[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 153 (2007), Part 7]
[House]
[Pages 10420-10432]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




   WILD FREE-ROAMING HORSES AND BURROS SALE AND SLAUGHTER PROHIBITION

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 331 and rule 
XVIII, the Chair declares the House in the Committee of the Whole House 
on the State of the Union for the consideration of the bill, H.R. 249.

                              {time}  1028


                     In the Committee of the Whole

  Accordingly, the House resolved itself into the Committee of the 
Whole

[[Page 10421]]

House on the State of the Union for the consideration of the bill (H.R. 
249) to restore the prohibition on the commercial sale and slaughter of 
wild free-roaming horses and burros, with Mr. Lincoln Davis of 
Tennessee in the chair.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the rule, the bill is considered read the 
first time.
  The gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. Rahall) and the gentleman from 
Utah (Mr. Bishop) each will control 30 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from West Virginia.
  Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, H.R. 249 is important legislation with broad, 
bipartisan support. I am pleased to be joined in this endeavor by my 
colleague, the gentleman from Kentucky, Mr. Ed Whitfield, and a number 
of other Members on both sides of the aisle.
  This Congress is tasked with the stewardship of much that is 
invaluable, our breathtaking natural wonders, our healthy rivers and 
streams, icons of American history; and it is our responsibility as 
public stewards of our land to manage these resources for the good of 
future generations. It is a responsibility as chairman of the House 
Natural Resources Committee that I take very seriously.
  The proper care and preservation of wild horses which roam public 
lands in the West fall within our stewardship, and we are failing to 
live up to our responsibility. I say that because in 1971 Congress 
formally protected these wild horses and mandated that they cannot be 
sold or processed into commercial products, in effect, slaughtered.

                              {time}  1030

  Since that time when the Bureau of Land Management has determined 
that the wild horse population is excessive to the ability of the range 
to support them, captured animals have been offered to the public 
through adoption.
  But all that changed as a result of a rider tucked away into a 
massive omnibus appropriation bill enacted during December 2004.
  The so-called Burns rider overturned 33 years of national policy on 
the care and management of wild horses and burros by repealing the 
prohibition on the commercial sale and slaughter of these animals that 
had been in law. In effect, Mr. Chairman, these animals were earmarked 
for death.
  Since that time, some of these animals, which belong to all Americans 
I might add, and which represent the very spirit of the American West, 
have been rounded up for slaughter and shipped overseas.
  And to what end? So their meat can end up on menus in France, Belgium 
and Japan, where it is considered a delicacy.
  Incredible. It is truly and simply incredible. We do not allow the 
commercial sale of horseflesh in this country for human consumption, 
but we are exporting horse meat for that very purpose abroad.
  Since I first introduced this legislation during the last Congress, I 
have received an impressive volume of heartfelt letters and e-mails 
from across the Nation.
  The very notion that wild horses, wild American horses, would be 
slaughtered as a food source for foreign gourmets has struck a chord 
with the American people. They see in this issue the pioneering spirit 
and the ideals of freedom. And the current policy has created 
disillusionment with many over how their government works and what 
their elected leaders stand for.
  The measure we are now considering will halt that practice. The sale 
and slaughter of wild horses and burros must stop not only because it 
is wrong, but also because the program is a failure.
  While the Bureau of Land Management, the Federal agency which 
oversees the program, may sincerely hope that these animals do not end 
up on menus in France or Japan or Belgium, the Burns rider severely 
handicaps efforts to protect these herds.
  Now, some will say the sale authority is necessary because the agency 
costs of managing the program have grown too high, but this is an issue 
of the BLM's own making. Each year they round up more animals than can 
be adopted. The excess animals are sent to holding facilities where 
their numbers simply increase per year, year after year, driving up 
management costs. If the agency wants to save money without selling 
these animals, it needs only to get its round-ups and adoptions in 
sync.
  There are also those who say we need to allow these animals to be 
sold off because there are too many of them on the public lands and 
they are causing massive resource damage.
  First of all, it should be noted that there are significantly fewer 
wild horses and burros on public lands today than there were just 25 
years ago.
  Second, compared to the 3 to 4 million cattle that graze these same 
acres, wild horses and burros are hardly the most serious threat to our 
public rangelands.
  All I seek to do in this legislation, with H.R. 249, is to return the 
law to the way it existed for 33 years prior to the Burns rider. The 
House has twice gone on record supporting a prohibition on the 
commercial sale and slaughter of wild horses and burros.
  So I conclude by asking my colleagues' support once again today. It's 
time to do right by these living icons of the American West.
  I reserve the balance of my time, Mr. Chairman.
  Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  It is indeed an honor for me to be here with the distinguished 
chairman of the Resources Committee. Through his illustrious career I 
have been impressed with the way he has run the committee. I've also 
been impressed with his commonsense approach to issues, except for this 
one. And I appreciate the opportunity of being here.
  You know, Mr. Chairman, this is the time of year when everyone has a 
great deal of hope. This is the beginning of the baseball season, where 
every team, with the possible exception of the Royals, still has a 
mathematical chance of winning the division.
  And as a loyal Cub fan, who is now in my 99th year, consecutive year, 
of reconstruction and renewal, there is still hope for me.
  It is also sad because we are about to commemorate very soon the 43rd 
anniversary of the worst trade made in the history of baseball, 
according to many scholars. And that trade was a six-player trade in 
which my Cubs sent three players, including Lou Brock, to the St. Louis 
Cardinals in exchange for three other players and Ernie Broglio, who 
was an 18-game winner at the time.
  Now, on paper this trade made great sense for the Cubs. They were 
getting an outfielder, a veteran relief pitcher, and a starting 
pitcher, a 20-game winner who had won 18 games the year before.
  What happened in reality, of course, is that Lou Brock accepted the 
role of a lead-off hitter when he went to the Cardinals and spurred 
them to not only the Pennant but also the World Series victory on his 
way to a Hall of Fame career.
  Broglio, a great pitcher, actually developed arm problems, won only 
seven games the rest of his career, and 2 years later he is out of 
baseball.
  Now, this is known as one of those great trades that looked perfect 
on paper but in reality it simply wasn't there.
  With all due respect, this bill is one of those great bills on paper, 
but the reality of it simply isn't there. This is an Ernie Broglio bill 
if there ever was one.
  Now, I have to admit that I don't have a great deal of personal 
knowledge about horses. My reference to horses in the last 30 years is 
probably helping my kid to choose either the striped or the painted one 
on the merry-go-round. The unfortunate thing is that most of the people 
who will be voting on this bill have the exact same background that I 
do have.
  I am happy to note, though, that I do have a brother who met his wife 
while he was the rodeo clown, and his wife was in the barrel racing 
contest and is one the few people who has actually

[[Page 10422]]

