committee.
  Mr. GOHMERT. Mr. Speaker, I really appreciate the nobility of the 
effort to help wild horses at this time. But Americans are losing their 
habitats. We found out for June, another 400,000 Americans have lost 
jobs. In 2009 already, since President Obama has taken office, we've 
lost 1.9 million jobs--I'm sorry--1.9 million foreclosures. We've got 
14.7 million unemployed. And that doesn't just represent individuals. 
That's families we're talking about who are desperate right now, and 
we're hearing from them. You know, what about my habitat? I understand 
you want to help wild horses and burros, but what about my habitat? How 
about American individuals getting help?
  We are squandering money like never before in history. And folks, you 
can lose a country by overspending. Go ask the former Soviet Union if 
you can find any of those people. They lost their country because they 
spent until nobody would lend them another dime. They were 
irresponsible.
  And so here we want $700 million for horses?
  And I appreciate the chairman's comment that this amendment by Doc 
Hastings is a dollar short. But it's actually $699,500,000 short, 
basically. This is incredible.
  But I thought about when you get on an airplane, we're told, in the 
safety instructions, that if the cabin loses pressure, an oxygen mask 
will drop. Do not put it on someone else first. You put it on your own 
face first and save yourself. Then you'll be in position to save your 
children and those around you. But if you don't save yourself first, 
you can't help anyone.
  And that's where this country is. If we don't save this country by 
this reckless overspending, we're not going to be in a position to help 
anybody. Immigrants won't have any place to come for safety and for 
jobs because we have wiped ourselves out.
  No wonder the Chinese laughed when Geithner said we were going to 
reduce our deficit. I'm telling you.
  And then jobs? What about American jobs?
  Well, there's one little part in here, and it provides for enhanced 
contraception for the wild horses. Maybe there are jobs in there. Maybe 
somebody out of work can apply for how you apply enhanced contraception 
to a horse. I'm familiar with artificial insemination. I was not 
familiar with enhanced contraception. Maybe there's a green job or some 
color there. But we need to help Americans.

                              {time}  1215

  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, could I inquire of my 
friend, the distinguished chairman of the committee, if he is prepared 
to close after I close?
  Mr. RAHALL. Yes.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. I yield myself the balance of the time.
  Mr. Speaker, let me just repeat again: My substitute is a substitute 
that is identical to the bill that passed this House in April of 2007, 
and the cost at that time was $500,000. The underlying bill that we are 
debating today has essentially those same provisions plus a price tag 
of $700 million, a huge difference between the two. I think, due to the 
economic times that we are in right now, the most prudent way for this 
Congress to act is to go with the lesser amount of money, and that's 
precisely what my substitute does.
  Mr. Speaker, I just want to make one other point.
  The distinguished chairman in his manager's amendment made some 
different calculations as to the $700 million and as to the 19 million 
acres that were to be part of this bill. I just want to make a point. 
The CBO has not scored that one way or the other, but if an absolute 
