Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 1018) to amend the Wild Free-Roaming Horses and Burros Act to improve the management and long-term health of wild free-roaming horses and burros, and for other purposes.

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

Roaming Horses and Burros Act to improve the management and long-term health of wild free-roaming horses and burros, and for other purposes, and ask for its immediate consideration in the House.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and insert extraneous material on H.R. 1018.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to bring before the House today H.R. 1018, the Restore Our American Mustangs Act, legislation that will save the taxpayers money while saving tens of thousands of wild horses and burros from slaughter.

Earlier this year, the Bureau of Land Management made a truly shocking announcement. This Federal agency tasked with managing our magnificent public lands and resources announced future plans to destroy, i.e., slaughter, 30,000 healthy wild horses and burros entrusted to their care by the American people.

The announcement was even more stunning given that Congress enacted the Wild, Free Roaming Horse and Burro Act of 1971 declaring that these iconic animals were ``living symbols of the historic and pioneer spirit of the West'' and ``are to be considered an integral part of the natural system of the public lands.''

How in the world can a Federal agency be considering massive slaughter of animals the law says they are supposed to be protecting?

At my request, the Government Accountability Office conducted a complete review of the program, and they documented its numerous shortcomings.

The bill before us amends the 1971 act to implement the suggestions made by GAO and give the agency as many options as possible to avoid destroying these animals. Most significantly, this legislation will move the agency toward increasing the acreage available to wild horses and burros.

When the original act passed in 1971, 20 percent of BLM land was open to the horses. Today, they are only allowed on 13 percent of BLM land. The agency has never justified the removal of horses and burros from these missing acres.

This bill will also require consistency in management planning, with publication of standard operating procedures for managing these animals across all of our public lands. It will require better accounting methods so the agency can be certain how many animals are truly out on the range. It will strengthen the adoption program so that many more eligible horses and burros can go to adoptive homes. And it will authorize cooperative agreements with individuals and nonprofits so that large numbers of animals might be moved onto non-Federal land. Each of these provisions will make this program more cost-effective and will make it more efficient.

Despite these improvements, opponents of this bill are going to claim today that it will be expensive to implement. Their solution is to simply pass the same narrow bill prohibiting slaughter approved in the last Congress. You're going to hear that this bill goes so far that it should be called welfare for horses. That's what they will claim.

This is a funny line, but it uses high cost estimates to gloss over the fact that since the last Congress we have the benefit now of a comprehensive GAO report identifying many more strategies that we must pursue. Commissioning a good report and then ignoring its recommendations I hardly think is a way to save money. Stopping slaughter is an important step, and I'm pleased to see my friends on the other side of the aisle are now supporting that, but we do need to do more.

To be very clear, the pending bill, H.R. 1018, contains no direct spending. We are not creating an entitlement for horses. So the welfare joke falls completely flat.

Any increase in funding for the wild horse and bureau program would be the result of appropriations, not this authorization bill. Increasing the number of Federal acres available to horses and burros from the current 13 percent of BLM land back to the 20 percent available to them in 1971 should not cost the taxpayers anything. It is merely a 7 percent management adjustment, nothing more.

Our friends across the aisle always claim that BLM owns too much land. Now, we don't think so, but they certainly own enough to accommodate horses and burros. Furthermore, the management efficiencies in other parts of this bill will actually save money, and here is what we are doing: increasing adoptions, contraception and reducing overcrowding that will relieve the agency from having to round these animals up and care for them in long-term holding facilities, an expensive proposition.

The status quo is the worst of both worlds. It requires the BLM to hold these animals in expensive, long-term storage right up to the point when the money runs out, and then the agency has to kill thousands of them.

And witness these photos. These are American wild mustangs. And this is their fate. This is their fate held in captivity, abused. This is not what America is all about. This is not what America approves.

H.R. 1018 will give the agency new and better tools to avoid this outcome and will save money in the process.

At the appropriate time, I will be offering a manager's amendment further clarifying that the restoration of the missing acreage is a goal rather than a legal requirement, and so I would urge my colleagues concerned about the cost involved to support that amendment at the time and then support this legislation on final passage.

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

Mr. Speaker, before recognizing the distinguished subcommittee chair, I do want to say I'm joined in cosponsoring this legislation by the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Grijalva) and by my colleague from Kentucky (Mr. Whitfield).