trapped and trained a wild horse on the open desert in Utah and Nevada. 
So I am using that background from the history as we talk about this 
particular bill.
  And as I looked at this bill as it came out of committee and studied 
it closer, there are five areas in which I think this bill has 
significant flaws.
  The first is that this bill does not do what its supporters claim it 
will do. Not the sponsor. He's been totally honest in this. But many of 
those who have been writing about this particular bill have exaggerated 
what it actually does.
  Secondly, this bill takes away a tool of management from BLM and does 
not replace it with anything created to help them in their established 
goal.
  Number three, this bill has a difficult system in making the 
ecosystem of the West, the desert West, a more difficult area to 
manage.
  Number four, there is indeed an extreme cost that the taxpayers are 
paying in this program that actually ends up being more abusive of the 
animals that we are trying to preserve and to help.
  And finally, I think there is, indeed, a regional bias that can be 
seen in this particular bill.
  Now, if I could, Mr. Chairman, I would like to just talk about 
perhaps that first issue, just that first issues. This bill does not do 
what the proponents claim. I have seen the Dear Colleague letters from 
Robert Redford and Willie Nelson, and one came from the Humane Society 
making all sorts of claims that are actually not done by this 
particular bill. The reality is, as well-intentioned as this bill may 
be, there is actually no change in what will happen with the BLM and 
their priorities.
  If this bill passes, no horse is actually safer than it would have 
been. And if this bill fails, no horse is actually going to be eaten in 
France. The idea is this is a very narrow bill that only deals with BLM 
and deals with forestlands. It doesn't deal with all public lands, 
doesn't deal with national parks or wildlife refuges or reservations or 
military affairs. It has been said there are about 90,000 horses a year 
that are unwanted. Their owners either cannot or will not maintain 
them.
  On BLM lands we are only talking about 7,000 horses, 6,800 last year 
that were taken off land because of the inability of the land to 
sustain them. This is only a small portion that this bill deals with, 
so the overall idea of trying to help all the animals, to stop foreign 
sales consumption of those, it's not covered in this particular bill. 
What it does do, though, is take away a management tool the BLM has.
  And with that, Mr. Chairman, in the coming speeches by my colleagues 
who will be down here, and as we go through for the next hour this 
particular bill, I hope to explore those other issues.
  Therefore, I will reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Chairman, only to respond to the latter point that 
the gentleman has just made, the original 1971 language only dealt with 
BLM lands, so that is why we are not considering all these other areas 
to which the gentleman referred.
  I continue to reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Chairman, it's my honor to recognize and 
yield time to the distinguished Representative from Idaho. I yield Mr. 
Sali 2 minutes and 14 seconds, which is what he says he needs.
  Mr. SALI. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in opposition to H.R. 249 that 
would end the Bureau of Land Management's authority to sell wild 
horses. This is an important resource and wildlife management issue 
that affects our Nation's rangelands.
  Recognizing the need to ensure healthy herds and healthy rangelands, 
the U.S. Congress gave the administration the authority to manage, 
protect and control wild horses and burros with the enactment of the 
Wild Free-Roaming Horses and Burros Act of 1971.
  The statute directs the agency to maintain populations at a 
designated appropriate managed level, based on wild herds and rangeland 
monitoring, to determine the number of animals, including livestock and 
wildlife, that the land can support. In spite of the removal of horses, 
as was mentioned by the gentleman from Utah, currently the population 
of wild horses on the range is more than 10,000 above the appropriate 
management level.
  The excess horse populations are causing significant resource and 
environmental damage. Even conservation groups such as the National 
Association of Conservation Districts, the International Association of 
Fish and Wildlife Agencies, the Izaak Walton League, and a number of 
others have acknowledged the damage caused by this overpopulation of 
horses. Balanced management, respecting recreation, watersheds, 
wildlife and grazing must be restored to the public lands where these 
horses roam.
  I urge a vote against H.R. 249 to help protect the environment and 
ecosystems of the western States.
  Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Chairman, I continue to reserve the balance of my 
time.
  Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Chairman, I would be pleased to yield 5 
minutes to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Salazar).
  Mr. SALAZAR. Mr. Chairman, just for the record, I want everyone to 
know that I am wearing one of my favorite ties, which is a horse tie. I 
have been a lifelong farmer and rancher, and I can assure you that no 
one in this Chamber loves horses more than I do.
  But the good citizens of western Colorado and all Americans love our 
beautiful country and the public plans administered by the National 
Park Service, the Forest Service and the BLM. For more than 100 years, 
the Forest Service, the BLM lands, have been managed for multiple use 
and sustainable yield of their products. This means historic uses such 
as grazing remain a bedrock use of the land, and conservation remains a 
bedrock principle for which these lands are managed.
  It is one thing to agree on these core principles. It is another one 
to do the hard work needed to effectively express the principles and 
actions and policies. Great needs for land management are going 
unanswered because Congress lacks the will to provide adequate funding 
to these core management functions. And at the same time, Mr. Chairman, 
the courage to adjust these laws reflects the reality of land 
management today.
  So, for example, conservation of wildlife under the Endangered 
Species Act and other laws is regarded by many, including myself, as 
among the highest conservation priorities in our country. Nevertheless, 
Congress consistently fails to provide adequate funding for species 
conservation on the ground, or funding agencies to adequately implement 
the law.
  We are at a similar place with respect to wild horses and wild 
burros. Legal recognition of the place of wild horses and burros on 
public lands was introduced in the passage of the Wild Horse and Burro 
Act in 1971. This law reflected America's love for horses and the 
concern that they be managed properly on public lands. These are values 
that, undoubtedly, we all share. The key provisions of the law required 
the BLM to manage the horses to an appropriate management level, called 
the AML. As a practical matter, this means that horse population 
numbers had to be managed within the multiple-use framework controlling 
management of BLM land.
  For years, BLM has not been able to bring horse populations down 
within the AML ceiling. This means public lands have been degraded from 
overgrazing by horses. The habitat and food is taken from the wildlife, 
and the areas overpopulated by horses cannot sustain other multiple 
uses of the land. Congress has consistently declined to provide the 
funding needed to gather more horses off BLM land and support them to 
live a healthy life in long-term holding facilities.

                              {time}  1045

  Still, the law calls for maintenance of wild horse populations at the 
AML, but the political will has been lacking to allow the agency to 
succeed.

[[Page 10423]]

  So Congress enacted a legislative solution in the fiscal year 2005 
appropriations bill to help relieve the overpopulation of wild horses 
on public lands by authorizing the sale of unadoptable horses. These 
are horses that no one wanted. Not ranchers, not public officials, not 
even members of the animal rights groups or horse protection leagues, 
and, I am most certainly sure, no one voting ``yes'' on H.R. 249.
  That first year, in 2005, more than 1,500 horses were sold. BLM 
credits the law with allowing them to operate their program within 
budget for the first time in a number of years. A small sales program 
continues today that is significant to the BLM budget. This year 
already, in 2007, 346 horses have been sold. BLM estimates that it 
could run a small sales program of about 600 horses per year. The sale 
of this number of horses is worth several million dollars to BLM over 
the life of the horses, for a program that is funded only at 
approximately $30 million annually.
  H.R. 249, sponsored by the great chairman, whom I have the greatest 
of respect for and I know his intentions are good, would eliminate this 
sales program. Why do it? BLM efforts to prevent the slaughter of 
horses have been successful to date. Congress is not making sufficient 
funding available to take necessary care of the horses in long-term 
care facilities.
  While the public is adopting some horses under the BLM program, 
horses are not being adopted at a rate sufficient to ease the 
overpopulation on public lands. Perhaps worst of all, the 
administration's budget for fiscal year 2008 called for a complete 
cutting of the funding for the horse and burro program. The slow 
progress that has been made towards achieving the AML in recent years 
will be reversed if BLM lacks the funds to gather the horses. Expenses 
will increase in the near future, as there will be more horses to 
manage because the population will not be controlled next year.
  The existing sale authority is a small but necessary tool in an 
overall program to manage wild horses and burros on public lands.
  If you care about the proper management of public lands, responsible 
government, horse welfare, and political courage, you will vote ``no'' 
on H.R. 249.
  Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Once again it is my pleasure to try to say a couple of other 
elements. As I said, there were five concerns that we have with this 
particular bill.
  The first one, as I mentioned, is it really does not solve the 
problem. This bill does nothing that the BLM is not already doing in 
common practice. That is why I said if this bill were to pass, it 
simply would have no more impact on horses than it does now. No horse 
would be safer. If it doesn't pass, no horse is going to the slaughter, 
and no horse is going to be consumed by someone in France.
  This bill is very, very narrow. It only deals with a portion of the 
public lands and a portion of the number of horses that are there, not 
the overall situation.
  But it does do one thing that is harmful. This is the second element. 
It takes away the tool, as the gentleman from Colorado clearly 
enunciated, that is used for the management of wild animals, wild 
horses, on public lands.
  There are only two things that we can do. You can either allow these 
horses that are excess, that are destroying the habitat, that have to 
be taken off the land, roughly 7,000 last year. About 28,000 are being 
held in pens right now as we speak that are excess horses, about half 
of everything the Federal Government actually controls. You can either 
adopt them, which is a year-long practice and individuals are limited 
to four adoptees per individual. Or you can sell them. Sell them either 
for $100 to $2,000, if it is especially a unique animal, and it is 
limitless. That is what has been happening in the past. BLM has had the 
ability and about 2,500 horses have been sold. None for consumption 
purposes.
  Now, you have to realize that if you buy a horse from the BLM today, 
by law and by contract it cannot be resold for consumption. It cannot 
be resold for slaughter. If that happens, that is a felony. That is why 
this bill does nothing that it is not already doing today. But this 
bill does take away the ability to sell those animals, which means you 
are down to the adoption, which is a very difficult process to go 
through. That means it will be harder for BLM and the Forest Service, 
which actually doesn't run their process, which always works through 
BLM, to actually find homes and places for the excess animals on public 
lands.
  In taking that tool of management away, this bill does nothing to 
give BLM a creative solution to the situation. Just saying ``no'' may 
be a good slogan for a drug policy, but saying ``no'' to the BLM does 
not help them in their chartered task of trying to manage the herd as 
well as the ecosystem that is going on there.
  These horses are not native species to these lands. They do hurt the 
environment. They trample it down. That is why since 1971 almost a 
quarter of a million, roughly 200,000 horses, have been taken off the 
public lands because the habitat is not there for them.
  The bottom line is there are too many horses for the land that is 
available. The bulk of these animals are in my State, Nevada, a few in 
Colorado, and some in Wyoming and Arizona. This is desert territory. It 
is not the natural habitat of these horses. This is not the idea of 
horses running over the rolling hills. If you did that, you would 
probably want to send them back east to where the natural habitat is, 
but there is no BLM land back there.
  Actually if you really want to help the situation out, you would take 
about 150 head and put them in Central Park where they could roam 
freely without any fear of contamination, disease, or muggings like the 
New York citizens themselves have back in Central Park. That would 
really help the situation out.
  What we have to do here is either allow nature to take its course, in 
which case these horses will die a pitiful, miserable death of 
starvation, disease, or by the hands or by the mouths of a predator; or 
destroy the ecosystem; or, worse, both situations happening, unless we 
give BLM the tools to remove the animals and find an alternative source 
for them.
  This is a cost for the government. In reality we are spending $38.6 
million every year to run the wild horse program. The overwhelming 
majority of that, almost either $20 million to $25 million, depending 
on which source you look at, is simply for holding these excess horses 
in pens, not letting them run free, not giving them the freedom in the 
wild that you think of, but actually holding them in pens.
  Some of the problems for the horses we look at is sometimes we think 
of Sea Biscuit as we are talking about these animals, an animal that 
has been bred and groomed and is well taken care of.
  These animals fight for their own existence. They are not necessarily 
the most lovable of animals. And, therefore, they have a hard time 
being adopted, which means BLM has to put them in a pen where they 
don't move, they don't do anything except sit around all day and eat. 
And since they eat and are fed and there are no predators around, these 
animals can live for up to 30 years at a cost of about $15,000 per 
animal to the Federal taxpayer, to have them sit around in a pen with 
no chance of activity whatsoever, in actually a miserable condition.
  We are spending $20 million a year to be more abusive to animals than 
they would be if we gave them the tools to actually give them to other 
sources. We actually allow them to sell in some particular way, which 
is why the Humane Society, from their air conditioned offices downtown, 
wrote me and told me to support this bill. The Farm Bureau that 
actually works with these animals and knows what they are talking about 
wrote me and told me to oppose this bill. And in past years when we had 
further variations of this particular concept, veterinarian groups, 
horse owners, cattlemen, over 200 organizations that specifically know 
and

