To suspend temporarily the duty on Diresul Brown GN Liquid Crude.

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

(Mr. STUPAK asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Chairman, our amendment would stop the EPA from moving forward with a dangerous proposal that would allow more partially treated sewage into our waterways. This morning the EPA issued a statement saying it will not finalize its current proposal. The EPA has been mulling over this policy change for nearly 2 years.

I am pleased to see that the EPA has now recognized that this policy proposal is bad for our health, bad for our environment, and bad for business. Now Congress needs to seal the deal by passing our amendment to make sure this misguided proposal is gone for good.

Let me clarify something that has been misunderstood. Our amendment will not cost a thing. It will not change a thing. It leaves things just the way they are right now.

Currently, clean water rules say during major wet weather events, sewage treatment plants are allowed to combine the filtered but untreated human sewage with fully treated waste water before discharge, in a process known as ``blending,'' when no other feasible alternative exists.

The EPA's 2003 proposal would weaken current environmental standards by allowing facilities to discharge largely untreated sewage virtually anytime it rains. Our amendment simply stops the EPA from weakening existing environmental standards and requires that sewage be effectively treated to remove the viruses, parasites, and bacteria that make people sick.

I know many of my colleagues are hearing that this amendment will pose astronomical costs on local communities. That is simply not true. This amendment will not cost communities a dime. Our amendment would maintain the current policy. It would not prevent utilities from blending under any of the current allowable legal circumstances. It would merely support current safeguards which do not allow blending when full treatment is feasible. Let me repeat that. Our amendment will not ban blending.

We have a clear policy choice. Should we provide effective treatment for sewage, remove pollutants that poison drinking water sources, close beaches, contaminate shellfish, make people sick, and rob the water of oxygen the fish need to breathe? Or should we allow routine discharges of inadequately treated sewage virtually every time it rains? To ask the question is to answer it. The choice is clear just as it has been under the Clean Water Act for the past 30 years.

Congress needs to send a strong, clear message on behalf of our constituents. We do not want human waste in the water we drink and swim in. As a step in the right direction, vote ``yes'' on the bipartisan Stupak/Shaw/Pallone/Miller amendment.

Groups Weighing in Against EPA's Sewage Proposal

American Littoral Society; American Public Health

Association; American Shore and Beach Preservation Assoc.;

American Rivers; Children's Environmental Health Network;

Citizens Campaign for the Environment; Clean Ocean Action;

Clean Water Action; Coast Alliance; East Coast Shellfish

Growers Association; Earthjustice; US Conference of Catholic

Bishops; Environmental Integrity Project; and Coalition on

the Environment and Jewish Life.

Lake Michigan Federation; League of Conservation Voters;

National Fisheries Management Institute; Natural Resources

Defense Council; New York Rivers United; Pacific Shellfish

Growers Association; Physicians for Social Responsibility;

Riverkeeper, Inc.; Sierra Club; Surfers' Environmental

Alliance; Surfrider Foundation; The Ocean Conservancy; US

PIRG; and US Conference on Catholic Bishops.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for raising this concern and want to clarify this issue for him.

The short answer is ``no.''

My amendment would not change the existing requirements for CSO communities, which are outlined in the 1994 CSO Policy and were incorporated in the CWA in 2000.

The CSO policy allows combined sewer systems to bypass secondary treatment when it is not feasible to provide full treatment for sewage.

Bypassing is allowed under the CSO policy as part of a long-term plan to minimize sewer overflows and maximize treatment.

EPA's proposed sewage dumping policy is inconsistent with the 1994 CSO policy because it would allow bypassing full treatment even when it is feasible.

The proposed policy would undercut those communities investing in long-term solutions that are protective of public health, the environment, and downstream economies.

The proposed policy would also allow separate sanitary sewer systems to bypass secondary treatment and discharge largely untreated sewage even if full treatment would be feasible, as it should be under normal operating conditions for most well operated and maintained separate sanitary systems.

Given the heavy load of viruses, parasites, bacteria, toxic chemicals, and other contaminants in sewage, it is critical that sewage treatment plants strive to achieve full treatment, not just discharge poorly treated sewage because it is cheaper to do so.

I also incorporated Mr. Meehan's statement relating blending policy to this statement.

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Shaw), one of the cosponsors of this amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pallone), also a cosponsor of our amendment.

Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for his question, but our amendment does not intend to have any impact on any of the existing policies of EPA regions and States that allow blending or on any Clean Water Act permit that allows blending. We are saying maintain the status quo.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Miller), also a coauthor of this amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Kelly).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Fitzpatrick) who has been helping us on this amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Kirk) who has been very helpful on this amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman for yielding to me.

Can the chairman clarify that the intent of our amendment is to ensure that all EPA regions and all the permits that are written will comply with the current Clean Water Act rules and safeguards? Is that his intent also?

Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will continue to yield, with the understanding, and it is certainly our understanding, that all EPA regions and all permits that are written must comply with the Clean Water Act rules and safeguards, and that is the only thing we are trying to do here. We are not trying to change anything. So with the assurances from the chairman that he will make sure that that is what we are going to do and we have some time to clarify this even further, we will not ask for a recorded vote. We accept his courtesy that he will accept our amendment and make it a part of the bill, and we look forward to working with him on this and other related matters.

I want to thank the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Duncan) also for his work in this area, along with the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Dicks) and the Members on our side.

Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word for the purposes of engaging in a colloquy with the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Cole).

Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Cole).

Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I understand the gentleman's concerns and the unfortunate turn of events which caused this project to be delayed, and I will give the request of the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Cole) every possible consideration.

Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Cole).

Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the bill through page 128 line 12 be

considered as read, printed in the Record, and open to amendment at any point.

Mr. Chairman, I rise to claim the time in opposition to the amendment, and I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Chairman, this issue is about the proper management of wildlife and public lands, and the Committee on Appropriations is in charge of trying to adequately fund the United States agencies. If we want to get into the question of whether or not the six cents is being paid for grazing land or anything else, you need to go to the authorizing committees and have a debate there and get it changed and so forth.

We in the Committee on Appropriations have a situation where wild horses and burros cost the taxpayers $40 million annually. Now, this is more than BLM spends on all wildlife management activities on public lands. There are currently 24,000 wild horses and burros that are kept in short-term, or long-term, either way, holding facilities. They are not roaming free. They are being housed in these short-term facilities, and that is costing $20 million, and they are living there until they die.

BLM has the authority to sell the older or unadoptable animals. Now, if they are 10 years or older, or if they have been offered three times for sale and been turned down, then this would give BLM the authority to sell these older, unadoptable animals and conserve the $40 million that we are talking about. That is what we are asking, and we think that is a prudent measure, so we urge our colleagues to defeat this amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Nevada (Mr. Gibbons).

(Mr. GIBBONS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Walden).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Idaho (Mr. Simpson).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Idaho (Mr. Otter).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Goodlatte), the distinguished chairman of Committee on Agriculture.

(Mr. GOODLATTE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for bringing this to our attention, and we have no objection to the gentleman's amendment at this time.

Mr. Chairman, the amendment requires EPA to comply with the executive order by the first President Bush dealing with environmental justice. We have no objection to the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the gentleman's amendment. The gentleman makes good points, and if he and I were the only two Members of Congress, we could probably sit down and come up with a tighter bill. There are 435 Members in the House, and we have 100 over in the Senate. We have tried to put together a balanced bill. Because of that, we have cut many things and had a very difficult time in doing it. I would have to strongly object to the gentleman's amendment.

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

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

First I all I would like to read a letter from the Assistant Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency:

``Dear Chairman Taylor:

``This is regarding the November 2003 Draft Blending Policy which addresses the management of peak wet weather flows at municipal wastewater treatment facilities. The draft policy received extensive public comment and has been the subject of considerable ongoing discussion and debate, including being the focus of a recent hearing before the House Subcommittee on Water Resources and Environment.

``Based on our review of all of the information received, we have no intention of finalizing the blending policy as proposed in November 2003. We continue to review policy and regulatory options to manage this issue.''

I think this letter is self-explanatory.

Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Duncan), the distinguished chairman of the Subcommittee on Water Resources and Environment.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Does the gentleman intend his amendment to have any impact on the policies of the EPA regions and States that allow blending today and have issued permits allowing blending?

I yield to the gentleman from Michigan.

Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, we would accept the gentleman's amendment under that representation.

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Ginny Brown-Waite) who supports the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, it is my understanding, but I would like to talk with the gentleman. This is a new area, a new part of the committee, and I would like to work with him as we go on with the bill toward conference. But that is my understanding.

Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I appreciate the gentleman's activity. We will work with him.

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

Mr. Chairman, I raise a point of order. We have an agreement. I do not think we can strike the last word when we have a time agreement.

Would the chairman rule on that and inform me?

Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order against the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?

Mr. Chairman, if we withdraw any objection to this amendment, is the gentlewoman envisioning a rollcall vote or just a simple voice vote?

Mr. Chairman, I withdraw any objection to this amendment.

Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Chairman, I commend the gentleman for his concern about the excessive foreign travel. This subcommittee has conducted extensive oversight using the Inspector General and the Government Accountability Office on the use of foreign travel on large conferences. I accept the gentleman's amendment.

Mr. Chairman, we have no objection at this time to this amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee do now rise and report the bill back to the House with sundry amendments, with the recommendation that the amendments be agreed to and that the bill, as amended, do pass.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the motion to recommit, and I wish we did not have to have a rollcall vote.

This motion to recommit kills the bill by adding $352 million, and I oppose this motion.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

(Mr. HASTINGS of Florida asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Chairman, I rise today to offer an amendment to H.R. 2361 that is of critical importance to the health and well-being of minority and low-income communities throughout the United States.

In an effort to cut down on the time constraints, let me just briefly explain the amendment. It prohibits the EPA from using funds in this bill to work in contravention of Executive Order 12898 and delay the implementation of that order.

My amendment makes clear Congress's support for the executive order and its original intention to achieve health and environmental equity in minority and low-income communities.

Mr. Chairman, to seek out environmental justice is an effort to achieve health and environmental equity across all community lines. In adopting my amendment, Congress will call on EPA to move forward with the identification of at-risk minority and low-income communities so appropriate steps can be taken to improve their health and well-being.

Justice should never be reserved only for those who can afford to help themselves. I ask for my colleagues' support to ensure EPA takes the appropriate steps to protect minority and low-income communities from continued environmental injustices.

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

Mr. Chairman, I include for the Record the findings of the EPA Inspector General Report and those in support of the amendment.

Evaluation Report: EPA Needs To Consistently Implement the Intent of the Executive Order on Environmental Justice--Report No. 2004-P-00007--

March 1, 2004

Executive Summary

Purpose

In 1994, President Clinton issued Executive Order 12898,

``Federal Action to Address Environmental Justice in Minority

Populations and Low-income Populations,'' to ensure such

populations are not subjected to a disproportionately high

level of environmental risk. The overall objective of this

evaluation was to determine how the U.S. Environmental

Protection Agency (EPA) is integrating environmental justice

into its day-to-day operations. Specifically, we sought to

answer the following questions:

How has the Agency implemented Executive Order 12898 and

integrated its concepts into EPA's regional and program

offices?

How are environmental justice areas defined at the regional

levels and what is the impact?

Results in brief

EPA has not fully implemented Executive Order 12898 nor

consistently integrated environmental justice into its day-

to-day operations. EPA has not identified minority and low-

income, nor identified populations addressed in the Executive

Order, and has neither defined nor developed criteria for

determining disproportionately impacted. Moreover, in 2001,

the Agency restated its commitment to environmental justice

in a manner that does not emphasize minority and low-income

populations, the intent of the Executive Order.

Although the Agency has been actively involved in

implementing Executive Order 12898 for 10 years, it has not

developed a clear vision or a comprehensive strategic plan,

and has not established values, goals, expectations, and

performance measurements. We did note that the Agency made an

attempt to issue an environmental justice toolkit; endorsed

environmental justice training; and required that all

regional and programmatic offices submit ``Action Plans'' to

develop some accountability for environmental justice

integration.

In the absence of environmental justice definitions,

criteria, or standards from the Agency, many regional and

program offices have taken steps, individually, to implement

environmental justice policies. This has resulted in

inconsistent approaches by the regional offices. Thus, the

implementation of environmental justice actions is dependent

not only on minority and income status but on the EPA region

in which the person resides. Our comparison of how

environmental justice protocols used by three different

regions would apply to the same city showed a wide

disparity in protected populations.

We believe the Agency is bound by the requirements of

Executive Order 12898 and does not have the authority to

reinterpret the order. The Acting Deputy Administrator needs

to reaffirm that the Executive Order 12898 applies

specifically to minority and low-income populations that are

disproportionately impacted. After 10 years, there is an

urgent need for the Agency to standardize environmental

justice definitions, goals, and measurements for the

consistent implementation and integration of environmental

justice at EPA.

