To restore the prohibition on the commercial sale and slaughter of wild free-roaming horses and burros.

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 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. 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. Chairman, I would be pleased to yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Salazar).

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 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

Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Colorado.

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

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. 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.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

On Monday, the House will meet at 12:30 p.m. for morning hour business and at 2 p.m. for legislative business. We will consider several bills under suspension of the rules. There will be no votes before 6:30 p.m.

On Tuesday, the House will meet at 10:30 a.m. for morning hour business and at noon for legislative business. We will consider additional bills under suspension of the rules. A complete list of those bills, Mr. Speaker, will be available by the end of business today. We will also expect to consider H.R. 362, the 10,000 Teachers, 10 Million Minds Science and Math Scholarship Act; and H.R. 363, Sowing the Seeds through Science and Engineering Research Act.

On Wednesday and Thursday, the House will meet at 10 a.m. on both those days. On Friday, no votes are expected, and Friday is not scheduled at this date. We will consider H.R. 1332, the Small Business Lending Improvements Act; and H.R. 249, a bill to restore the prohibition on the commercial sale and slaughter of wild free-roaming horses and burros.

Will the gentleman yield?

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Of course, as he knows, it was only 38 days ago that the President made his last request for an addition to the supplemental, and 94 days sounds like longer than I think it has been. But notwithstanding that, we do expect the supplemental to be on the floor next week. That is our expectation. If things go as we hope, the supplemental will be on the floor, and, hopefully, we can get that to the President either very late next week or no later than a week from this coming Monday. We think that is important.

As you know, you and I and others were down at the White House to discuss whether there was room for agreement and accommodation on this issue. We are still having those discussions, as you know, and we are hopeful that that can be reached.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding and for his question. And, frankly, I don't want to anticipate what the conferees are going to do, having been appointed just last night. There was a vote on the House floor. Frankly, the vote would have had no effect whether it passed or

failed in light of the fact that it instructed the House to do what it had already done. So if it had failed, presumably the House was going to be in the same position that it otherwise would have been in.

But notwithstanding that, I don't want to anticipate what the conferees are going to do in light of the fact that they have just been appointed, but I do know that the chairmen of the conference on both sides, House and Senate, want to see this matter resolved quickly, sent to the President, would want to see the troops funded. We were very pleased to see the Department of Defense make it very clear, as, frankly, General Speer and General Ward made clear to me in Europe, that funding is available and will be able to be accommodated through June.

As the gentleman knows, last year when the President made a request for a supplemental, that was not passed until mid-June, that supplemental. So I was pleased to see the Department of Defense indicate that that would be okay. It is not perfect. That is not what they would choose, but, in any event, through the month of June. We hope to get this work done long before that.

Obviously, we are very hopeful that we will pass a budget, that we will pass a budget in a timely fashion. As you know, we did pass a budget through the House in a timely fashion. The Senate passed its budget. It is now in conference.

Because of the April break, Easter-Passover break, we have not reached the April 15th. As a matter of fact, I talked to Mr. Conrad just an hour ago, I talked to Mr. Spratt just an hour ago, and we are very hopeful that we will come to an agreement.

I would observe, of course, last year the disagreement was between the Republican leadership in the Senate and the Republican leadership in the House. I understand what the gentleman is saying. Some of the votes in the Senate were overwhelming and bipartisan in terms of some of these issues. So this is an issue that we've got to overcome. We hope we can overcome it and move the budget.

But I want to tell the gentleman, he is absolutely correct. I am very focused. Mr. Obey is very focused. We are going to pass appropriation bills in a timely fashion. We hope to finish by the 30th of June. Very frankly, the more quickly we can move appropriation bills, perhaps the more flexibility we will have in June's schedule. But as you know, June now is scheduled for every Monday and every Friday meeting to effect that business, which is critical.

As the gentleman knows, we met last year for the full year. We left here in December and nine of the 11 appropriation bills were unpassed. We don't want to be in that position. The gentleman knows, and I know, that part of that problem was the Senate's inability to move its business as quickly as we would like, as quickly as we did. The Labor- Health bill, of course, never passed this floor last year, but we are hopeful that that will happen.