[[Page 10424]]

understand horses have opposed the concepts that we are trying to 
codify in this particular bill.
  So once again I say the problem that we have here in the House is 
that most people like me have no access and no understanding or 
knowledge of these animals. They are like me, where the biggest 
decision they have to make with a horse is whether to put their kid on 
the horse or the snail on the carousel ride. And we are making 
decisions that actually go against the attitude and the advice that 
professionals that work with these animals and that know the situation 
are asking us to do. And it may seem emotional. It may seem good on 
paper. But trust me. This is the Ernie Broglio bill. It is not as good 
in reality as it looks in black and white.
  Let me also say that to me there is an element of regional bias 
within this. This is a map of all the public land that is owned in the 
United States. Everything in blue is the amount of public land owned in 
the United States. You will notice that there is kind of a balance 
towards the West. This is where the public land is. This is where the 
wild horses are. This is desert country. This is not their natural 
habitat. All of our good friends who are proposing and supporting this 
type of legislation, unfortunately, are living over here, where there 
is no BLM land or very little BLM and no wild horse activity, but this 
is, indeed, the natural habitat. It is unfair to us to try to impose a 
solution without creative alternatives by the representatives from here 
on this piece of territory.
  We know what the situation is, and that is why we are simply asking 
you, as best we possibly can, to vote ``no'' on this particular piece 
of legislation.
  I have avoided using any cliches and any bad puns so far. And, Lisa, 
I need to know what my cliches are. Until now, which means I am asking 
you to notice that this bill is all hat and no saddle. I am asking you 
that the horse may be with you, and I urge you to vote ``neigh'' on 
this piece of legislation.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.


                      Announcement by the Chairman

  The CHAIRMAN. All Members are reminded to direct their comments to 
the Chair.
  Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume 
to the gentleman from Colorado.
  Mr. SALAZAR. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  I noticed on the map, Mr. Ranking Member, that we show across the 
western States much public land. Among the public land is also a great 
amount of ranching and farming land. I know that in some of my farming 
country and my own farm in Costilla County, every now and then, almost 
every year, we have a beautiful potato field that is run over by a herd 
of wild horses just because BLM does not have the proper funding and 
the authority to be able to manage these horses properly. I firmly 
believe that this bill will take those tools away that BLM currently 
has to manage wildlife.
  Divisional Wildlife manages elk and deer herds so that they can 
thrive within the habitat that they currently have. One of the biggest 
problems that I see is that BLM uses the tools that they have and the 
funding that they have to be able to manage wildlife and horses on 
public land; but the biggest problem that I see is that if this bill 
passes, they will not be able to weed out the bad apples in the wild 
herds.
  For example, they round up these horses. They put back into the 
wildlife the horses that are good, many of them that are good, but the 
ones that are lame or the ones that we saw like the one here in this 
picture, the ones that have broken legs, they can weed out of the 
population so that they can have better wild horse populations out 
there.
  There is nothing more beautiful than to see a herd of wild horses out 
on the public lands running forever. I can assure you that if this bill 
passes, it will hurt BLM's ability to manage the great wild horse 
populations.
  So I would also urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this bill.
  Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Chairman, I continue to reserve the balance of my 
time.
  Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my 
time.

                              {time}  1100

  Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 5 minutes.
  Mr. Chairman, in response to several arguments that have been brought 
up about BLM's management of these lands and the cost of the program, I 
would respond that if there is a cost problem with the management of 
wild horses and burros, it is one, as I said in my opening remarks, of 
the BLM's own making.
  Each year the Bureau of Land Management rounds up more animals than 
can be adopted. The excess animals are then sent to holding facilities, 
where their numbers increase year after year. That drives up the cost 
of the program. If the BLM wants to save more money, then as I've said, 
it needs only to get its round-ups and its adoptions in sync. There are 
ways other than the sale and slaughter of wild horses to save money. 
For example, a 2004 USGS study found that in the wild, use of 
contraceptive measures alone would save $7.7 million. So I don't think 
we should blame the wild horses and the burros for BLM's mismanagement 
of the program.
  And as far as the map the gentleman from Utah presented about where 
these lands exist, that's true, they exist out West. But it's also true 
that the title to these lands is in the holding of every American 
taxpayer, as they are the lands of the public, and our names are on 
that deed for these lands.
  I would note also, in conclusion, that on a similar amendment to last 
year's Interior appropriation bill, in which language was written to 
prohibit any such funds, the amendment did pass the House of 
Representatives by a vote of 249-159, and on this side of the aisle, 
the majority today, there were only 19 noes on that particular 
amendment to the Interior appropriation bill.
  So I would urge my colleagues to vote ``aye,'' again, to help us 
protect an icon of the American West, and to provide for the humane 
consideration and treatment of these wild horses and burros.
  Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Chairman, today's legislation marks a 
continuation of the important effort to advance animal welfare in the 
110th Congress. One of the stark differences with the new congressional 
majority is the ability to deal meaningfully with important animal 
welfare provisions. Congress, as one of its first orders of business, 
passed the long-stalled animal fighting legislation, ending barbaric 
cruelty that helped foster and advance other illegal and dangerous 
activities.
  Today Congress has the opportunity to take another step reaffirming 
policies that deal with the protection of horses and wild burros; 
protection of free roaming horses and burros from commercial sale and 
slaughter.
  Actually, it's embarrassing that it had to get to this point because, 
since 1971, the Federal Government has had a policy to protect these 
animals. Unfortunately, in the last Congress, without hearing or public 
notice, a rider was slipped into legislation that eliminated these 
protections. I'm pleased that a majority of the Commerce Committee and 
a strong bipartisan majority has voted to support this important 
provision. The Senate is also moving to protect animals by ending the 
sale of horse meat for human consumption. These are important steps 
reflecting a renewed commitment to animal welfare, an essential part of 
any vision of a livable community.
  It is important and overdue that Congress renew our commitment to 
developing a policy framework strongly supported by the American 
public.
  Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Chairman, I have to return to South Carolina to 
attend the presidential primary debate and the dedication of the 
library at Shaw Air Force Base. As a result, I will be unable to cast 
my vote today for H.R. 249, to restore the prohibition on the 
commercial sale and slaughter of wild free-roaming horses and burros. 
If I were able to cast my vote, I would vote in favor of H.R. 249, as I 
have done in the past 109th Congress, rollcall vote 199.
  In the 109th Congress, I joined Representatives Rahall, Sweeney, and 
Whitfield in offering an amendment to the Department of the Interior 
Environment, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act of 2006 to ensure 
that none of the funds made available would be used for the sale or 
slaughter of wild free-

[[Page 10425]]