At this point, I will yield 3 minutes to the distinguished chairman of our National Parks, Forests, and Public Lands Subcommittee, the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Grijalva).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Moran).

I yield the gentleman 2 additional minutes.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to a dear friend, the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Whitfield), one of the cosponsors of the legislation.

I yield the gentleman an additional 2 minutes.

May I have a time check, Mr. Speaker.

I reserve the balance of my time to close.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I might consume.

Mr. Speaker, as I said earlier today in debate on the rule on this legislation, this Congress can walk and chew gum at the same time. We can address unemployment, we can address health care reform, we can address the war, deficits, and at the same time, we do not need to allow the status quo to continue as it affects our wild horses and burros. These are icons of America, the American mustang. The status quo is a national disgrace. It is a disgrace to our heritage. It is a disgrace to all for which we stand.

Those on the other side of the aisle who want to make light of this situation, I'm sure if they were to go home to their Main Streets and pose a question to their constituents, do you support your Federal Government slaughtering 30,000 American wild horses, do you support them being held in holding pens, I suggest I know what the answer would be. The bottom line, this is the wild horse version of Gitmo, the wild horse version of Gitmo.

The pending legislation seeks to remedy the critical lapse that is taking place under the Wild Free-Roaming Horses and Burros Act of 1971 by invoking a number of commonsense measures. The measure would promote the use of better science to determine whether the amount of range that is available to wild horses is capable of sustaining them.

This would be accomplished through maintaining a valid inventory of the

wild horse population on the range and establishment of appropriate, scientifically based methodologies to determine management levels.

Second, the pending bill would increase the amount of range available to wild horses, including through private lands controlled by entities seeking to establish sanctuaries. Many of us have heard about the Pickens Plan. And I'm not talking about the T. Boone Pickens plan, the one dealing with wind and solar energy. I'm talking about the one advanced by his wife, Madeline Pickens, to utilize private resources for the establishment of wild horse sanctuaries.

The pending legislation makes it a goal, not a requirement, but a goal to increase the acreage on which wild horses can roam. By doing so, we reduce the number of animals that are culled from the herd and placed in holding facilities.

These holding facilities which have come up during this debate, I think it is important to recognize that keeping wild horses and burros in these holding facilities costs $21 million annually, or two-thirds of the entire cost of the wild horse and burro management program. The cost of these holding facilities has been rising dramatically from $7 million in 2000 to $21 million in 2008.

So we are attempting to reduce costs here, reduce the holding cost by lessening the number of roundups through a combination of what we are doing in this bill, making more public land available for wild horses and burros, strengthening and reforming the adoption program, enhancing measures for fertility control and contraception.

Third, even with the actions that I have already outlined, there will not be enough open range land to sustain all of our wild horses. In an effort to contain the costs associated with these holding facilities, we seek to bolster the adoption program and implement sterilization and other fertility controls. We seek to give the Bureau of Land Management the tools with which to do a better job.

And, finally, what the bill does not allow is the destruction of healthy horses; fatally injured or terminally ill animals, yes, but not healthy wild mustangs.

Let us stop the slaughter. Stop the abuse. Save taxpayer money and vote for the pending legislation. Let's save mustangs and save tax dollars at the same time and support the pending legislation.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I have an amendment made in order under the rule.

Mr. Speaker, this amendment makes four changes to H.R. 1018 as reported by our Natural Resources Committee. First, after further consultation with experts in the field, the amendment will broaden the types of fertility control that would be available to the Bureau of Land Management in order to better manage the wild horse and burro population.

Next, the amendment narrows the definition of ``commercial uses'' prohibited under the act. The purpose of this change is to clearly prohibit the sale of horses and burros for slaughter while clarifying that use of these animals on farms or in other commercial operations is allowed.

The amendment also makes a technical change to clarify the membership requirements for the Wild Horse and Burro Advisory Council.

And, finally, the amendment relaxes the requirement that the BLM return wild horses and burros to the acres of public land from which they have been removed since 1971.

The CBO cost estimate for this bill was based on the assumption that significant land acquisition would be required. That will not be the case, however; these horses and burros can be accommodated on existing Federal lands. Restoration of those acres remains an important goal but would not be a legal requirement.

This is a good package of small changes which will improve H.R. 1018. I urge my colleagues to support the amendment.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I yield back my time.