figure of acquiring or of moving around 19 million acres costs $700 
million, then only logic would suggest that it's going to be precisely 
the same amount of money. So I just want to make a point that the CBO 
has not estimated the score of the manager's amendment.
  The difference here in the debate still is the difference, during 
these economic times we're in, between spending 700 million taxpayer 
dollars on welfare for horses or spending $500,000 to ban the slaughter 
of wild horses and burros. I think the latter that I spoke about is a 
better way to go, and I would urge my colleagues to vote for the 
substitute.
  With that, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. RAHALL. I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, the CBO estimate, the $700 million that has been thrown 
out by the other side as a potential cost to this legislation, was done 
in the last Congress. It was done before the adoption of the manager's 
amendment that we just adopted today in an earlier voice vote. It was 
done without considering the ramifications of the other aspects of H.R. 
1018 that this House will adopt today. It was done taking into account 
in a very narrow, single shot-type fashion, if you will, the potential 
costs of purchasing 19 million acres of additional Federal land for the 
use of these wild horses and burros.
  Therefore, when taking into account that cost, as CBO has done, they 
did not consider the fact that there are already Federal lands owned by 
the American people that are available and out there. The CBO did not 
take into account the management tools contained in the pending 
legislation with which we intend to help the BLM do a better job and 
improve the status quo. The CBO did not estimate any cost savings from 
an enhanced adoption program or from sterilization programs. The CBO 
did not take into account the reduction in costs of these holding pens, 
which I referenced earlier, the $21 million annually that it costs 
today--and that number keeps going up--of the current holding pens for 
these wild horses and burros. The CBO did not consider any of the 
``today'' costs or how the improved management tools offered in H.R. 
1018 will save dollars in the years ahead.
  I urge a ``no'' vote, not only on the Hastings substitute amendment 
but also a ``yes'' vote on the pending H.R. 1018. H.R. 1018 is the 
humane and right vote to cast today. It will save our mustangs. It will 
save tax dollars. It will save millions of tax dollars annually. When 
you look through all of the smoke and mirrors of the numbers that have 
been thrown out today, you will find that, by implementing herd 
reduction with birth control, we can save more than $6 million alone 
each year. Again, when we look at the cost reductions of these holding 
pens, this legislation is the tax-wise way to go.
  So I conclude by urging a ``no'' vote on the Hastings substitute and 
a ``yes'' vote on the underlying bill, H.R. 1018.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 653, the 
previous question is ordered on the bill, as amended, and on the 
amendment in the nature of a substitute printed in part B of House 
Report 111-212 offered by the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Hastings).
  The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from 
Washington (Mr. Hastings).
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the noes appeared to have it.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas 
and nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 74, 
nays 348, not voting 11, as follows:

[[Page H8327]]

                             [Roll No. 576]

                                YEAS--74

     Aderholt
     Altmire
     Arcuri
     Bachus
     Bartlett
     Barton (TX)
     Biggert
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Boehner
     Bono Mack
     Boucher
     Boustany
     Buchanan
     Burgess
     Cao
     Capito
     Carney
     Carson (IN)
     Coffman (CO)
     Crenshaw
     Davis (KY)
     Diaz-Balart, L.
     Diaz-Balart, M.
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Fleming
     Forbes
     Foxx
     Giffords
     Guthrie
     Hall (TX)
     Hastings (WA)
     Heller
     Herseth Sandlin
     Johnson, Sam
     Kosmas
     Lamborn
     Lee (NY)
     Lewis (CA)
     Linder
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Mack
     Manzullo
     McClintock
     McHugh
     McIntyre
     McMorris Rodgers
     Mica
     Murphy, Tim
     Myrick
     Paulsen
     Perriello
     Pitts
     Posey
     Radanovich
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rooney
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Ross
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Scalise
     Schmidt
     Shuler
     Tanner
     Thompson (PA)
     Tiberi
     Turner
     Wamp
     Wilson (SC)
     Wolf
     Young (FL)

                               NAYS--348

     Abercrombie
     Adler (NJ)
     Akin
     Alexander
     Andrews
     Austria
     Baca
     Bachmann
     Baird
     Baldwin
     Barrow
     Bean
     Becerra
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Blackburn
     Blumenauer
     Blunt
     Boccieri
     Bonner
     Boozman
     Boren
     Boswell
     Boyd
     Brady (PA)
     Brady (TX)
     Braley (IA)
     Bright
     Broun (GA)
     Brown (SC)
     Brown, Corrine
     Brown-Waite, Ginny
     Burton (IN)
     Butterfield
     Buyer
     Calvert
     Camp
     Campbell
     Cantor
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardoza
     Carnahan
     Carter
     Cassidy
     Castle
     Castor (FL)
     Chaffetz
     Chandler
     Childers
     Chu
     Clarke
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Cole
     Conaway
     Connolly (VA)
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costa
     Costello
     Courtney
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Culberson
     Cummings
     Dahlkemper
     Davis (AL)
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis (TN)
     Deal (GA)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Dent
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Donnelly (IN)
     Doyle
     Driehaus
     Edwards (MD)
     Edwards (TX)
     Ehlers
     Ellison
     Ellsworth
     Emerson
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Fallin
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Flake
     Fortenberry
     Foster
     Frank (MA)
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Fudge
     Gallegly
     Garrett (NJ)
     Gerlach
     Gingrey (GA)
     Gohmert
     Gonzalez
     Goodlatte
     Gordon (TN)
     Granger
     Grayson
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Griffith
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hall (NY)
     Halvorson
     Hare
     Harman
     Harper
     Hastings (FL)
     Heinrich
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Higgins
     Hill
     Himes
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hirono
     Hodes
     Hoekstra
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hoyer
     Hunter
     Inglis
     Inslee
     Israel
     Issa
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jenkins
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones
     Jordan (OH)
     Kagen
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick (MI)
     Kilroy
     Kind
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kirk
     Kirkpatrick (AZ)
     Kissell
     Klein (FL)
     Kline (MN)
     Kratovil
     Kucinich
     Lance
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Latta
     Lee (CA)
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Loebsack
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Lowey
     Luetkemeyer
     Lujan
     Lummis
     Lynch
     Maffei
     Maloney
     Marchant
     Markey (CO)
     Markey (MA)
     Marshall
     Massa
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy (CA)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCaul
     McCollum
     McCotter
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McHenry
     McKeon
     McMahon
     McNerney
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Melancon
     Michaud
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, George
     Minnick
     Mitchell
     Mollohan
     Moore (KS)
     Moore (WI)
     Moran (KS)
     Moran (VA)
     Murphy (CT)
     Murphy (NY)
     Murphy, Patrick
     Murtha
     Nadler (NY)
     Napolitano
     Neal (MA)
     Neugebauer
     Nunes
     Nye
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olson
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor (AZ)
     Paul
     Payne
     Pence
     Perlmutter
     Peters
     Peterson
     Petri
     Pingree (ME)
     Platts
     Poe (TX)
     Polis (CO)
     Pomeroy
     Price (GA)
     Price (NC)
     Putnam
     Quigley
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Rehberg
     Reichert
     Reyes
     Richardson
     Rodriguez
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rohrabacher
     Rothman (NJ)
     Roybal-Allard
     Royce
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Ryan (WI)
     Salazar
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schauer
     Schiff
     Schock
     Schrader
     Schwartz
     Scott (GA)
     Scott (VA)
     Sensenbrenner
     Serrano
     Sessions
     Sestak
     Shadegg
     Sherman
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Sires
     Skelton
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Souder
     Space
     Speier
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stearns
     Stupak
     Sullivan
     Sutton
     Teague
     Terry
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Tierney
     Titus
     Tonko
     Towns
     Tsongas
     Upton
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walden
     Walz
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watson
     Watt
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Welch
     Wexler
     Whitfield
     Wilson (OH)
     Wittman
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Yarmuth
     Young (AK)

                             NOT VOTING--11

     Ackerman
     Barrett (SC)
     Bishop (UT)
     Coble
     Graves
     Lucas
     Miller, Gary
     Shea-Porter
     Slaughter
     Taylor
     Westmoreland