roaming horses and burros. Our amendment passed the House by a vote of 
249-159.
  The number of wild horses is dwindling. Just a century ago, 2 million 
horses roamed the west. Today, the combined number of wild horses and 
burros is less than 30,000, demonstrating that these animals need more 
protection.
  I hope that others will join me in supporting this and other 
legislation to end the slaughter of our American horses.
  Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 
249, a bill to restore the prohibition on the sale for slaughter of 
wild horses and burros.
  Behind closed doors, language was added to the fiscal year 2005 
Omnibus Appropriations bill that overturned the 33-year-old ban on the 
slaughter of wild horses and burros. Immediately, Congress rejected 
this ploy by voting to amend the fiscal year 2006 Agriculture 
Appropriations bill to reinstate the ban. That amendment, introduced by 
Congressman Nick Rahall, passed overwhelmingly by a vote of 249-159 in 
the House and the same amendment was included in the fiscal year 2007 
bill. We must restore a permanent ban on the slaughter of wild horses 
and burros to ensure that they remain protected.
  Legislators are working to put an end to horse slaughter in this 
country because horses are some of the most beautiful and beloved 
domesticated animals on earth. Americans have long appreciated horses--
for transport, on ranches, as police mounts, and as cherished 
companions. America's wild horses are especially prized. The 
approximately 28,500 horses and burros that roam public land--our 
prairies, ranges, and the open plains--are cherished symbols of 
American freedom.
  The American Horse Council reports that 1.9 million Americans 
currently own horses. Another 7.1 million Americans are involved in the 
industry as horse owners, service providers, employees and volunteers, 
while tens of millions participate in horse events as spectators. These 
millions of Americans know that horses should be treated with dignity 
and respect in life and death. They are disgusted, as I am, that in 
2006 over 100,000 horses were slaughtered at three American-based, 
foreign-owned plants so that the meat could be shipped to Europe and 
Asia for consumption as a delicacy. And they are saddened that wild 
horses were sentenced to the same fate, despite the Bureau of Land 
Management's access to humane options, including adoption, 
sterilization, relocation, and placement with qualified organizations 
and individuals.
  Not surprisingly, a recent poll conducted by Public Opinion 
Strategies found that 65 percent of Americans do not support horse 
slaughter. And 64 percent of Americans believe that horses are a 
companion animal, like dogs and cats, and killing a horse to eat is not 
different than killing a cat or dog to eat.
  I think it's time to listen to the American public and finally end 
the barbaric practice of horse slaughter, for wild horses, and for all 
horses. This legislation demonstrates that we are willing to heed the 
call of the American people, and take the necessary steps to protect 
horses from an inhumane and unjust fate.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of H.R. 
249, which will ``Restore the Prohibition on the Commercial Sale and 
Slaughter of Wild Free-Roaming Horses and Burros.'' I am sure my 
colleagues would agree that horses are as American as apple pie, and a 
symbol of our great Nation. From the time of great explorers like Lewis 
and Clark to the present day celebration at Churchill Downs, horses 
have been an intricate part of our society. To their owners, they are 
companions, for law enforcement officials they are colleagues, but to 
the American people they have never served as a source of food.
  Last year, I stood on this floor in support of H.R. 503, American 
Horse Slaughter Prevention Act. That act sought to prohibit the 
horrendous practice of domestic horse slaughter for consumption. At the 
time I spoke out against the appalling practices of this industry that 
tend to fly under the radar. Horses are forced to travel across our 
borders for more than 24 hours without rest, water or food in trailers 
that provide little protection from the elements. Many horses--sick, 
lame, pregnant or blind--are in distress even before being loaded.
  Once at the slaughterhouse, the suffering gets worse. Horses are left 
for long periods in tightly packed trailers, subjected to further 
extremes of heat and cold. In hot weather, thirst is acute. Downed 
animals are unable to rise. All the horses are moved off forcibly when 
it's time to unload and hurried through the facility into the kill box. 
In the face of these deplorable conditions, including overcrowding, 
deafening noise, and the smell of blood, the horses typically become 
desperate, exhibiting fear typical of ``flight'' behavior--pacing in 
prance-like movements with their ears pinned back against their heads 
and eyes wide open.
  Despite the Federal mandate that horses be rendered unconscious 
before being put to death, many horses are killed alive by repeated 
blows to the head with captive bolt pistols. While writhing in pain, 
the coup de grace is administered by a slit of the throat. The dead 
animal is then processed for shipment overseas and destined for a 
foreign dining table.
  Mr. Chairman, I support H.R. 249 because it extends protection to 
wild free-roaming horses and burros. This legislation closes the final 
loophole that jobbers--the middlemen for slaughterhouses--can use. I 
urge my colleagues to support H.R. 249.
  Mrs. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong 
support of H.R. 249, which would restore the prohibition on commercial 
sale of wild horses and burros that was in place from 1971 to 2004.
  I want to thank my colleagues Representative Nick Rahall from West 
Virginia and Representative Ed Whitfield from Kentucky for their hard 
work in restoring this ban, which should have never been lifted in the 
first place. In the 2 years since the prohibition was eliminated, 
hundreds of wild horses have been slaughtered. This is unacceptable.
  Wild horses are a fixture in United States history. In the 1800s 
there were more than 2 million wild horses and burros in this country. 
Today, there are fewer than 29,000. This bill will protect the small 
number of wild horses and burros who remain, preserving them as 
national treasures.
  Mr. Chairman, this House has time and again expressed the desire of 
the American people to end the slaughter of innocent, beautiful horses 
by voting in support of legislation that would ban the slaughter of 
horses. I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on H.R. 249.
  Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Chairman, I support this bill, but I think 
the Natural Resources Committee should consider whether additional 
legislation would be appropriate in order to improve the management of 
wild horses and burros on Federal lands.
  The bill repeals a provision enacted in 2004 as part of an 
appropriations bill that itself repealed the prohibition on the 
commercial sale and slaughter of wild free-roaming horses and burros 
that had been the law since 1971.
  The Wild Free-Roaming Horse and Burro Act of 1971 established as 
national policy that wild free-roaming horses and burros were to be 
protected from capture, branding, harassment, and death and, among 
other things, it directed that ``no wild free-roaming horse or burros 
or its remains may be sold or transferred for consideration for 
processing into commercial products.''
  Practically since its enactment, the law's implementation has been 
problematic. In particular, the Bureau of Land Management--BLM--has 
been criticized by the Government Accountability Office and the 
Interior Department's Inspector General for the way it has responded to 
the challenge.
  Under the act, the agencies inventory horse and burro populations on 
Federal land to determine ``appropriate management levels.'' They are 
authorized to remove animals determined to be exceeding the range's 
carrying capacity so as to restore a natural ecological balance and 
protect the range from deterioration.
  Toward that end, the law authorizes removed animals to be offered for 
private adoption. New owners can receive title after a 1-year wait, 
with certification of proper care during that time. An individual may 
receive title to no more than four animals per year.
  The law says that if adoption demand is insufficient, the remaining 
healthy animals are to be destroyed--but that authority has not been 
used for more than 20 years, and BLM was prohibited from doing so by 
funding limitations included in the appropriations act from 1988 
through 2004.
  The latest numbers I have seen indicated that there currently are an 
estimated 28,500 wild horses and burros on BLM's 199 herd management 
areas. I understand this is the lowest level since the early 1970s and 
is the closest to what BLM considers to be the appropriate management 
level since that time--but evidently BLM expects the population to 
increase to about 34,000 in this fiscal year while a reduced emphasis 
on removal, as proposed in the President's budget request for fiscal 
2008, could result in a considerable increase in the number of wild 
horses and burros on BLM-managed lands. My understanding is that as of 
the end of fiscal year 2006 there were another 3,180 wild horses and 
burros on 37 ``territories'' managed by the Forest Service.
  Removals have long been controversial. Some think they are not 
appropriate, while others are of the opinion that reduction of

[[Page 10426]]

herds protects range resources and balances wild horse and burro levels 
with wildlife and domestic livestock. BLM says it bases decisions about 
appropriate management levels on population censuses and range 
monitoring, taking into account natural resources, such as wildlife and 
vegetation, and land uses, including grazing.
  My understanding is that between fiscal 1972 and fiscal 2006, 268,709 
horses and burros were removed, of which 216,942 were adopted, while 
others died of natural causes, were sent to holding facilities, or were 
sold. Because more animals have been removed than have been adopted, 
large numbers of animals are being held in facilities.
  This was the context in which Congress enacted the requirement for 
sale of unadopted animals that this bill would repeal. However, in 
April 2005, BLM temporarily suspended sale and delivery of wild horses 
and burros due to concerns about the slaughter of some animals. The 
agency did not sell animals directly for slaughter, and was requiring 
purchasers to give written affirmation of an intent to provide humane 
care. Nevertheless, 41 sold animals were resold or traded and then sent 
to slaughterhouses. Another 52 animals were sold to slaughterhouses, 
but Ford Motor Co. committed to purchasing them. In May 2005, BLM 
resumed sales after revising its bill of sale and pre-sale negotiation 
procedures.
  I support this bill because the provision it would repeal was 
inserted without the benefit of any hearings or public notice and 
without an opportunity for the Natural Resources Committee, which has 
jurisdiction, to consider possible alternative approaches.
  For the same reason, when the House considered the fiscal 2006 
Interior appropriations bill, I supported the Rahall amendment that 
prohibited the use of funds for the sale or slaughter of wild free-
roaming horses and burros--an amendment that the House again included 
in the fiscal 2007 Interior Appropriations bill by voice vote.
  After passage of this bill, the appropriate next step will be for our 
committee to review the status of the wild horse and burro program to 
see whether there is a need for more carefully considered changes in 
the law.
  Mr. FARR. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 249, 
to ban the commercial sale and slaughter of wild free-roaming horses 
and burros.
  At the beginning of the 20th century, there were an estimated 2 
million wild horses and burros, but by the 1950s there were only 
20,000. Today, the number of horses has increased to 32,000. The 
population is mainly controlled through adoption. Since 1972, almost 
217,000 horses have been adopted.
  This is mostly due to the Wild Free-Roaming Horses and Burros Act of 
1971, which has sought to preserve wild horses and burros on federal 
lands and has made the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) responsible for 
their preservation.
  In 2004, the Wild Free-Roaming Horses and Burros Act was amended to 
reverse the long-standing policy that protected wild horses from being 
shipped off to slaughterhouses. It also removed the criminal penalties 
that are imposed for such actions. Seeking to correct this injustice is 
H.R. 249, which would once again place a prohibition on the commercial 
sale and slaughter of wild horses and burros.
  As a compassionate society, we have an obligation to protect all 
animals. Some scientists have found that America's wild horses have 
greater genetic diversity, as compared to their domestic counterparts, 
due to little inbreeding.
  Sadly, this bill is too late to save some horses. There have been 
several cases of horses that were purchased for seemingly innocuous 
reasons and then sent immediately to slaughter. H.R. 249 would protect 
the more than 8,400 horses that are in jeopardy of being slaughtered.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to pass H.R. 249, which would 
restore the prohibition on the commercial sale and slaughter of wild 
free-roaming horses and burros.
  Mr. ETHERIDGE. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of H.R. 249.
  This legislation is critical to preserving a part of America's roots, 
and it is an important symbol of the rugged, wild, and freedom that is 
the American West. As old as the red rock on the canyon walls, and as 
reliable as the sun rising in the clear western sky, America's wild and 
free-roaming horses and burros on our public lands are part of our 
Nation's fabric and history.
  H.R. 249, a bill to protect wild free-roaming horses and burros, will 
expressly prohibit the sale, transfer, or slaughter for commercial 
product processing of any freeroaming horse or burro on U.S. public 
lands.
  I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on H.R. 249.
  Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN. All time for general debate has expired. Pursuant to 
the rule, the bill shall be considered read for amendment under the 5-
minute rule.
  The text of the bill is as follows:

                                H.R. 249

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

     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).
       (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 CHAIRMAN. No amendment to the bill shall be in order except those 
printed in the designated place in the Congressional Record and pro 
forma amendments for the purpose of debate. Amendments printed in the 
Record may be offered only by the Member who caused it to be printed or 
his designee and shall be considered read.
  Are there any amendments to the bill?


            Amendment No. 2 Offered by Mr. Price of Georgia

  Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment No. 2 offered by Mr. Price of Georgia:
       At the end of the bill, add the following new section:

     SEC. 2. REQUIREMENT OF OFFSETS.

       (a) In General.--No authorization of appropriations made by 
     this Act or other provision of this Act that results in costs 
     to the Federal Government shall be effective except to the 
     extent that this Act provides for offsetting decreases in 
     spending of the Federal Government, such that the net effect 
     of this Act does not either increase the Federal deficit or 
     reduce the Federal surplus.
       (b) Definitions.--In this section, the terms ``deficit'' 
     and ``surplus'' have the meanings given such terms in the 
     Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act of 1974 (2 
     U.S.C. 621 et seq.).

  Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, H.R. 249, the bill that we are 
discussing here, prohibits the commercial sale of wild horses and 
burros by the Bureau of Land Management.
  As part of the Bureau of Land Management's program to protect and 
manage and control wild, free-roaming horses and burros, they are 
permitted to sell wild horses and burros that are over 10 years of age 
for commercial purposes for approximately $10 per animal, if the 
animals have not been successfully adopted in three auctions. If the 
animals are not adopted and BLM cannot sell the animals, then it will 
have to provide long-term care for them.
  Implementing this bill, H.R. 249, will cause the Bureau of Land 
Management to lose the minimal revenue it is currently able to generate 
from the sale of the animals and incur additional costs by requiring it 
to provide long-term care for the animals that they otherwise wouldn't 
have to, essentially, by mandating a new responsibility.
  Now, according to the CBO report accompanying this bill, it says, 
``Based on information from Bureau of Land Management about the number 
of animals sold and the cost to care for them, CBO estimates that the 
resulting net changes in discretionary spending under H.R. 249 would 
not exceed $500,000 annually, assuming the availability of appropriated 
funds.''
  However, it costs BLM roughly $25 million a year to feed and shelter 
roughly 30,000 wild horses in its management program. In 2006, 100,000 
horses were slaughtered for consumption, which raises concerns that the 
cost of this legislation could turn out to be much more significant 
than CBO and the bill's proponents predict.
  My amendment is very simple. It will apply the principle of pay-as-
you-go to any new spending authorized by this legislation. It would 
require that any new spending as a result of this legislation must have 
a specific offset before this legislation can take effect.
  Now, Mr. Chairman, as you know, an excerpt of the New Direction For

[[Page 10427]]

America, which was proposed by the new majority, the House Democrats, 
in the 109th Congress as their plan once they were to take the 
majority, reads, ``Our new direction is committed to pay-as-you-go 
budgeting. No more deficit spending. We are committed to auditing the 
books and subjecting every facet of Federal spending to tough budget 
discipline and accountability, forcing the Congress to choose a new 
direction and the right priorities for all Americans.'' And I agree, 
Mr. Chairman.
  On April 18, the majority leader was quoted as saying, ``We want to 
get the budget deficit under control. We've said that fiscal 
responsibility was necessary, but we are not going to be hoisted on the 
torrent of fiscal responsibility.'' That was just prior to the new 
majority ignoring their own PAYGO rules in order to pass a bill.
  Now, Mr. Chairman, I would submit that rules aren't rules if you only 
follow them when you want to. Democrats promised to use PAYGO rules for 
everything, and instead they are picking and choosing when to do so. At 
home, we call that breaking a rule and breaking a promise.
  So I urge the new majority to rededicate itself to the principle of 
pay-as-you-go spending. Fiscal responsibility shouldn't be something 
that is talked about only on the campaign trail.
  This might not seem like a lot of money to my friends on the other 
side of the aisle, but Mr. Chairman, the American people deserve for us 
to be good stewards of their hard-earned money all the time, not just 
when it's politically convenient.
  I urge adoption of this quality, commonsense, simple PAYGO amendment.
  Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to the Price of Georgia 
amendment. The gentleman is attempting to put PAYGO requirements on a 
bill that neither authorizes nor contains any spending. I repeat that. 
The gentleman is attempting to put PAYGO provisions on a bill that 
neither authorizes nor contains any spending.
  H.R. 249 merely returns the law the way it existed for 33 years prior 
to changes made in the law by an appropriations writer in 2004. Both 
the CBO and the Budget Committee have determined that there are no 
PAYGO implications with H.R. 249.
  What the gentleman from Georgia is proposing to do is an unnecessary, 
unwise addition to the legislation. He has attempted it many times 
before. It has been rejected by the Homeland Security many times 
before. Those times include identical amendments to H.R. 569 and H.R. 
700 which were considered by the House in March, and in both cases the 
House rejected the Price amendments, the first time by a vote of 166-
260, and the second time by a vote of 176-256.
  So again, I repeat, there should be no PAYGO requirements because it 
neither authorizes nor contains any spending.
  I would urge the House to reject this unwise and unnecessary 
amendment.
  Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, I appreciate what Representative Price is trying to do. 
Let me try and put in context, once again, what the issue at hand in 
this very narrowly crafted bill is.
  As of today, by rule, by court order, and by regulation and law, BLM, 
if it sells an animal, may not sell that animal for consumption. If the 
buyer resells that animal for consumption, that is a felony. It 
violates the contract they signed, which means the ability of selling, 
which is different from adopting, is a management tool of BLM. If this 
bill passes, it would take the option of sale away.
  Last year, there were 2,400 horses that were sold. That would no 
longer be the case. And indeed, BLM would then incur a new burden for 
keeping those animals and providing for those animals. That is why we 
support Representative Price's amendment that applies PAYGO standard to 
this bill. There will be an additional cost because the policy will 
change.
  If H.R. 249 passes and the BLM can no longer sell, not for 
consumption, but just sell wild horses, this agency estimates it will 
cost $12- to $15 million over the next 10 years. Long-term care and 
feeding of these animals were not considered when the CBO scored this 
bill.
  I urge a ``yes'' vote on this amendment.
  Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I rise to strike the last word 
and to address the House for 5 minutes in opposition to this amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I want to express my very strong support for the bill 
that Mr. Rahall, the Chair of the Resources Committee, has brought to 
this floor because it restores a longstanding prohibition on the 
commercial sale and slaughter of wild horses and burros.
  This amendment that we are currently debating is designed to defeat 
the substance of this bill. The reality is that this is not a bill that 
costs the Treasury money, but it does cost our country something of 
great value.
  At the turn of the 20th century, some 2 million wild horses roamed 
freely in the wild. But by the 1950s, just half a century, their 
population had dwindled to fewer than 20,000. The population went from 
2 million to 20,000. Ninety-nine percent of these majestic creatures 
were taken off the face of the American continent, and many of them 
were being inhumanely captured by profiteers who would slaughter them 
and then sell their meat for pet food and human consumption in European 
and Asian restaurants.
  So, after enough awareness and concern, Congress passed the Wild 
Free-Roaming Horses and Burros Act of 1971 that protects wild horses 
and burros on Federal lands from such atrocities. But then in the 108th 
Congress, under different leadership, longstanding Federal policy that 
protects wild horses from being sold at auctions and subsequently 
shipped to slaughter plants was reversed.
  Last year, two Texas plants and one in Illinois slaughtered nearly 
105,000 horses for human food, mainly for European and Asian consumers. 
I think it's time to end this senseless for-profit massacre, really, of 
the symbol of the spirit of the American West.
  Animals are given into our care, and we ought to treat them with some 
greater respect than we do, particularly in the case of horses.
  I believe that a generation from now we will shudder at how 
recklessly we treated these animals which are so symbolic of the 
spirit, the strength, the stamina of this country. In the event of 
survival, so many of them face neglect and abuse today, and that is the 
argument that is raised. But that is not an excuse not to pass this 
legislation nor to implement a more humane policy, because this policy 
is inhumane at every step in the process, from how they're purchased at 
auction, to their transportation to the slaughterhouse, to how they are 
killed.
  Many of the horses that are transported to the slaughterhouse are 
bought by what are called ``killer buyers'' at auction. These 
unscrupulous buyers prey on the trust of horse owners who believe that 
their horse is being bought by a good family and will lead a 
comfortable life. They are unaware that they are being misled by 
professional slaughterhouse agents, with their companion animal being 
sent to a very painful death.
  The reality of the slaughtering process is difficult and 
uncomfortable for many of us to hear, but the suffering begins during 
the transportation of horses to the slaughterhouse. They are shipped 
with no food or water or any ability to rest. Often due to overcrowding 
and slippery floor surfaces, the horses fall and they are trampled 
during transportation. If they survive the trip to the slaughterhouse, 
the horse's suffering needlessly continues. Due to their cautious 
nature, many of these horses are not properly stunned before slaughter. 
Many are completely conscious when they have their throats cut. Simply 
put, this is not in the American tradition.
  Despite what some of my colleagues will have you believe, the 
practice is not needed to control the number of horses in the United 
States. California banned horse slaughter in 1998, and

[[Page 10428]]

since then there has been no corresponding rise in cruelty or neglect 
cases.