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

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman from Washington's comments on my efforts, and appreciate his full disclosure. I'll probably repeat it a few times here in the next couple of minutes, but I do appreciate him being up front about it.

This substitute, which is my anti-slaughter bill from last Congress, addresses one piece of a much larger puzzle. While the slaughter issue is a disturbing one, the ROAM Act will actually address the underlying problems facing the BLM horse and burro program, which has made slaughter a possibility. The substitute would address the symptom, while the underlying legislation will provide a cure.

I'm pleased that the gentleman from Washington State now opposes the slaughter of horses. When this substitute came before the Congress as a free-standing bill last Congress, and which he has already fully disclosed, he voted against it. But now he is in support thereof and is even offering it on the floor of the House. That is a step forward. Unfortunately, this conversion is a day late and several dollars short.

This substitute was the right approach last Congress, but that was before the BLM announced that the program was bankrupt and they were going to have to kill 30,000 horses and burros.

The GAO documented that the BLM program is out of control. First the agency was holding 5,000 horses, then 10,000, now it's 30,000. The agency now claims killing these animals is the only solution.

Adopting the Hastings substitute would stop private slaughter, but without the other reforms in the underlying legislation, 1018, the BLM will have to destroy these animals. The Hastings substitute just changes the identity of those who are killing the horses. Only the underlying bill actually stops the slaughter.

This substitute was the right approach last Congress, but that was also before the release of the GAO report. Now we have a thorough analysis of the obstacles facing the BLM, and a list of recommendations to address the root causes.

The GAO documented the enormous cost of the current BLM approach and proposed solutions. The Congress is now in a position to do more, and we must do more. H.R. 1018 does more.

Adopting this substitute would cost money, cost money, not save it, because it would allow the BLM to continue pouring good money after bad, without fixing the inefficiencies which plague the program in the first place.

Since I authored the legislation Mr. Hastings is now offering as his substitute, my colleagues and I have worked with the BLM, the Humane Society, the Animal Welfare Institute, the GAO and others to find new and more comprehensive solutions. We have apparently succeeded in bringing Mr. Hastings up to where we were last Congress, and I hope that eventually all of our colleagues will understand that now is the time to do more.

The substitute is too little, too late, should be rejected.

And I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I am prepared to close.

Yes.

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, the CBO estimate, the $700 million that has been thrown out by the other side as a potential cost to this legislation, was done in the last Congress. It was done before the adoption of the manager's amendment that we just adopted today in an earlier voice vote. It was done without considering the ramifications of the other aspects of H.R. 1018 that this House will adopt today. It was done taking into account in a very narrow, single shot-type fashion, if you will, the potential costs of purchasing 19 million acres of additional Federal land for the use of these wild horses and burros.

Therefore, when taking into account that cost, as CBO has done, they did not consider the fact that there are already Federal lands owned by the American people that are available and out there. The CBO did not take into account the management tools contained in the pending legislation with which we intend to help the BLM do a better job and improve the status quo. The CBO did not estimate any cost savings from an enhanced adoption program or from sterilization programs. The CBO did not take into account the reduction in costs of these holding pens, which I referenced earlier, the $21 million annually that it costs today--and that number keeps going up--of the current holding pens for these wild horses and burros. The CBO did not consider any of the ``today'' costs or how the improved management tools offered in H.R. 1018 will save dollars in the years ahead.

I urge a ``no'' vote, not only on the Hastings substitute amendment but also a ``yes'' vote on the pending H.R. 1018. H.R. 1018 is the humane and right vote to cast today. It will save our mustangs. It will save tax dollars. It will save millions of tax dollars annually. When you look through all of the smoke and mirrors of the numbers that have been thrown out today, you will find that, by implementing herd reduction with birth control, we can save more than $6 million alone each year. Again, when we look at the cost reductions of these holding pens, this legislation is the tax-wise way to go.

So I conclude by urging a ``no'' vote on the Hastings substitute and a ``yes'' vote on the underlying bill, H.R. 1018.

I yield back the balance of my time.

I object to the unanimous consent, Mr. Speaker.

Madam Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 653 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Madam Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentlewoman from North Carolina (Ms. Foxx). All time yielded during consideration of the rule is for debate only.

General Leave

I ask unanimous consent that all Members be given 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks on House Resolution 653.

Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Madam Speaker, House Resolution 653 provides for consideration of H.R. 1018, the Restore Our American Mustangs Act, under a structured rule. The rule provides 1 hour of general debate equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on Natural Resources.

The rule makes in order a manager's amendment and a substitute amendment from the ranking member, my former Rules colleague, Mr. Hastings of Washington. The manager's amendment is debatable for 10 minutes, and the substitute is debatable for 30 minutes. The rule also provides one motion to recommit, with or without instructions.

Madam Speaker, H.R. 1018 is a bill that restores important protections for wild horses and burros. The bill received full consideration in the subcommittee and the full committee. Markups were held. Republican and Democratic amendments were offered and accepted through the regular order.

Madam Speaker, this bill will reverse a misguided and controversial rider that was adopted as part of the fiscal year 2005 omnibus appropriations bill. The provision was slipped into the bill in the dead of night when the Republicans were in control, reversing long- standing Federal policy that protected wild horses from being sold at auctions and subsequently shipped to slaughter plants. Last summer, the Bureau of Land Management announced that it would consider killing as many as 30,000 healthy wild horses and burros in BLM holding centers across the United States.

The ROAM Act, H.R. 1018, introduced by Chairman Rahall, will restore long-standing protections by prohibiting the sale and wholesale killing of wild horses and burros; prioritize cost effective on-the-range management, over-roundups, saving millions of tax dollars; facilitate the creation of sanctuaries for wild horses and burro populations on public lands; strengthen the BLM's wild horse and burro adoption program; and protect wildlife by requiring a thriving natural ecological balance on the range.

Madam Speaker, these wild animals are rounded up in huge numbers by BLM only to languish in holding pens, threatened with sale or slaughter. H.R. 1018 will minimize these stressful, inhumane roundups, and promote adoption for those horses and burros who are taken off the range, banning the sale of wild horses and burros by the BLM, as well as the transfer of these animals for the purpose of processing into commercial products.

Legislation similar to H.R. 1018 passed the House in 2007 by a landslide, bipartisan vote of 277-137. Unfortunately, this measure has never been signed into law. It is time we end this inhumane practice once and for all.

This bill is important for the protection of our Nation's wild horses and burros. I urge adoption of the rule and the bill.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Just in brief response to the gentlewoman's comments, as she knows, when the manager's bill is adopted, this bill will have no cost.

And in response to her question about what the Democratic priorities are, they are to create jobs, they are to pass an energy bill to create more jobs, and to deal with climate change. Our priorities include passing a health care bill that will lower the cost of health care for average Americans.

I don't know about in North Carolina, but I can tell you that in my district and everywhere I go around the country, people claim with great justification that they are paying too much for health care. She may represent a bunch of millionaires, but I think most of us don't.

The fact of the matter is health care costs are too high. We need to make it more affordable for the average family, for small businesses, and so that's what our priorities are.

I should say to the gentlelady as well that according to recovery.gov, in her State, jobs that were created or saved in North Carolina are 105,000 jobs.

I also submit into the Record, Madam Speaker, an editorial from the Knox News in support of this stimulus package as it relates to the Great Smoky Mountains National Park, which includes, I understand, part of the gentlewoman's district.

[From the Knox News, Thursday, July 16, 2009]

Editorial: Smokies Stimulus: Let the Good Work Begin

It isn't exactly a birthday present, but no matter. The

Great Smoky Mountains National Park can use the infusion of

$64 million in stimulus money for a variety of projects that

have been needed in the park for years.

It's special that it will come in time to help those in

East Tennessee and Western North Carolina celebrate the

park's 75th anniversary. And it is significant that it is

about eight times the amount the park usually receives for

maintenance work.

The stimulus funding is expected to create up to 1,500 jobs

inside and outside the park.

The money comes from the American Recovery and Reinvestment

Act, and the park officials hope to be able to award the

first round of construction contracts by late next month,

with work expected to begin after the Sept. 7 Labor Day

holiday.

The Smokies Park is one of 380 national parks to receive

funding from the stimulus package. And, as the most visited

national park in the country, its share of the federal

funding was greater than that for other parks.

For example, Yosemite National Park received $4.5 million

and the Grand Canyon National Park received $10.8 million.

Denali National Park in Alaska will get $6.3 million.