                              {time}  1255

  Messrs. HARE, BECERRA, MATHESON, HUNTER, SCOTT of Georgia, DONNELLY 
of Indiana, ELLISON, Mrs. BACHMANN, Messrs. GALLEGLY, BAIRD, 
BUTTERFIELD, TIAHRT, CUELLAR, CONAWAY, LATTA, CULBERSON, GARRETT of New 
Jersey, Ms. McCOLLUM, Messrs. ELLSWORTH, WEINER, KINGSTON, MARSHALL, 
Ms. BALDWIN, Messrs. REHBERG, YOUNG of Alaska, GINGREY, CAMP, CHILDERS, 
SMITH of Nebraska, ALEXANDER, ISSA, WALDEN of Oregon, MILLER of 
Florida, BLUNT, POE of Texas, Mrs. LUMMIS, Messrs. SHIMKUS, CASSIDY, 
MARCHANT, BOOZMAN, WITTMAN, FRANKS of Arizona, and TERRY changed their 
vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
  Messrs. SHULER, PITTS, ROGERS of Michigan, McINTYRE, TURNER, and Mrs. 
BIGGERT changed their vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the engrossment and third 
reading of the bill.
  The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, and was 
read the third time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the passage of the bill.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The bill is passed. Without objection, a 
motion to reconsider is laid on the table.


                             Recorded Vote

  Mrs. BIGGERT. I ask for a rollcall vote.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. For the gentlewoman to initiate the request 
at this stage would not be timely.
  Mrs. BIGGERT. Mr. Speaker, the way that I voted, I expected that 
there would be a rollcall vote on that. I ask unanimous consent to have 
a rollcall vote.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Was the gentlewoman asking for a recorded 
vote immediately after the vote by voice?
  Mr. RAHALL. I object to the unanimous consent, Mr. Speaker.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair is not entertaining a unanimous 
consent request at this time.
  If the gentlewoman is making the averment that she was requesting a 
vote right after the vote by voice, the Chair would accept that.
  Mrs. BIGGERT. Yes, I request a vote.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Does the gentlewoman aver that she has been 
requesting that vote since the voice vote?
  Mrs. BIGGERT. I ask unanimous consent that there be a vote.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair only wants to establish that the 
gentlewoman was requesting a vote at the time the vote by voice was 
called.
  Mrs. BIGGERT. Yes, I was on my feet.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. A recorded vote is requested.
  Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I object.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. There is no unanimous consent request. The 
Chair is accepting the gentlewoman's averment.
  A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 239, 
noes 185, not voting 9, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 577]

                               AYES--239

     Abercrombie
     Adler (NJ)
     Altmire
     Andrews
     Baca
     Baird
     Baldwin
     Bartlett
     Bean
     Becerra
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Biggert
     Bilbray
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Bono Mack
     Boucher
     Brady (PA)
     Braley (IA)
     Brown, Corrine
     Burton (IN)
     Butterfield
     Calvert
     Campbell
     Cao
     Capps
     Capuano
     Carnahan
     Carney
     Carson (IN)
     Castle
     Castor (FL)
     Chandler
     Chu
     Clarke
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Connolly (VA)
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costello
     Courtney
     Crowley
     Cummings
     Davis (AL)
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (IL)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Dent
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Donnelly (IN)
     Doyle
     Edwards (MD)
     Edwards (TX)

[[Page H8328]]


     Ellison
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Frank (MA)
     Frelinghuysen
     Fudge
     Gallegly
     Gerlach
     Gonzalez
     Gordon (TN)
     Grayson
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hall (NY)
     Hall (TX)
     Hare
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Heinrich
     Higgins
     Himes
     Hinchey
     Hirono
     Hodes
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hoyer
     Inslee
     Israel
     Issa
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones
     Kagen
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick (MI)
     Kilroy
     King (NY)
     Kirk
     Kissell
     Klein (FL)
     Kratovil
     Kucinich
     Lance
     Langevin
     Larson (CT)
     Lee (CA)
     Levin
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Loebsack
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Lowey
     Lujan
     Lynch
     Maffei
     Maloney
     Markey (MA)
     Marshall
     Massa
     Matsui
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McCotter
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McIntyre
     McMahon
     McNerney
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Michaud
     Miller (MI)
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, George
     Mitchell
     Mollohan
     Moore (KS)
     Moore (WI)
     Moran (VA)
     Murphy (CT)
     Murphy, Patrick
     Murtha
     Nadler (NY)
     Napolitano
     Neal (MA)
     Nye
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor (AZ)
     Payne
     Perlmutter
     Peters
     Pingree (ME)
     Platts
     Polis (CO)
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reichert
     Reyes
     Richardson
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Rothman (NJ)
     Roybal-Allard
     Royce
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schauer
     Schiff
     Schrader
     Schwartz
     Scott (GA)
     Scott (VA)
     Serrano
     Sestak
     Shea-Porter
     Sherman
     Sires
     Slaughter
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Speier
     Spratt
     Stark
     Sutton
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tierney
     Titus
     Tonko
     Towns
     Tsongas
     Turner
     Upton
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watson
     Watt
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Welch
     Wexler
     Whitfield
     Wilson (OH)
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Yarmuth
     Young (FL)