                              {time}  1115

  There has even been a 34 percent drop in horse theft since the ban 
went into effect.
  The fact is that the American public wants to protect horses and is 
horrified that they are being slaughtered for use as food in other 
countries. Poll after poll shows that 70 percent of Americans believe 
that we should end the slaughter of horses. They are right, we should 
end this slaughter, today. And that is why we should pass this bill and 
defeat the amendment.
  Mr. WHITFIELD. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, I certainly admire and respect the gentlemen who are 
offering this amendment and making arguments in favor of it. I agree, 
however, with the gentleman from West Virginia that it has very 
negligible fiscal impact on the Federal budget.
  As has been stated, there are less than 20,000 wild mustangs and 
burros left on Federal lands in the West. And if they are concerned 
about the fiscal impact of not slaughtering a few horses, I would say 
there are over 214 million acres of Federal lands in the West that the 
ranchers and corporations that are leasing that land are paying the 
Federal Government less than 10 cents per acre per year.
  Now, that is much less being paid than what my farmers that I 
represent in Kentucky are paying for leased land. I recognize that this 
land in the West, much of it is arid, it is not really that rich. But 
there are lots of people who would be willing to lease land for less 
than 10 cents per acre. And I think we at the Federal level have a 
responsibility to protect these wild mustangs and burros; and as the 
gentleman before me said, at one time the population was around 2 
million, now it is around 20,000 head, and we have an obligation to 
protect these animals.
  I want to commend the gentleman from West Virginia for offering this 
bill, H.R. 249, to restore the Federal protections of these animals 
that have been in effect since 1971. And the only reason that it was 
changed in the omnibus bill a couple of years ago without anyone's 
knowledge, those Federal protections were removed. And so H.R. 249 
simply restores that protection.
  Mr. Chairman, I would urge the Members to vote against this amendment 
and to support H.R. 249.
  Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, I stand in opposition to the amendment and in support 
of the underlying bill, Mr. Rahall's bill, to restore the prohibition 
on the commercial sale and slaughter of wild free-roaming horses and 
burros.
  A lot of people bet on horses. Today, the horses are betting on us. 
They are betting that we remember something essential about the America 
of long ago to which these wild horses and burros connect us, betting 
that we do not misuse our power to cause these horses, these wild 
animals to be subject to slaughter. They are betting that we have the 
sense to put together policies that can provide for the protection of 
the wild horses and burros.
  Now, it is the responsibility of the Bureau of Land Management to 
enforce the laws on public lands that related to the bill that Congress 
passed 36 years ago that established as national policy that wild free-
roaming horses and burros shall be protected from capture, branding, 
harassment, and death. And this Bureau of Land Management has not done 
the job. They haven't properly managed their responsibilities, they 
haven't enforced the law. Why should we permit the wild horses to be 
further victimized by the Bureau of Land Management?
  This legislation exposes part of the spirit of America to an attack 
because of the ineffectiveness and inefficiency and indeed the callous 
disregard of those at the Bureau of Land Management. Rather than pass a 
law which opens up wild horses to commercial sale and slaughter, we 
should be looking at a dramatic revision of the Bureau of Land 
Management's responsibilities here. We should be looking at that agency 
which took the responsibility by law in 1971 to make sure that these 
horses were protected, because they haven't done that. And now we are 
having Members advocate that we continue a condition where these horses 
are subjected to slaughter.
  I think that occasionally we reconnect to our greatness as a country 
when we remember where we came from, when we remember our connection 
with the land, when we remember our connection with Native Americans, 
when we remember our connection with the sky, when we remember our 
connection with the water, and when we remember our connection with 
God's creatures who still, through the grace of God, freely roam the 
plains of this country as wild horses and burros.
  Support the Rahall bill.
  Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, let me just say a couple of things to try and set the 
record straight about the last couple of speeches which haven't 
actually been dealing with the amendment nor necessarily the bill 
itself.
  There are approximately 33,000 wild horses on public range lands 
today. There are 28,000 wild horses that are standing in pens today. 
That is the total amount.
  Those animals are not slaughtered. If they are sold or adopted, it is 
a felony to slaughter those animals. That is the BLM practice today. 
Any kind of talking about animals being slaughtered for consumption are 
not the animals owned by the Federal Government nor the animals that 
are subject to this particular bill. All this bill does is take away 
the opportunity of selling these animals, not for consumption or 
slaughter, to someone else. And it takes away a standard which the BLM 
has estimated will cost them between $10 million and $12 million over 
the next 10 years to try to keep these animals standing in a pen all 
day.
  The problem is, we do have an arid topography. This is not the land 
that can support these animals. All of my good friends in the east have 
perfect land for that. And, to be honest, if they would open up some of 
their land so that wild horses can run freely back in their districts, 
you might be able to solve this problem again. But it is not going to 
happen unless you actually give them the tools to do it on this limited 
number of animals we are actually speaking about.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Price).
  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further proceedings 
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Georgia will be 
postponed.
  Are there further amendments?


            Amendment No. 2 Offered by Mr. Price of Georgia

  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, the unfinished 
business is the demand for a recorded vote on the amendment offered by 
the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Price) on which further proceedings 
were postponed and on which the noes prevailed by voice vote.
  The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
  The Clerk redesignated the amendment.


                             Recorded Vote

  The CHAIRMAN. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 186, 
noes 238, not voting 13, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 267]

                               AYES--186

     Aderholt
     Akin
     Alexander
     Altmire
     Bachmann
     Bachus
     Baker
     Barrett (SC)
     Bartlett (MD)
     Barton (TX)
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (UT)
     Blackburn
     Blunt
     Boehner
     Bonner
     Bono
     Boozman
     Boren
     Boustany
     Brady (TX)
     Brown (SC)
     Brown-Waite, Ginny
     Buchanan
     Burgess
     Burton (IN)
     Buyer
     Calvert
     Camp (MI)
     Campbell (CA)
     Cantor
     Capito
     Carney
     Carter
     Castle
     Chabot
     Coble
     Cole (OK)
     Conaway
     Crenshaw
     Culberson
     Davis (KY)
     Davis, David
     Deal (GA)
     Dent
     Diaz-Balart, L.

[[Page 10429]]


     Diaz-Balart, M.
     Doolittle
     Drake
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Ehlers
     Emerson
     English (PA)
     Fallin
     Flake
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Fortuno
     Fossella
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Gallegly
     Garrett (NJ)
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gingrey
     Gohmert
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Granger
     Graves
     Hall (TX)
     Hastert
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Heller
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Inglis (SC)
     Issa
     Jindal
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     Jordan
     Keller
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kirk
     Kline (MN)
     Knollenberg
     Kuhl (NY)
     LaHood
     Lamborn
     Latham
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     Lucas
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Mack
     Manzullo
     Marchant
     Marshall
     Matheson
     McCarthy (CA)
     McCaul (TX)
     McCotter
     McCrery
     McHenry
     McKeon
     McMorris Rodgers
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller, Gary
     Moran (KS)
     Murphy, Tim
     Musgrave
     Myrick
     Neugebauer
     Nunes
     Paul
     Pearce
     Pence
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Poe
     Porter
     Price (GA)
     Pryce (OH)
     Putnam
     Radanovich
     Ramstad
     Regula
     Rehberg
     Reichert
     Renzi
     Reynolds
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Salazar
     Sali
     Schmidt
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (TX)
     Souder
     Stearns
     Sullivan
     Tancredo
     Terry
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Turner
     Upton
     Walberg
     Walden (OR)
     Walsh (NY)
     Wamp
     Weldon (FL)
     Weller
     Wicker
     Wilson (NM)
     Wilson (SC)
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                               NOES--238

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Allen
     Andrews
     Arcuri
     Baca
     Baird
     Baldwin
     Barrow
     Bean
     Becerra
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Biggert
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Bordallo
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd (FL)
     Boyda (KS)
     Brady (PA)
     Braley (IA)
     Brown, Corrine
     Butterfield
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardoza
     Carnahan
     Carson
     Castor
     Chandler
     Christensen
     Clarke
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Cohen
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costa
     Costello
     Courtney
     Cramer
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Davis (AL)
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis, Lincoln
     Davis, Tom
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Donnelly
     Doyle
     Edwards
     Ellison
     Ellsworth
     Emanuel
     Eshoo
     Everett
     Faleomavaega
     Farr
     Ferguson
     Filner
     Frank (MA)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gerlach
     Giffords
     Gillibrand
     Gonzalez
     Gordon
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hall (NY)
     Hare
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Herseth Sandlin
     Higgins
     Hill
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hirono
     Hodes
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hooley
     Hoyer
     Inslee
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson (IL)
     Jones (OH)
     Kagen
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kind
     Klein (FL)
     Kucinich
     Langevin
     Lantos
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     LaTourette
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Loebsack
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Lowey
     Lynch
     Mahoney (FL)
     Maloney (NY)
     Markey
     Matsui
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum (MN)
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McHugh
     McIntyre
     McNerney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Melancon
     Michaud
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, George
     Mitchell
     Mollohan
     Moore (KS)
     Moore (WI)
     Moran (VA)
     Murphy (CT)
     Murphy, Patrick
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal (MA)
     Norton
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Payne
     Perlmutter
     Peterson (MN)
     Platts
     Pomeroy
     Price (NC)
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reyes
     Rogers (KY)
     Ross
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sarbanes
     Saxton
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schwartz
     Scott (GA)
     Scott (VA)
     Serrano
     Sestak
     Shays
     Shea-Porter
     Sherman
     Shuler
     Sires
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Solis
     Space
     Stark
     Stupak
     Sutton
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Taylor
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tierney
     Towns
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walz (MN)
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watson
     Watt
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Welch (VT)
     Wexler
     Whitfield
     Wilson (OH)
     Wolf
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn
     Yarmuth

                             NOT VOTING--13

     Cannon
     Clyburn
     Cubin
     Davis, Jo Ann
     Engel
     Etheridge
     Fattah
     Feeney
     Johnson, E. B.
     Lampson
     Rodriguez
     Spratt
     Westmoreland

                              {time}  1152

  Messrs. MURPHY of Connecticut, BOUCHER, ROTHMAN, Ms. HOOLEY, Ms. LEE, 
Messrs. BAIRD, GORDON of Tennessee, WELCH of Vermont, WATT, MELANCON, 
CUELLAR and DONNELLY changed their vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
  Messrs. TANCREDO, BARTLETT of Maryland, GILCHREST, WELDON of Florida, 
TURNER and CARNEY changed their vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  The CHAIRMAN. Under the rule, the Committee rises.
  Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr. 
Pastor) having assumed the chair, Mr. Lincoln Davis of Tennessee, 
Chairman of the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union, 
reported that that Committee, having had under consideration the bill 
(H.R. 249) to restore the prohibition on the commercial sale and 
slaughter of wild free-roaming horses and burros, pursuant to House 
Resolution 331, he reported the bill back to the House.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the rule, the previous question is 
ordered.
  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.