The initial phase of construction will use $7.5 million of

the stimulus money to repave Cosby Campground, improve

parking at the Sinks waterfalls area and upgrade 34 buildings

and five comfort stations throughout the park.

The park already is using $1.2 million of the federal money

to hire temporary workers who will improve 32 miles of eroded

horse trails in Tennessee and North Carolina and to restore

more than 60 historic cemeteries.

During the first phase of construction, the Cosby

campground will close for the season after the Labor Day

holiday. It normally operates through October. The campground

is scheduled to reopen as usual in March.

The work on the parking area at the Sinks will cause that

site to close following Labor Day, with completion scheduled

for May 2010.

The project also will include a handicapped accessible

masonry platform overlooking the waterfalls.

A second phase of contracts funded by the stimulus money is

expected to be awarded later in the fall; work on these

projects will begin in the spring.

Park spokesman Bob Miller said in May that it was a

coincidence that the stimulus money comes during the yearlong

celebration of the Smokies' 75th anniversary. However, he

added, ``The park was created in large measure as an economic

stimulus initiative, so it's timely that we're making such a

substantial investment in our infrastructure.''

We hope those in the federal government, regardless of the

impact of the stimulus money, realizes what those in this

area have long understood. The Smokies Park is a national

treasure--everyone's treasure--and its continued upkeep and

improvement need to stay high on the government's to-do list.

So our priorities are pretty clear, and what we're trying to do right now is dig ourselves out of a ditch that her party and the Republican President George Bush dug our economy into. It turns out the ditch is much deeper than anybody had thought, and it's going to take us a little time to get out of it.

But through the stimulus package, through passing health care reform to lower health care costs on families and small businesses, through a climate change bill to create thousands and thousands of more green jobs, I think we've got to turn the corner, and I think that the President of the United States is leading us on the right track.

I reserve the balance of my time.

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Madam Speaker, I just want to say to my colleague that I appreciate his comments, especially after our previous conversation.

He is complaining about the process, but if I'm understanding this correctly, the Resources Committee held a hearing on this bill. There was a full committee markup. The gentleman offered a similar amendment, I understand, that was rejected.

He sent an amendment up to the Rules Committee, which he did not testify on behalf of, which he is not required to. But if it was so important, I would have thought that he would have been up before the committee. And I would also say to my colleague that, to the best of my understanding, none of his Republican colleagues on the Rules Committee offered his amendment.

So I would just suggest in the future, if there is an important issue like that, that there be some more groundwork in advance to it.

I'm happy to yield to the gentleman from California.

I reclaim my time, Madam Speaker.

I appreciate the gentleman's observation. But my point was that not only did Mr. Chaffetz not appear before the Rules Committee, but no member of the minority party on the Rules Committee offered his amendment.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I yield myself as much time as I may consume.

That was an interesting exchange. Unfortunately it didn't represent or reflect reality. The fact of the matter is, Madam Speaker, when Bill Clinton left the White House, he left George Bush with an enormous surplus. George Bush took that surplus and frittered it away on wars that were not paid for and $1.6 trillion in tax cuts that drove us deeper into debt. The economy spiraled down. My friends on the other side basically turned their backs on what was happening to average people all across this country. And in November of 2008 the American people spoke; and what they made clear is this: That my friends on the other side of the aisle, my Republican friends, do not know best. At every level of government, they were rejected, they were turned out of office because people were sick and tired of their policies that, they believed, drove this economy into a deep ditch. What people want are answers. They don't want the same old, same old. They don't want more tax cuts for the rich. They don't want more indifference toward middle- class working families or total indifference toward those who are struggling in poverty. They want us to try to fix this economy.

My friends take delight in trying to poke holes in the policies of President Obama, saying, Well, you know, he promised that we would create X amount of jobs. We are falling short of that. Well, it turns out that this ditch that they dug is deeper than many of us thought. But by most standards, most economists are actually seeing that things are beginning to turn--maybe slower than we would like, but they are beginning to turn. We need to continue these policies. We need to help working families in this country. We need to fix health care. We need to lower costs for families. People are paying too much for health care in this country. They're tired of the past Congresses that were more interested in pleasing insurance companies than they were in helping average families. They want us to deal with global climate change and to try to help pave the way for new jobs in the area of green technologies. So we're going to move forward.