I will go over the schedule of the appropriations process with the gentleman at some point in time. We are hopeful that mid-May to the end of June we will pass our appropriation bills. I will tell the gentleman it will be my intention to discuss with both Chairman Spratt and Chairman Obey that if the budget process cannot be resolved, not in this House, but in the other House, that it would be my hope that the House would mark its bills to the House-passed number, as you know we have done in the past; and that would certainly be my intention.

Again, I have not discussed that with Mr. Obey at this point in time, that's premature, nor have I discussed it with others, but we are hopeful to move ahead on the appropriation bills.

As you know, passage of the budget has a much greater impact in the Senate than it does in the House with respect to the rules process under which appropriation bills are considered in the Senate.

Would the gentleman yield?

The gentleman and I have a slightly different perspective on what the rule provided.

First of all, as you know, motions to recommit were available in both of the bills that were on the floor. The tabling referred to that, if the second bill had not been adopted or the PAYGO provision had not been adopted, they would both be tabled. The reason for that was, we wanted to be consistent with our pledge to the PAYGO principle.

What we didn't want, what I don't want, and you and I have discussed this, is, I'm frankly ``perplexed,'' might be the word, as someone who has been in the legislative body for some 40 years; and I think the parliamentarians were accurate in their determination of germaneness, but germaneness has always meant to me in 40 years, I will tell my friend, that it is pertinent to the subject at hand.

You know that when you add a PAYGO provision, which frankly you abandoned on your side in 2002, you did not want to be constrained by PAYGO. I understand why you didn't want to be constrained by PAYGO because you couldn't pay for your tax cuts. You talked about spending. We've cut revenues very deeply. There were different philosophical arguments about that; but the fact is, they were not paid for, and as a result, the deficits have in large part expanded very greatly.

With respect to the rule, yes, the rule was structured in a way that limited to the subject matter at hand, whether it was the tax bill or the D.C. voting rights bill, motions to recommit to those subjects, as opposed to expanding to subjects that, frankly, from my perspective, are used for political purposes.

I will tell my friend that the motion last night and the motion on the previous D.C. bill had nothing to do with D.C. voting rights. And last night's bill had everything to do with trying to focus on our Members being targeted. And, in fact, the memorandum that you sent--not you, but somebody sent around to all of your Members expressed the purpose of your motion to recommit to target Members for political reasons, from my perspective.

In that context, if you are asking me if it is my intent in the future to try to limit you from doing that, the answer to that question is ``yes.'' If your question is, do I want to make sure that you have a motion to recommit with or without instructions, a motion to recommit, of course, kills the bill, as the motion to recommit to report back promptly kills the bill.

The irony is, the gentleman from North Carolina offered a motion to recommit the other day with respect to guns that related to the District of Columbia. Excuse me, I'm not sure it related directly to the District of Columbia, which would have had the perverse effect of offering the amendment and, if adopted, would have killed the amendment in the same process. That is because it was referring it back to committee. The committee would not have reported out that amendment.

If he had really been interested, in my opinion, in passing that amendment, as opposed to politically giving a vote that was difficult for Members on our side of the aisle, what he would have done is moved his gun amendment to be reported back forthwith and had his vote on that up or down.

But I will tell my friend, as he well knows, I want to make sure that from my perspective, and I have told him, I will not suggest a change in the rules, we did not change the rules, there was some discussion about that, without discussing it with him. I want your side to feel that you are getting a fair shot at relevant motions to recommit with or without amendments that do not kill the bill in the process. I don't think that is something that is unfair to expect.

Will the gentleman yield on that issue?

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

We could go on for some period of time on this. We have a different perspective, not on providing fairness for all Members. I said the gentleman from North Carolina; it was the young gentleman from Texas, and I thank you for correcting me on that.

Frankly, I want to tell my friend that if the gentleman from Texas was sincere, in my view, in wanting his amendment adopted, he would not have rereferred it to committee. Very frankly, in my opinion, his amendment would have passed. The bill would have been reported back forthwith, and the bill would have passed.

We all make a judgment as to what the purposes of amendments are. My view is, the gentleman voted against the underlying bill. The gentleman was opposed to the underlying bill. His motion was to do two things: to provide

an instance where on an issue not related to voting rights in the District of Columbia, but on an issue he thought the majority of the House supported which, I think he was correct, he wanted attached to that, and therefore create a dichotomy for Members. They either had to vote for an issue they were for and kill the bill, or vote against an issue they were for and be perceived as being against the proposition.