           Motion to Recommit Offered by Mr. Price of Georgia

  Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion to recommit.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is the gentleman opposed to the bill?
  Mr. PRICE of Georgia. I am, in its current form.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will report the motion to 
recommit.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Mr. Price of Georgia moves to recommit the bill H.R. 249 to 
     the Committee on Natural Resources with instructions to 
     report the same back to the House forthwith with the 
     following amendment:
       Page 2, after line 13, insert the following:
       (c) Effective Date.--This legislation shall not take effect 
     until 60 days after the date on which the Secretary certifies 
     to Congress that the long-term care of all animals not sold 
     as a result of this Act does not exceed $500,000 annually.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Georgia is recognized for 
5 minutes.
  Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, this motion to recommit offers an 
effective date for fiscal responsibility.
  H.R. 249 prohibits the commercial sale of wild horses and burros by 
the Bureau of Land Management. Implementing this bill will cause the 
BLM to lose the ability to sell these animals and incur additional 
costs by requiring it to provide long-term care for the animals that 
they otherwise would not be required to, thus mandating a new 
responsibility.
  Mr. Speaker, according to the CBO report accompanying this bill, it 
said, based on the information from BLM about the number of animals 
sold and the cost to care for them, CBO estimates that the resulting 
net changes in discretionary spending under H.R. 249 would not exceed 
$500,000 annually, assuming the availability of appropriated funds.
  However, the Bureau of Land Management spends roughly $25 million a 
year to feed and shelter 30,000 wild horses in its management program. 
This motion to recommit will establish an effective date for the 
legislation, requiring the Secretary to certify to Congress that the 
long-term care of animals spared by this act will not exceed the cost 
of $500,000, which is noted in the bill and is the CBO estimate.
  We all know that the CBO is noted for outrageously poor estimates. 
The capital gains tax reductions from 2003 to 2006, from 20 to 15 
percent, that were enacted, CBO estimated revenue at $197 billion. In 
fact, Mr. Speaker, $330 billion were gained, an error of 68 percent. 
This is after the CBO underestimated capital gains revenue following 
the 1997 decrease by $217 billion. Further, CBO underestimated Federal 
tax revenue due to the responsible tax decreases that were enacted 
earlier this decade by $255 billion. Of course, Mr. Speaker, we all 
know that CBO estimated the Medicare part D premium would cost $38 a 
month, and in fact, it costs $22 per month, an error of 72 percent.
  Mr. Speaker, this week in The Hill newspaper, former Congressman 
Charlie Stenholm appealed to Congress not

[[Page 10430]]

to pass this legislation for budgetary reasons. Under the new PAYGO 
regime, Congress should not be perpetuating long-term options when 
another, less costly, option is available.
  As of December 2004, 8,400 wild horses and burros became eligible for 
sale, and as of April 2007, the Bureau of Land Management has sold more 
than 2,300 horses. If the remaining horses which are available for sale 
are safe for long-term care, then the Secretary should be required to 
clarify that the care will not create an undue financial burden on the 
American people.
  If the Secretary can certify that this legislation will not exceed 
$500,000 annually, then this proposal goes forward. If the Secretary 
cannot certify this requirement, then the legislation should be 
stopped, and the onus is on Congress to revisit the proposal and find 
new money.
  I urge the new majority to rededicate themselves to the principle of 
fiscal responsibility. Fiscal responsibility should not be something 
that is just talked about on the campaign trail. This may not seem like 
a lot of money to my friends on the other side of the aisle, but the 
American people deserve for us to be good stewards of their hard-earned 
money all the time, not just when it is politically convenient.
  I urge a ``yes'' vote on the motion to recommit.

                              {time}  1200

  Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the motion to 
recommit.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from West Virginia is 
recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Speaker, first, I will respond to the gentleman from 
Georgia that this was an open rule. All Members knew that, and I cannot 
understand why the gentleman would not have offered this as an 
amendment during the normal process of legislative consideration of 
this bill. Instead, he comes at the last moment in the recommittal, 
which is true to his nature on previous legislation that has passed 
this body.
  The gentleman's motion to recommit would change the effective date 
until 60 days after the date on which the Secretary of the Interior 
certifies to Congress that the long-term care of all unsold wild horses 
and burros as a result of this act does not exceed $500,000 annually. 
There is no time limit placed on that period during which the Secretary 
of the Interior has to certify. I am assuming that the gentleman is 
entrusting the same Federal agency, the Bureau of Land Management, that 
has so mismanaged this whole process in the beginning, entrusting with 
that agency the same responsibility to do such certification. Again, 
there is no time limit. It could be 30 days, it could be 30 years, it 
could be 300 years before the Secretary so certifies.
  So the amendment is purely a killer amendment. The Members know that 
is the intent of the gentleman from Georgia, and I would urge its 
rejection.
  In addition, as I have emphasized so many times on this bill, there 
is no PAYGO issue with this bill. The CBO estimated that the 
administrative cost of this bill is less than $500,000.
  Third, the impact of this amendment is to allow slaughter for another 
60 days, at the minimum, but more likely, indefinitely, as I said, 
because there is no time limit on the certification procedure stated in 
the motion to recommit. There is no time frame. The certification is 
open-ended. We have no idea as to how long that process will take.
  Again, I respond to the gentleman from Georgia, this is a killer 
amendment. Every Member that voted against the previous amendment and 
has voted for this legislation in the past knows that is such.
  I would urge opposition to the motion to recommit.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without objection, the previous question is 
ordered on the motion to recommit.
  There was no objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion to recommit.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the noes appeared to have it.


                             Recorded Vote

  Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 9 of rule XX, the Chair 
will reduce to 5 minutes the minimum time for any electronic vote on 
the question of the passage of the bill.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 182, 
noes 234, not voting 16, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 268]

                               AYES--182

     Akin
     Alexander
     Altmire
     Bachmann
     Bachus
     Baker
     Barrett (SC)
     Barrow
     Barton (TX)
     Bean
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (UT)
     Blackburn
     Blunt
     Boehner
     Bonner
     Boozman
     Boren
     Boswell
     Boustany
     Boyda (KS)
     Brady (TX)
     Brown (SC)
     Brown-Waite, Ginny
     Buchanan
     Burgess
     Burton (IN)
     Buyer
     Calvert
     Camp (MI)
     Campbell (CA)
     Cantor
     Capito
     Carter
     Chabot
     Coble
     Cole (OK)
     Conaway
     Cramer
     Crenshaw
     Cuellar
     Culberson
     Davis (KY)
     Davis, David
     Deal (GA)
     Diaz-Balart, L.
     Diaz-Balart, M.
     Dingell
     Donnelly
     Doolittle
     Drake
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Edwards
     Ehlers
     Ellsworth
     English (PA)
     Fallin
     Flake
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Garrett (NJ)
     Giffords
     Gillibrand
     Gillmor
     Gingrey
     Gohmert
     Goodlatte
     Granger
     Graves
     Hall (TX)
     Hastert
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Herseth Sandlin
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Inglis (SC)
     Issa
     Jindal
     Johnson, Sam
     Jordan
     King (IA)
     Kingston
     Kline (MN)
     Knollenberg
     Kuhl (NY)
     LaHood
     Lamborn
     Latham
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     Lucas
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Mack
     Mahoney (FL)
     Manzullo
     Marchant
     Marshall
     Matheson
     McCarthy (CA)
     McCaul (TX)
     McCotter
     McCrery
     McHenry
     McKeon
     McMorris Rodgers
     Melancon
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller, Gary
     Mollohan
     Moran (KS)
     Murphy (CT)
     Murphy, Tim
     Musgrave
     Myrick
     Neugebauer
     Nunes
     Paul
     Pearce
     Pence
     Peterson (MN)
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Poe
     Pomeroy
     Price (GA)
     Pryce (OH)
     Putnam
     Radanovich
     Regula
     Rehberg
     Reichert
     Renzi
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Ryan (WI)
     Salazar
     Sali
     Schmidt
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (TX)
     Souder
     Space
     Stearns
     Tancredo
     Terry
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Turner
     Walberg
     Walden (OR)
     Walz (MN)
     Wamp
     Weldon (FL)
     Weller
     Wicker
     Wilson (SC)
     Young (AK)

                               NOES--234

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Aderholt
     Allen
     Andrews
     Arcuri
     Baca
     Baird
     Baldwin
     Bartlett (MD)
     Becerra
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Biggert
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Bono
     Boucher
     Boyd (FL)
     Brady (PA)
     Braley (IA)
     Brown, Corrine
     Butterfield
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardoza
     Carnahan
     Carney
     Carson
     Castle
     Castor
     Chandler
     Clarke
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Cohen
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costa
     Costello
     Courtney
     Crowley
     Cummings
     Davis (AL)
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis, Lincoln
     Davis, Tom
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Dent
     Dicks
     Doggett
     Doyle
     Ellison
     Emanuel
     Emerson
     Eshoo
     Everett
     Farr
     Ferguson
     Filner
     Fossella
     Frank (MA)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Gerlach
     Gilchrest
     Gonzalez
     Goode
     Gordon
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hall (NY)
     Hare
     Hastings (FL)
     Heller
     Higgins
     Hill
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hirono
     Hodes
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hooley
     Hoyer
     Inslee
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson (IL)
     Jones (NC)
     Jones (OH)
     Kagen
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Keller
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kind
     King (NY)
     Kirk
     Klein (FL)
     Kucinich
     Langevin
     Lantos
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     LaTourette
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Loebsack
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Lowey
     Lynch
     Maloney (NY)
     Markey
     Matsui
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum (MN)
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McHugh
     McIntyre
     McNerney
     McNulty
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Michaud
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, George
     Mitchell
     Moore (KS)
     Moore (WI)
     Moran (VA)
     Murphy, Patrick
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal (MA)
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Payne
     Perlmutter
     Platts
     Porter
     Price (NC)
     Rahall
     Ramstad
     Rangel
     Reyes
     Reynolds
     Ross
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Royce
     Ruppersberger

[[Page 10431]]


     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sarbanes
     Saxton
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schwartz
     Scott (GA)
     Scott (VA)
     Serrano
     Sestak
     Shays
     Shea-Porter
     Sherman
     Shuler
     Sires
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Solis
     Stark
     Stupak
     Sutton
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Taylor
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tierney
     Towns
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Upton
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walsh (NY)
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watson
     Watt
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Welch (VT)
     Wexler
     Whitfield
     Wilson (NM)
     Wilson (OH)
     Wolf
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn
     Yarmuth
     Young (FL)

                             NOT VOTING--16

     Cannon
     Clyburn
     Cubin
     Davis, Jo Ann
     Engel
     Etheridge
     Fattah
     Feeney
     Harman
     Johnson, E. B.
     Lampson
     Meehan
     Rodriguez
     Spratt
     Sullivan
     Westmoreland

                              {time}  1222

  Mrs. EMERSON changed her vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
  Mrs. GILLIBRAND and Messrs. MURPHY of Connecticut, LaHOOD, BARROW and 
CUELLAR changed their vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
  So the motion to recommit was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.