                               NOES--185

     Aderholt
     Akin
     Alexander
     Arcuri
     Austria
     Bachmann
     Bachus
     Barrow
     Barton (TX)
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (UT)
     Blackburn
     Blunt
     Boccieri
     Boehner
     Bonner
     Boozman
     Boren
     Boswell
     Boustany
     Boyd
     Brady (TX)
     Bright
     Broun (GA)
     Brown (SC)
     Brown-Waite, Ginny
     Buchanan
     Burgess
     Buyer
     Camp
     Cantor
     Capito
     Cardoza
     Carter
     Cassidy
     Chaffetz
     Childers
     Coffman (CO)
     Cole
     Conaway
     Costa
     Crenshaw
     Cuellar
     Culberson
     Dahlkemper
     Davis (KY)
     Davis (TN)
     Deal (GA)
     Diaz-Balart, L.
     Diaz-Balart, M.
     Doggett
     Dreier
     Driehaus
     Duncan
     Ehlers
     Ellsworth
     Emerson
     Fallin
     Flake
     Fleming
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Foster
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Garrett (NJ)
     Giffords
     Gingrey (GA)
     Gohmert
     Goodlatte
     Granger
     Griffith
     Guthrie
     Halvorson
     Harper
     Hastings (WA)
     Heller
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Herseth Sandlin
     Hill
     Hinojosa
     Hoekstra
     Hunter
     Inglis
     Jenkins
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jordan (OH)
     Kind
     King (IA)
     Kingston
     Kirkpatrick (AZ)
     Kline (MN)
     Kosmas
     Lamborn
     Larsen (WA)
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Latta
     Lee (NY)
     Linder
     Luetkemeyer
     Lummis
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Mack
     Manzullo
     Marchant
     Markey (CO)
     Matheson
     McCarthy (CA)
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McHenry
     McHugh
     McKeon
     McMorris Rodgers
     Melancon
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Minnick
     Moran (KS)
     Murphy (NY)
     Murphy, Tim
     Myrick
     Neugebauer
     Nunes
     Olson
     Paul
     Paulsen
     Pence
     Perriello
     Peterson
     Petri
     Pitts
     Poe (TX)
     Pomeroy
     Posey
     Price (GA)
     Putnam
     Radanovich
     Rehberg
     Rodriguez
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Rooney
     Roskam
     Ross
     Ryan (WI)
     Salazar
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Scalise
     Schmidt
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shimkus
     Shuler
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Skelton
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (TX)
     Souder
     Space
     Stearns
     Stupak
     Sullivan
     Tanner
     Teague
     Terry
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Walden
     Walz
     Wamp
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Wolf
     Young (AK)

                             NOT VOTING--9

     Ackerman
     Barrett (SC)
     Coble
     Graves
     Lucas
     Miller, Gary
     Schock
     Taylor
     Westmoreland

                              {time}  1315

  Mrs. DAHLKEMPER changed her vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
  Mr. CARNAHAN changed his vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
  So the bill was passed.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

                          ____________________