Recommendations

We recommended that the Acting Deputy Administrator issue a

memorandum reaffirming that Executive Order 12898 is an

Agency priority and that minority and low-income populations

disproportionately impacted will be the beneficiaries of this

Executive Order. Additionally, EPA should establish specific

time frames for the development of definitions, goals, and

measurements. Furthermore, we recommended that EPA develop

and articulate a clear vision on the Agency's approach to

environmental justice. We also recommended that EPA develop a

comprehensive strategic plan, ensure appropriate training is

provided, clearly define the mission of the Office of

Environmental Justice, determine if adequate resources are

being applied to environmental justice, and develop a

systematic approach to gathering information related to

environmental justice.

Agency comments and OIG evaluation

In the response to our draft report, the Agency disagreed

with the central premise that Executive Order 12898 requires

the Agency to identify and address the environmental effects

of its programs on minority and low-income populations. The

Agency believes the Executive Order ``instructs the Agency to

identify and address the disproportionately high and adverse

human health or environmental, effects of it (sic) programs,

policies, and activities.'' The Agency does not take into

account the inclusion of the minority and low-income

populations, and indicated it is attempting to provide

environmental justice for everyone. While providing adequate

environmental justice to the entire population is

commendable, doing so had already been EPA's mission prior to

implementation of the Executive Order; we do not believe the

intent of the Executive Order was simply to reiterate that

mission. We believe the Executive Order was specifically

issued to provide environmental justice to minority and/or

low-income populations due to concerns that those populations

had been disproportionately impacted by environmental risk.

A summary of the Agency's response and our evaluation is

included at the end of each chapter. The Agency's complete

response and our evaluation of that response are included in

Appendices D and E, respectively.

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

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Chairman, I am offering this amendment on behalf of myself, the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Whitfield), the gentleman from New York (Mr. Sweeney), and the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spratt).

Mr. Chairman, America is blessed with a rich natural heritage. Part of that heritage are the herds of wild horses, direct descendants of animals that came here with early explorers and missionaries, which still roam the ranges in parts of the American West.

In 1971, Congress formally protected these wild horses and mandated that they could not be sold or processed into commercial products, in effect, slaughtered.

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.

All of that changed as a result of a rider tucked away in the dead of night in the massive omnibus appropriations bill enacted last December.

With no public notice or comment, this rider trashed 33 years of national policy and lifted the prohibition on the commercial sale of America's wild horses.

Today, the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Whitfield) and I, along with our colleagues, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Sweeney) and the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spratt), are offering this amendment to restore that prohibition, to stop the slaughter.

There is an urgency here. So far this year, 41 wild horses that we know of have been sent to one of the three foreign-owned slaughterhouses in this country. Moreover, the BLM has estimated that 8,400 horses need to be sold to comply with the recent change in the law.

To what end? To what end, I ask? So their meat can end up on menus in France, Belgium and Japan where it is considered a delicacy.

Incredible, simply incredible. We do not allow the commercial sale of horse flesh in this country for human consumption, but we are exporting horse meat for that purpose abroad.

Since introducing the legislation which is the basis for this amendment, I have received an impressive volume of heartfelt letters and e-mails from across the Nation.

The very notion that 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.

From Florida, Stacey wrote, ``Knowing that the horses won't be there for my kids has made me feel sad, hurt and angry at our government.''

A former West Virginian named Valerie who now resides in Nevada wrote, ``I, and our friends, have enjoyed going on to the desert to see wild horses roaming free.''

Jeremy from Oregon wrote, ``Your support will help to restore the public's confidence by assuring us that Congress operates under the principles of for the people and by the people.''

We must restore the people's faith. We must stop the slaughter of these American icons.

A week and a half ago, an annual rite of spring was held called the Running of the Kentucky Derby, a uniquely American institution.

I am wearing on my lapel a pin here, a symbol which bears the likeness of Ferdinand who won the 1986 Derby and the 1987 Breeders' Cup Classic, notable achievements. Yet his reward was to end his life in a Japanese slaughterhouse. Ferdinand was not a wild horse, true, from the American plain, but the issue is one in the same.

As children, many of us recall reading the compelling story in the book ``Misty of Chincoteague.'' What type of message would we be sending today's

youth if Misty was rounded up and sent to be slaughtered.

For Misty's sake, for America's sake, vote for the Rahall-Whitfield amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Whitfield), a cosponsor of the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Sweeney).

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Whitfield), the cosponsor of the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from Kentucky has just touched upon a very important point, and that is that there are alternatives available to the outright slaughter; adoption and euthanization. These are alternatives rather than the slaughter of these animals.