I understand what you are saying. I do not believe that it is fair legislative process to necessarily believe that that needs to be made in order.

Now, having said that, we did not amend the rules. Consistent with the rules, we provided a process on PAYGO. You waived PAYGO on a regular basis when it was in effect. As a result of doing so, you narrowed the scope of amendments. Not only did you do that, but you also waived the necessity to pay for things from time to time.

But, having said that, I want to reiterate to my friend, and we have had good discussions and will continue to have good discussions, but I am not going to say that we are going to allow our Members to be put in very difficult positions for what we perceive to be for political reasons only, not for the substance. If the gentleman from Texas had wanted to amend the substance with the motion to recommit, he had that available to him and have it reported back forthwith so it could be adopted. He had that available to him. He chose not to take that route.

It caused us some consternation, as was noticed, I am sure by some, particularly to me, because I felt very strongly about that bill. The majority of this House has now passed that bill, with significant support from your side of the aisle. As a matter of fact, it was a bill sponsored by one of your leaders, a former chairman of your campaign committee.

We want to make sure that we consider legislation on this floor fairly, and we will certainly work with you toward that end. But I don't want to assure the gentleman that I am not going to try to provide for the consideration of legislation and amendments thereto which are germane and relevant.

If the gentleman will yield on that, you understood my phrase. It was my perception. I did not question his sincerity. But the perception of what he did, offering the amendment, and within the ambit of the same amendment he offered killing the bill to which the amendment would be attached, appeared to me to be an act that was at least contradictory.

I thank the gentleman for his observations. This has probably gone on longer than the Members or the public wants it to, but let me simply observe that waivers obviously relate to and PAYGO relates to entitlement spending, and while you may not have waived it with respect to spending, because PAYGO does not affect discretionary spending, what it affects, of course, is entitlement spending.

The reason it affected the D.C. bill was because the Member from Utah would have had to have been paid and would have been entitled to be paid. So a relatively de minimis sum was involved in that.

Frankly, the gentleman and I have a disagreement in terms of the rule that was used. First, the rules have not been amended. They have not been amended. Secondly, this rule was consistent with our rules.

The only thing that this rule did that I think caused so much consternation on your side was it adopted PAYGO without opening the bill up to what were amendments that were extraneous to the subject matter and offered the bill on its merits. You were free to offer a motion to recommit, with or without amendments, on the subject matter of the bills, either bill. That was your right then.

The tabling simply referred to making sure that we kept our promise that bills would have PAYGO on them, and if they didn't have PAYGO on them, we weren't interested in passing them, because we were going to be faithful to our pledge on that rule. That is what the tabling dealt with. It didn't deal with your motion to recommit.

If you had defeated H.R. 1906, the second bill with the PAYGO provision, H.R. 1905 would not have gone forward. But our side of the aisle believed that both were important and wanted them together because we wanted the PAYGO provision in there, a relatively de minimis sum in terms of the budget, but consistent with our rule.

If I can make another observation on another matter, you mentioned the supplemental had been pending 94 days. It has been pending 73 days. I think that is an important distinction. That is almost a month of legislative work, if not more.

I am sure.

Mr. Speaker, I rise for the purpose of inquiring about next week's schedule, and I yield to my friend from Maryland, the majority leader.

Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend for that information.

Last evening we did appoint conferees to the conference on the emergency supplemental for the war. Would we expect to have a conference report, do you think, sometime next week? I think it has been 94 days now since the President requested that, and I am wondering if we would anticipate a conference report anytime next week.

I would yield.

Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend for that response. And we would hope to see that bill next week on the floor or as soon as possible because there is some great likelihood from that White House meeting that the gentleman mentioned that there is going to have to be a second bill if we can't resolve these issues that lead toward a veto.

On one of those issues we did yesterday, the House voted on the motion to instruct the conferees to sustain the House position. Does the gentleman have any information on the likelihood of the House or Senate view of the deadline issue that we discussed yesterday?

I yield to the gentleman.

I thank the gentleman for that answer, Mr. Speaker. I hope we can. I think we do need to continue to talk about how we ultimately resolve this issue.

Now, in the information that I am getting from both the Defense Department and our Members that have military installations is that while the war effort, itself, with lots of changing of categories of money and determinations of money around may be very well up through June, that the defense effort generally is impacted because money that would have been spent for National Guard training or money that would have been spent to pay obligations to a contractor are not available in this process.