I should also tell my friends, and as they know, that as we debate this bill, there are committees meeting, there are briefings going on on a whole number of issues from health care to the economic recovery. I'm sorry that they don't want to stay around and do that work, but that's what they were elected to do. We're going to stay here, and we're going to do the people's work until it is done.

With that, Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, before I yield to the gentleman from West Virginia, I would just like to point out to the gentlelady from North Carolina, who has been a constant critic of the stimulus package, that some $8 billion of that total is earmarked specifically for North Carolina. Some

of the money that has already been spent, Madam Speaker, and has been used to be able to prevent the firing of teachers. Without receiving that money, States and communities would end up firing hundreds and hundreds of teachers, which would mean that class sizes would increase and in some cases even double, denying our kids the kind of quality education that we want them to have. Some of that money went to help shore up our law enforcement, our police officers, our firefighters. So to the best of my knowledge, the people of North Carolina haven't said, Don't give us the relief. Don't give us the aid. We need help because, quite frankly, this economy is in such bad shape--and I will repeat-- because of the policies of the Republican administration that held the White House for 8 years, that basically turned its back on average working people in this country. We are trying to fix the mess that they created, and we're going to do that.

I would now like to yield 5 minutes to the chairman of the Natural Resources Committee, the gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. Rahall).

Madam Speaker, I find it ironic that my friends on the other side of the aisle want to talk about fiscal responsibility and they are worried about the deficit. Where were they for 8 years when George Bush took this economy and drove it straight into a ditch? He inherited a surplus from President Clinton, and he squandered it. And nobody, virtually nobody, on the other side of the aisle spoke about the fact that Republican economic policies are responsible for this economic crisis. This President inherited the worst economy since the Great Depression. We need to dig ourselves out of this ditch. And we are going to do that.

I reserve the balance of my time.

I reserve my time.

If anyone on the other side of the aisle wants to defend the same-old-same-old policies of George Bush, then go ahead and do it. But the fact of the matter is that in November, 2008, the American people spoke overwhelmingly against and rejected those policies. The economic policies of the Republican Party and of George Bush drove this country into a ditch, and we are trying to dig ourselves out of it.

I reserve my time.

Madam Speaker, we are here today because we are doing the work of the American people. And we are doing what the American people asked us to do.

As we debate this bill on the floor, there are major markups in the Education and Labor Committee and the Energy and Commerce Committee on health care. There are also hearings and markups going on on two major appropriations bills. So there is a lot of work going on here, a lot of important work, of trying to dig ourselves out of this mess that this President inherited.

It is interesting, again, to hear my friends on the other side of the aisle talk about fiscal management and about the need to control deficits and debts when they voted for tax cuts for rich people that weren't off-set. They voted for wars that weren't paid for. And there was silence. And the economy got worse and worse and worse. On November 2008, the American people said, enough, we need to change course.

The American people want us to deal with health care. The Party of No says, no, can't do health care. They are trying to scare people, again, away from a national health care reform bill that will control and lower the cost of health care for average Americans.

People want us to deal with the issue of climate change and creating green jobs. And the Party of No says, no, we can't do that. They don't want us to deal with that issue. No, no, no, no.

Well, the reality is the American people want us to deal with the issues of law enforcement, with the issues of immigration and with a whole number of issues. And the Party of No says no. They vote against everything. They are against everything. So here we are. We are dealing with this issue today.

I think this is a commonsense bill. The chairman of the Resources Committee explained that there was a hearing and there was a markup at full committee. I would urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on the previous question and ``yes'' on the rule.

I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself as much time as I may consume.

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

Mr. Speaker, across our Nation, Americans are struggling to pay their bills; 9.5 percent of Americans are out of work. This is the highest unemployment rate that America has experienced in over a quarter of a century. President Obama and his economic advisers expect the number of jobless to climb higher, into the double digits.

After bailouts for Wall Street and a stimulus bill that has cost hundreds of billions of dollars and still isn't creating the jobs that the Democrats promised, the national deficit has now hit $1 trillion, and that is an historic and worrying amount that President Obama says keeps him awake at night.

Mr. Speaker, Americans are hurting. Our economy is in a recession. Two million jobs have been lost since the stimulus bill passed this Congress in February. Government spending is going through the roof. In fact, the Congressional Budget Office estimates that since January, the Obama and Pelosi budgets will lead to increased spending of $2.6 trillion over the next 10 years.