Tribute to Paul Hays Upon His Retirement as Reading Clerk for the House 
                           of Representatives

  (Mr. BOEHNER asked and was given permission to address the House for 
1 minute.)
  Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Speaker, it is hard to think of our institution 
without the services of our reading clerk, Paul Hays. Before we get 
back, Paul will retire, after some 41 years of service here in the 
House.
  [Applause, the Members rising.]
  Mr. Speaker, Paul's distinctive voice, I think, is familiar to all of 
us. I think all of you know that Paul is a patriot. He even got married 
on the 4th of July. From his service in the National Guard, to his 
service with the Capitol Hill Restoration Society, Paul has given much 
to our country, and he has given much to all of us and to our 
institution.
  Paul, thank you.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. BOEHNER. I would be happy to yield to my colleague from Maryland.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I 
rise to join him in thanking Paul Hays for the extraordinary service he 
has given to this institution.
  Our reading clerk, Paul Hays, who after 19 years in this position as 
reading clerk and, as has been noted by the distinguished minority 
leader, 41 years as an employee of this House, has announced he will 
retire effective Monday, April 30, and begin a new phase of his life.
  The fact is, Mr. Speaker, Paul Hays, with his deep, crisp, commanding 
voice is perhaps most recognized to our viewers on C-SPAN, perhaps more 
than many of the rest of us, because he is here all the time and that 
voice is heard and his visage is seen.
  It has been a privilege, I know, for him to serve here, but as I have 
noted on other occasions when other members of the desk have retired, 
they serve our country as well as those who have been elected to serve, 
and we appreciate their service.
  Since 1789, the House has employed reading clerks, who are 
responsible for reading aloud, obviously, the text of bills, 
amendments, motions, messages, special rules and other privileged 
resolutions and veto messages. Our reading clerks almost always, almost 
always, have been appointed from the ranks of existing House employees 
who have extensive prior floor experience. Paul was one of those.
  Paul, a graduate of Georgetown University, is no exception. In fact, 
Paul was appointed reading clerk in 1988 by one of the most 
distinguished persons with whom I have served, one of the most decent 
Americans that has served in this House, the distinguished minority 
leader, Bob Michel.
  It is no coincidence, Mr. Speaker, that given his speaking talents, 
Paul, as I understand it, intends to do voiceover work in the future.
  Now, Paul, we want you to be very discriminating in what voiceovers 
you do. There may be a lot of requests. We want you to know how nice we 
are being to you today.
  Paul, I want to thank you. I want to thank you for your service to 
this institution and to our country. As you go from this phase of your 
very successful life into the next successful phase of your life, not 
only do we thank you, but we wish you well.
  [Applause, the Members rising.]
  Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his remarks.
  Paul, we all wish you well, and no more excuses about your golf game.


                Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without objection, 5-minute voting will 
continue.
  There was no objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the passage of the bill, 
H.R. 249.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Mr. WICKER. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. This will be a 5-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 277, 
nays 137, not voting 18, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 269]

                               YEAS--277

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Aderholt
     Allen
     Altmire
     Andrews
     Arcuri
     Baca
     Baird
     Baldwin
     Barrett (SC)
     Bartlett (MD)
     Bean
     Becerra
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Biggert
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Bono
     Boozman
     Boucher
     Brady (PA)
     Braley (IA)
     Brown, Corrine
     Buchanan
     Burgess
     Butterfield
     Calvert
     Campbell (CA)
     Capito
     Capps
     Capuano
     Carnahan
     Carney
     Carson
     Castle
     Castor
     Chabot
     Chandler
     Clarke
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Cohen
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costello
     Courtney
     Crenshaw
     Crowley
     Cummings
     Davis (AL)
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis (KY)
     Davis, Lincoln
     Davis, Tom
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Dent
     Diaz-Balart, L.
     Diaz-Balart, M.
     Dicks
     Doggett
     Donnelly
     Doyle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Edwards
     Ehlers
     Ellison
     Emanuel
     English (PA)
     Eshoo
     Everett
     Farr
     Ferguson
     Filner
     Forbes
     Fossella
     Foxx
     Frank (MA)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Gerlach
     Giffords
     Gilchrest
     Gillibrand
     Goode
     Gordon
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hall (NY)
     Hall (TX)
     Hare
     Hastings (FL)
     Heller
     Herseth Sandlin
     Higgins
     Hill
     Hinchey
     Hirono
     Hobson
     Hodes
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hooley
     Hoyer
     Inslee
     Israel
     Issa
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Jindal
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson (IL)
     Jones (NC)
     Jones (OH)
     Kagen
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Keller
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     King (NY)
     Kirk
     Klein (FL)
     Kucinich
     Kuhl (NY)
     Langevin
     Lantos
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     LaTourette
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Linder
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Loebsack
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Lowey
     Lynch
     Maloney (NY)
     Marchant
     Markey
     Matsui
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum (MN)
     McCotter
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McHugh
     McIntyre
     McNerney
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Mica
     Michaud
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, George
     Mitchell
     Mollohan
     Moore (KS)
     Moore (WI)
     Moran (VA)
     Murphy (CT)
     Murphy, Patrick
     Murphy, Tim
     Murtha
     Myrick
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal (MA)
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Payne
     Perlmutter
     Pitts
     Platts
     Porter
     Price (NC)
     Pryce (OH)
     Rahall
     Ramstad
     Rangel
     Reichert
     Reyes
     Reynolds
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Ross
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Royce
     Ruppersberger
     Ryan (OH)
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sarbanes
     Saxton
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schmidt
     Schwartz
     Scott (GA)
     Scott (VA)
     Serrano
     Sestak
     Shays
     Shea-Porter
     Sherman
     Shuler
     Sires
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Solis
     Stark
     Stupak
     Sutton
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Taylor
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tiberi
     Tierney
     Towns
     Turner
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Upton
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walsh (NY)
     Wamp
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watson
     Watt
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Welch (VT)
     Weller
     Wexler
     Whitfield
     Wilson (NM)
     Wilson (OH)
     Wilson (SC)

[[Page 10432]]


     Wolf
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn
     Yarmuth
     Young (FL)

                               NAYS--137

     Akin
     Alexander
     Bachmann
     Bachus
     Baker
     Barrow
     Barton (TX)
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (UT)
     Blackburn
     Blunt
     Boehner
     Bonner
     Boren
     Boswell
     Boustany
     Boyd (FL)
     Boyda (KS)
     Brady (TX)
     Brown (SC)
     Brown-Waite, Ginny
     Burton (IN)
     Buyer
     Camp (MI)
     Cantor
     Cardoza
     Carter
     Coble
     Cole (OK)
     Conaway
     Costa
     Cramer
     Cuellar
     Culberson
     Davis, David
     Deal (GA)
     Dingell
     Doolittle
     Drake
     Ellsworth
     Emerson
     Fallin
     Flake
     Fortenberry
     Franks (AZ)
     Garrett (NJ)
     Gillmor
     Gingrey
     Gohmert
     Goodlatte
     Granger
     Graves
     Hastert
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Hinojosa
     Hoekstra
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Inglis (SC)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jordan
     Kind
     King (IA)
     Kingston
     Kline (MN)
     Knollenberg
     LaHood
     Lamborn
     Latham
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Lucas
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Mack
     Mahoney (FL)
     Manzullo
     Marshall
     Matheson
     McCarthy (CA)
     McCaul (TX)
     McCrery
     McHenry
     McKeon
     McMorris Rodgers
     Melancon
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller, Gary
     Moran (KS)
     Musgrave
     Neugebauer
     Nunes
     Oberstar
     Paul
     Pearce
     Pence
     Peterson (MN)
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pickering
     Poe
     Pomeroy
     Price (GA)
     Putnam
     Radanovich
     Regula
     Rehberg
     Renzi
     Rogers (AL)
     Rohrabacher
     Ryan (WI)
     Salazar
     Sali
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (TX)
     Souder
     Space
     Stearns
     Tancredo
     Terry
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Walberg
     Walden (OR)
     Walz (MN)
     Weldon (FL)
     Wicker
     Young (AK)

                             NOT VOTING--18

     Cannon
     Clyburn
     Cubin
     Davis, Jo Ann
     Engel
     Etheridge
     Fattah
     Feeney
     Gonzalez
     Harman
     Johnson, E. B.
     Lampson
     McNulty
     Rodriguez
     Rush
     Spratt
     Sullivan
     Westmoreland


                Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (during the vote). Members are advised that 
there are 2 minutes remaining in this vote.

                              {time}  1238

  So the bill was passed.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

                          ____________________