To amend the Horse Protection Act to prohibit the shipping, transporting, moving, delivering, receiving, possessing, purchasing, selling, or donation of horses and other equines to be slaughtered for human consumption, and for other purposes.

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.

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.

Mr. Chairman, just for the record, I want everyone to know that I am wearing one of my favorite ties, which is a horse tie. I have been a lifelong farmer and rancher, and I can assure you that no one in this Chamber loves horses more than I do.

But the good citizens of western Colorado and all Americans love our beautiful country and the public plans administered by the National Park Service, the Forest Service and the BLM. For more than 100 years, the Forest Service, the BLM lands, have been managed for multiple use and sustainable yield of their products. This means historic uses such as grazing remain a bedrock use of the land, and conservation remains a bedrock principle for which these lands are managed.

It is one thing to agree on these core principles. It is another one to do the hard work needed to effectively express the principles and actions and policies. Great needs for land management are going unanswered because Congress lacks the will to provide adequate funding to these core management functions. And at the same time, Mr. Chairman, the courage to adjust these laws reflects the reality of land management today.

So, for example, conservation of wildlife under the Endangered Species Act and other laws is regarded by many, including myself, as among the highest conservation priorities in our country. Nevertheless, Congress consistently fails to provide adequate funding for species conservation on the ground, or funding agencies to adequately implement the law.

We are at a similar place with respect to wild horses and wild burros. Legal recognition of the place of wild horses and burros on public lands was introduced in the passage of the Wild Horse and Burro Act in 1971. This law reflected America's love for horses and the concern that they be managed properly on public lands. These are values that, undoubtedly, we all share. The key provisions of the law required the BLM to manage the horses to an appropriate management level, called the AML. As a practical matter, this means that horse population numbers had to be managed within the multiple-use framework controlling management of BLM land.

For years, BLM has not been able to bring horse populations down within the AML ceiling. This means public lands have been degraded from overgrazing by horses. The habitat and food is taken from the wildlife, and the areas overpopulated by horses cannot

sustain other multiple uses of the land. Congress has consistently declined to provide the funding needed to gather more horses off BLM land and support them to live a healthy life in long-term holding facilities.

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

So Congress enacted a legislative solution in the fiscal year 2005 appropriations bill to help relieve the overpopulation of wild horses on public lands by authorizing the sale of unadoptable horses. These are horses that no one wanted. Not ranchers, not public officials, not even members of the animal rights groups or horse protection leagues, and, I am most certainly sure, no one voting ``yes'' on H.R. 249.

That first year, in 2005, more than 1,500 horses were sold. BLM credits the law with allowing them to operate their program within budget for the first time in a number of years. A small sales program continues today that is significant to the BLM budget. This year already, in 2007, 346 horses have been sold. BLM estimates that it could run a small sales program of about 600 horses per year. The sale of this number of horses is worth several million dollars to BLM over the life of the horses, for a program that is funded only at approximately $30 million annually.

H.R. 249, sponsored by the great chairman, whom I have the greatest of respect for and I know his intentions are good, would eliminate this sales program. Why do it? BLM efforts to prevent the slaughter of horses have been successful to date. Congress is not making sufficient funding available to take necessary care of the horses in long-term care facilities.

While the public is adopting some horses under the BLM program, horses are not being adopted at a rate sufficient to ease the overpopulation on public lands. Perhaps worst of all, the administration's budget for fiscal year 2008 called for a complete cutting of the funding for the horse and burro program. The slow progress that has been made towards achieving the AML in recent years will be reversed if BLM lacks the funds to gather the horses. Expenses will increase in the near future, as there will be more horses to manage because the population will not be controlled next year.

The existing sale authority is a small but necessary tool in an overall program to manage wild horses and burros on public lands.

If you care about the proper management of public lands, responsible government, horse welfare, and political courage, you will vote ``no'' on H.R. 249.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding.

I noticed on the map, Mr. Ranking Member, that we show across the western States much public land. Among the public land is also a great amount of ranching and farming land. I know that in some of my farming country and my own farm in Costilla County, every now and then, almost every year, we have a beautiful potato field that is run over by a herd of wild horses just because BLM does not have the proper funding and the authority to be able to manage these horses properly. I firmly believe that this bill will take those tools away that BLM currently has to manage wildlife.

Divisional Wildlife manages elk and deer herds so that they can thrive within the habitat that they currently have. One of the biggest problems that I see is that BLM uses the tools that they have and the funding that they have to be able to manage wildlife and horses on public land; but the biggest problem that I see is that if this bill passes, they will not be able to weed out the bad apples in the wild herds.