So, Mr. Speaker, with this backdrop, what is the response of this Democrat Congress to month after month of lost jobs, record unemployment, out-of-control spending, and skyrocketing deficits? Their response is to vote on a bill to create a $700 million welfare program for wild horses and burros.

Mr. Speaker, if the American people want an illustration of just how out of touch this Congress has become on spending, they need to look no further than what's happening here on the floor of the House with this issue of wild horses and burros.

In the last Congress, the House passed legislation to ban the commercial slaughter of wild horses and burros. It was a one-page bill, and CBO estimated that it would cost taxpayers less than $500,000 a year. Now we're just 2 years from that time period and we're looking at a bill that, again, bans slaughter of these animals but then proceeds to spend a CBO estimate of $700 million to create a new welfare program for wild horses.

Mr. Speaker, that's right. Under the fiscal plan of this Democrat Congress the amount they want to spend on wild horses from the last Congress, which was $500,000, to this Congress, is $700 million.

So let's take a look at what the taxpayers' dollars would be spent on in

this vast increase of public spending. It would mandate a wild horse census be conducted every 2 years. It provides enhanced contraception and birth control for these horses. It would spend and somehow acquire or move 19 million acres of public and private land for the specific purpose of giving these horses more places to roam around.

Mr. Speaker, 19 million acres is roughly the size of the distinguished chairman's State in West Virginia. That's the size of what we're talking about. And after we do that, Mr. Speaker, $5 million will then be spent to repair the damage that these horses will do on these lands. And then, of course, there are new mandates that government bureaucrats perform home inspections before Americans can adopt a wild horse. That's the spending that would be encompassed in this $700 million.

So again, just to repeat, just to be sure that everybody understands, the taxpayers are being asked to buy up millions of acres of land for the enjoyment of wild horses, and then taxpayers will have to pay $5 million a year to repair the damage that these horses will do to those lands.

Mr. Speaker, I must say only in Washington, D.C., does this make sense. Our country is in the middle of the worst recession in a half century. Over 14.5 million Americans are unemployed and can't find jobs. How in the world can the Democrats in this Congress hold a vote on this bill?

Americans are hurting. Republicans are focused on creating the jobs in this country, but this Democrat Congress seems to be more worried about hundreds of millions of dollars for wild burros and wild horses.

With that, Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I'm pleased to yield 7 minutes to the gentlewoman from Wyoming (Mrs. Lummis) who has an absolute hands-on experience with the issue that we're dealing with here today. She's also a member of the Natural Resources Committee.

Mr. Speaker, before I yield time to my friend from Utah, I just would point out to my friend from Virginia that the amendment that I am going to offer later on is precisely word for word a bill that he voted on 2 years ago.

With that, Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to my friend from Utah (Mr. Bishop).

I yield the gentleman an additional 2 minutes.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. King).

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself as much time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, again, let me repeat that when America is hurting, we should be addressing those issues in which to try to resolve those problems and those issues that are making America hurt. Unemployment is at 9.5 percent, and President Obama says it could go into double digits in the near future.

And so what is our response to that? Our response is to, unlike 2 years ago, address this issue in a different manner, to address it at least partially the same way, but add another $700 million for, as I mentioned, and the distinguished chairman acknowledged that we would mention, welfare for horses.

I don't think that that is the proper way we should be debating, given the economic environment we have in this country. Yet that is precisely where this bill goes.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. Speaker, I want to give credit to my friend and chairman of the Natural Resources Committee for the creativity that is exhibited in the manager's amendment.

On the one hand, this manager's amendment is an outright admission that we can't afford this costly new welfare program for wild horses. And then on the other hand, this amendment doesn't delete, erase, strike out or eliminate even a single page, section or word from this bill.

Somehow, we are to believe that adding four little words to this 20- page bill, without deleting anything from it, somehow makes the CBO- estimated price tag of $700 million magically go away. Even with this manager's amendment, Mr. Speaker, the pricing remains.

This manager's amendment doesn't eliminate the sections from the bill to restore wild horses and burros to 19 million acres of land. By the way, it is an area, as we have said before, larger than the State of West Virginia. But just to put this in perspective, it is also larger than the combined area of New Hampshire, Rhode Island, Delaware, Connecticut and New Jersey. So we are not talking about a small piece of land. We are talking about a huge area.