Now, the last time Secretary Gates, at least, who was not Secretary at the time, said that the spend-out was not quite as quick, and he also said that the need was not quite as critical. But the gentleman is absolutely right in pointing out that last time this process took a long time, and one of the reasons it took a long time was that the House leaders, the majority leaders at that time, were in conflict with the Senate about additional spending. I don't see any of those discussions, frankly, going on, but the additional spending last time at $14.5 billion did not occur because the House leaders wouldn't accept that and we passed the bill in the House last time a month after the President sent the request up, and then it was a number of months, almost 4 or 5 months, before we got a final bill because we were fighting that additional spending, and at some point we are going to have to also engage not just on the issues of deadlines and whether or not we are micromanaging the effort, but the additional spending was the real problem last time. I would like to think that there was some effort going on there. I don't know that there is.

My next question, though, is that the gentleman's goals for the appropriations process really would require us to pretty quickly move on the budget itself. We missed a deadline that we often miss. I don't want to belabor that point, but that April 15 deadline we normally had to hit if we had a real opportunity to get the bills out of the House by the Fourth of July, which we did in the first part of the last Congress and all but one of the bills in the second part of the last Congress.

What is your sense of where we are on the conferees for the budget and a final budget document?

I thank the gentleman for sharing that with me. And certainly there were occasions where we had to do exactly what the gentleman is suggesting, and that is always one option. At some point, based on the meeting the deadlines we hope to meet and you hope to meet on the calendar, you have to decide whether that is the option you have to go to or not, as opposed to a conference report that we can agree to that lets us move forward that way.

I would also like to repeat one of the comments the gentleman made simply because we don't get much credit here or didn't get much credit for efforts we did make to control spending. And you are absolutely right, a year ago at this time the fight was between the Senate, which was led by Republicans at the time, and the House that was led by the Republicans on that additional spending.

And I just want to make the point that you already made once, but we don't hear it emphasized very often, but that was the fight. House Republicans did win, and we spent $14.5 billion less than our friends on the other side intended to spend, offered to spend, wanted to spend; and that is what that time frame was all about.

We do, I believe, have more concerns in overall defense spending just because the spend-down has been quicker this year than last year, and Secretary Gates, not me, would be the source for that view of the difference in the 2 years. But clearly, the process, as the gentleman rightly pointed out, is never as easy as we want, as quick as we want, and there are obstacles there.

I would like to, before we conclude today, ask a couple more questions. One is the concern that I have and many of our Members have on the rule that was used this week to waive PAYGO for the D.C. bill and to create a new obstacle for Members who hope to offer a motion to recommit.

Twelve years and, now, a few months ago, when Republicans took control of the House, they extended the motion to recommit to the minority at that time and never failed to offer that motion to recommit under the traditions of the House. I believe, while it often was not

allowed the minority in previous years, never in either previous times or the last 12 years was an actual tabling motion put in the rule, which creates a different circumstance intentionally, but a different circumstance than was ever created in this House before.

And I wonder really two things: Would that tabling motion be something that we will see again? And also, would we expect to see the PAYGO effort in the future waived for the principal reason to be on the floor and handled in a separate vote and a separate piece of legislation, like we did this time?

Is that now the anticipated norm for this process, Mr. Leader?

I would.

Well, I thank my friend for that.

But I do think in that view of this that there is a significant restriction of the rights available to Members. Members have to defend what they do on the floor. Let me make a couple of points.

One is, in the incident you mentioned when the gentleman from Texas offered a motion to recommit well within the rules, and, by the way, in that case and many other cases the only option that the minority has had has been the option of last resort, unless you take that away, which was the motion to recommit. All of our amendments were rejected; no matter how germane they might have been, they were not allowed.

The Members of the House are the ones who have the opportunity to decide what is the right vote and what's not. And, in fact, stopping that vote offered under the rules by a Member in good faith I think was a violation of that Member's rights as a Member of the House.

Now, you could have had that vote, it might have killed the bill, but you could have started a new bill just like you did anyway. The only difference would have been that the Member of the House that brought the issue to the floor would have had his full rights as a Member to have his issue not only debated, but voted on. And we were literally seconds from actually having that vote, which under the rules of the House would have sent the bill to the committee promptly.