For example, they round up these horses. They put back into the wildlife the horses that are good, many of them that are good, but the ones that are lame or the ones that we saw like the one here in this picture, the ones that have broken legs, they can weed out of the population so that they can have better wild horse populations out there.

There is nothing more beautiful than to see a herd of wild horses out on the public lands running forever. I can assure you that if this bill passes, it will hurt BLM's ability to manage the great wild horse populations.

So I would also urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this bill.

Mr. Chairman, I support this bill, but I think the Natural Resources Committee should consider whether additional legislation would be appropriate in order to improve the management of wild horses and burros on Federal lands.

The bill repeals a provision enacted in 2004 as part of an appropriations bill that itself repealed the prohibition on the commercial sale and slaughter of wild free-roaming horses and burros that had been the law since 1971.

The Wild Free-Roaming Horse and Burro Act of 1971 established as national policy that wild free-roaming horses and burros were to be protected from capture, branding, harassment, and death and, among other things, it directed that ``no wild free-roaming horse or burros or its remains may be sold or transferred for consideration for processing into commercial products.''

Practically since its enactment, the law's implementation has been problematic. In particular, the Bureau of Land Management--BLM--has been criticized by the Government Accountability Office and the Interior Department's Inspector General for the way it has responded to the challenge.

Under the act, the agencies inventory horse and burro populations on Federal land to determine ``appropriate management levels.'' They are authorized to remove animals determined to be exceeding the range's carrying capacity so as to restore a natural ecological balance and protect the range from deterioration.

Toward that end, the law authorizes removed animals to be offered for private adoption. New owners can receive title after a 1-year wait, with certification of proper care during that time. An individual may receive title to no more than four animals per year.

The law says that if adoption demand is insufficient, the remaining healthy animals are to be destroyed--but that authority has not been used for more than 20 years, and BLM was prohibited from doing so by funding limitations included in the appropriations act from 1988 through 2004.

The latest numbers I have seen indicated that there currently are an estimated 28,500 wild horses and burros on BLM's 199 herd management areas. I understand this is the lowest level since the early 1970s and is the closest to what BLM considers to be the appropriate management level since that time--but evidently BLM expects the population to increase to about 34,000 in this fiscal year while a reduced emphasis on removal, as proposed in the President's budget request for fiscal 2008, could result in a considerable increase in the number of wild horses and burros on BLM-managed lands. My understanding is that as of the end of fiscal year 2006 there were another 3,180 wild horses and burros on 37 ``territories'' managed by the Forest Service.

Removals have long been controversial. Some think they are not appropriate, while others are of the opinion that reduction of herds protects range resources and balances wild horse and burro levels with wildlife and domestic livestock. BLM says it bases decisions about appropriate management levels on population censuses and range monitoring, taking into account natural resources, such as wildlife and vegetation, and land uses, including grazing.

My understanding is that between fiscal 1972 and fiscal 2006, 268,709 horses and burros were removed, of which 216,942 were adopted, while others died of natural causes, were sent to holding facilities, or were sold. Because more animals have been removed than have been adopted, large numbers of animals are being held in facilities.

This was the context in which Congress enacted the requirement for sale of unadopted

animals that this bill would repeal. However, in April 2005, BLM temporarily suspended sale and delivery of wild horses and burros due to concerns about the slaughter of some animals. The agency did not sell animals directly for slaughter, and was requiring purchasers to give written affirmation of an intent to provide humane care. Nevertheless, 41 sold animals were resold or traded and then sent to slaughterhouses. Another 52 animals were sold to slaughterhouses, but Ford Motor Co. committed to purchasing them. In May 2005, BLM resumed sales after revising its bill of sale and pre-sale negotiation procedures.

I support this bill because the provision it would repeal was inserted without the benefit of any hearings or public notice and without an opportunity for the Natural Resources Committee, which has jurisdiction, to consider possible alternative approaches.

For the same reason, when the House considered the fiscal 2006 Interior appropriations bill, I supported the Rahall amendment that prohibited the use of funds for the sale or slaughter of wild free- roaming horses and burros--an amendment that the House again included in the fiscal 2007 Interior Appropriations bill by voice vote.

After passage of this bill, the appropriate next step will be for our committee to review the status of the wild horse and burro program to see whether there is a need for more carefully considered changes in the law.