In regard to what the gentleman from Nevada said, that BLM has recently done, what BLM has proposed in the last day or two in an effort to head off the successful passage of this amendment is illegal under the change in law that was made by the omnibus appropriation bill last year.

And I would say to the distinguished chairman of the subcommittee, in defense of the gentleman from California (Mr. Pombo) and myself on the authorizing committee, this change was made in an appropriation bill, not in an authorization bill. Therefore, it is incumbent the change or reversal be done in an appropriation measure.

So I would urge that my colleagues look at the humane side of this amendment, look at what is only fair to these American icons and vote for the Rahall-Whitfield-Sweeney-Spratt amendment.

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

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote, and pending that, I make the point of order that a quorum is not present.

Mr. Chairman, this is one of those issues where our opponents are trying to use emotion to overwhelm good policy. As is usually the case in such debates, the results are exactly the opposite of what is being advocated.

So it is with the proposal to revoke the Secretary of Interior's authority to sell excess wild horses and burros. Ironically, rather than saving wild horses, the amendment will have the perverse effect of ensuring their numbers will stay at unsustainable levels, adoption efforts will be hampered, and thousands of old unadoptable horses will stay stuck in limbo in long-term holding facilities, or as the gentleman from Kentucky suggested, euthanized. Oh, that makes a lot of sense.

But this is what you get. This is what you get with this kind of policy, horses that are starving to death on the range. The BLM has conducted an analysis of their wild horse and burro program and determined that if they had not removed many of the wild horses from the range, prolonged drought, reduced forage production, and poor health would have resulted in large losses during the winter of 2005.

In Cedar City, Utah, for example, over 100 horses had to be removed from the range to prevent their suffering and potential starvation.

It is ironic that the authority that was used to save nearly 2,000 horses

this past year is the very authority the sponsors of this amendment are trying to repeal.

If this amendment prevails, the only method to remove these horses will be adoption, which historically has failed to keep up with the explosion of the population. Inadequacy of the adoption program has resulted in many of these horses being sentenced to spend the rest of their lives in long-term facilities unsuitable for wild horses. I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment.

Mr. Chairman, this is one of those issues where our opponents are trying to use emotion to overwhelm good policy. As is usually the case in such debates, the results are exactly the opposite of what is being advocated.

So it is with the proposal to revoke the Secretary of the Interior's authority to sell excess wild horses and burros. Ironically, rather than saving wild horses, the amendment will have the perverse effect of ensuring that their numbers will stay at unsustainable levels, adoption efforts will be hampered, and thousands of old, unadoptable horses will stay stuck in limbo in long-term holding facilities. Horses on the range will, most likely, starve to death.

BLM has conducted an analysis of their wild horse and burro program and determined that if they had not removed many of the wild horses from the range, prolonged drought, reduced forage production and poor health would have resulted in large losses during the winter of 2005. In Cedar city, Utah, for example, over 100 horses had to be removed from the range to prevent their suffering and potential starvation. It is ironic that the authority that was used to save nearly 2000 horses this past year is the very authority the sponsors of this amendment are trying to repeal.

If this amendment prevails, the only method to remove these horses will be adoption, which historically has failed to keep up with the explosion of the population. Inadequacy of the adoption program has resulted in many of these horses being sentenced to spend the rest of their life in long term unsuitable for wild holding facilities.

Because of the overwhelming cost of these facilities at the expense of the federal government, the number of horses on the range is still well above the appropriate management levels called for in law. furthermore, one-half of the entire wild horse and burro operating budget is used to take care of ``unadoptable'' horses held in these facilities. This amendment would only cause those costs to skyrocket at the expense of the adoption program.

Last year, Congress enacted a law that allowed BLM to sell unadoptable horses that are over 10 years old or have been offered unsuccessfully for adoption three times, until the appropriate management level is reached. These proceeds are then used by BLM to help promote and finance their adoption program.

Currently there are 8400 horses in these long term facilities that need to be moved on through the program in order to prevent malnutrition and starvation that is associated with the overpopulation of the range land herds. By denying the funds to implement the sale program for wild horses and burros, this irresponsible amendment would eliminate a far more efficient tool in the management of the program. By not allowing BLM to keep the herd in manageable numbers, this amendment endangers the welfare of the wild horses by exacerbating the deplorable conditions these animals must try to survive in where their only escape is death by starvation.

Vote for the welfare of the wild horses. Vote ``no'' on the Rahall- Whitfield Amendment.