There may have been no way to leave the committee with that bill, but you could have started a new bill just like you did. The only difference would have been that the gentleman from Texas would have had his motion voted on, as I believe he had a right to.

On the other issue, we did have PAYGO for 8 years of the 12 years we were in the majority. We complied with it. We still never took away the ability of your side to do just what you said we shouldn't be able to do.

Let me finish the thought, and then I will.

I can give you many instances where not only did your side try to avail themselves of that right, which we never then took away, and it probably did create political concerns for our Members; but the House has been here longer than any Member has been here and will be here longer than any Member will be here. And beginning to change the rules in that way or change the rights of Members to offer their objections, their ideas, their improvements as Members always have is a bigger step than I think the gentleman may realize.

And in terms of whether things are germane or not, I very well remember a bill to create the Homeland Security part of our government and the motion to recommit was about corporate inversions. Now, that is every bit as tangential as anything the gentleman just mentioned. But we didn't go back the next week and say, we're never going to allow the minority to have that vote again because it was troublesome for us. Troublesome for us and protecting the rights of Members as they relate to past Members and future Members I think are two different things.

I will yield to my friend.

I would say to my friend, we do have a disagreement on this and I think we do see what my good friend perceives as a minor change in procedure differently because I don't think it is that at all.

I would say a couple of things: one is 18 times at least in the minority our friends on the other side used the same rule that my friend now so vigorously objects to because it would kill the bill. Eighteen times. They never were able to do it, but 18 times used it, many times with the provisions just like the one I cited earlier that were every bit as tangential as the one the gentleman is speaking to.

Also I am sure in terms of, I don't know if the word was ``sincerity'' or what, but I do know that our friend from Texas is a sincere and dedicated Member.

Mr. Speaker, my friend knows as well, if not better than anybody, how to explain exactly how a Member could be motivated to do both of those things and has defended the rights of the minority for a number of years in an extraordinary way on similar kinds of issues. But the point here is that we are about more than the moment, and my friend said that he wants to do everything he can to prevent his Members from being put in a difficult political situation. The truth is, this is a difficult job, and Members who run for it should understand it is a difficult job and there are things that not only have to be decided, but have to be explained as part of that job. And while changing a procedure, a process, in a way that has never been handled before with this tabling inclusion this week may seem insignificant, I don't think it is.

Also, on our side during the time we had PAYGO, my friend mentioned spending, we never waived PAYGO for spending. On any spending bill, we always adhered to the PAYGO rule. You always had that available to you.

We will move forward. I do appreciate the fact that we are going to continue to talk about these issues before we do anything to change the overall rules of the House. I am concerned, however, when we change what one of our outside observers has referred to recently as the norms of the House. This rule this week was not only outside the norms of the House; it was unique in the way it handled this tabling issue. It was not unique in the way it divided the bills. I am not complaining about that. I am complaining about the potential for a Member to use all the tools previously available to them to actually, frankly, stop legislation that they didn't like if they didn't like it. But you can't do that unless 217 other people join you in that.

We are not in the majority on our side, we understand that, and for us to do anything under the rules of the House, with a majority vote, Democrats have to join us. If we make those options too appealing, that is, frankly, not our fault. Changing the rules for the momentary relief of Members has greater long-term consequences than I believe my friend realizes.

I yield to the gentleman.

Mr. Speaker, we will get our staffs together and look at the calendar later because they seem to be in disagreement on that, even at this moment as you give me that information.

I am going to make one, hopefully, final comment on this issue for now, though I am sure it is going to be an issue we talk about in the future.

For my friend to understand, it is not a concern about this bill. It is not a concern about what happened on that bill. It is the fact that the tabling addition may be within the rules, but extraordinary. If it is within the rules it has never been done before. The tabling addition changes the consequences of a Member's motion. When you change the consequences of a Member's motion, you take a right away from the Member that the Member previously had.

We may have to discuss this. I can see we are still not quite on the same wavelength. It is not about this bill, Mr. Hoyer. It is not about this week. It is about doing something that has never been done before that has consequential impact, and I believe this does. I think you and I should continue to talk about it. I think our Members in the minority are justly concerned about it, as you would have been in the minority if we had done something we never did in the majority, which is change the consequences of your motion to recommit.

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.

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. 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. Chairman, I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

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

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

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. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the motion to recommit.

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.

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

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 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. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion to recommit.

I am, in its current form.

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 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.

Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.