The CBO estimates that complying with the new policies in this bill and restoring horses to this 19 million additional acres will cost over $700 million. Now, the chairman tries to explain that all we are doing is changing this requirement to a goal.

The American people, I think, are not going to breathe any easier when they hear that Congress has a goal of spending $700 million to create welfare programs for wild horses and burros.

So, Mr. Speaker, the manager's amendment doesn't change the real plan in the bill at all. The plan is to spend $700 million for welfare for wild horses and burros.

Mr. Speaker, with that I will yield back my time.

Mr. Speaker, I have an amendment made in order under the rule.

Mr. Speaker, I hesitate to call this my amendment because actually it was written by Chairman Rahall. This is the exact text of H.R. 249 that passed the House in the last Congress. It passed the House in April of 2007. It bans the commercial slaughter of wild horses and burros. It is less than one page in length, and CBO estimated in the last Congress that it would cost under $500,000 a year.

Members of this House voted for this bill just 2 years ago, and at that time, Mr. Speaker, the unemployment rate nationwide was 4.3 percent.

Fast forward to today, when the unemployment rate today has more than doubled to 9.5 percent and is estimated by officials in the Obama administration to go into double digits in the near future.

With this background, Mr. Speaker, we are now considering a bill that bans the slaughter of wild horses and creates a new $700 million welfare program for wild horses and burros. This House, Mr. Speaker, can choose between banning slaughter of wild horses for less than $500,000, which is what my substitute would do, or banning the slaughter of wild horses with a $700 million price tag, which is the subject of the underlying bill. I think, Mr. Speaker, that this is a very easy choice.

Let me repeat again. The vote for the Hastings substitute would ban horse slaughter at a cost of $500,000 a year. H.R. 1018 bans horse slaughter, just like my substitute, but creates a new welfare program for $700 million. I think, in this economic atmosphere that we are in, the best option is to adopt my substitute.

Now, in the interest of full disclosure, Mr. Speaker, I voted against that bill 2 years ago because I think there has to be an option for slaughter. But given the option today of spending an extra $700 million or spending less than $500,000 and still banning slaughter, I think that is the proper way to go and that is precisely what my substitute does. And so I would urge my colleagues to vote for the substitute.

I reserve my time.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield one minute to the distinguished Republican leader, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Boehner).

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Gohmert), a member of the Natural Resources Committee.

Mr. Speaker, could I inquire of my friend, the distinguished chairman of the committee, if he is prepared to close after I close?

I yield myself the balance of the time.

Mr. Speaker, let me just repeat again: My substitute is a substitute that is identical to the bill that passed this House in April of 2007, and the cost at that time was $500,000. The underlying bill that we are debating today has essentially those same provisions plus a price tag of $700 million, a huge difference between the two. I think, due to the economic times that we are in right now, the most prudent way for this Congress to act is to go with the lesser amount of money, and that's precisely what my substitute does.

Mr. Speaker, I just want to make one other point.

The distinguished chairman in his manager's amendment made some different calculations as to the $700 million and as to the 19 million acres that were to be part of this bill. I just want to make a point. The CBO has not scored that one way or the other, but if an absolute figure of acquiring or of moving around 19 million acres costs $700 million, then only logic would suggest that it's going to be precisely the same amount of money. So I just want to make a point that the CBO has not estimated the score of the manager's amendment.

The difference here in the debate still is the difference, during these economic times we're in, between spending 700 million taxpayer dollars on welfare for horses or spending $500,000 to ban the slaughter of wild horses and burros. I think the latter that I spoke about is a better way to go, and I would urge my colleagues to vote for the substitute.

With that, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume, and I thank my colleague from Massachusetts for yielding me the customary time, and I'm looking forward to our having fun here this morning as he promised yesterday.

I am intrigued by my colleague saying that this is being done to correct something slipped into a bill in the middle of the night when the Republicans were in charge. It sounds like something very nefarious was done. This is sort of news to us. We didn't hear it in Rules yesterday, and I need to point out that there was something put in an appropriations bill in 2005, as my colleague says, but it certainly wasn't nefarious. And it's my understanding that our colleagues on the other side have modified that provision several times. So I don't think this is really trying to correct something that Republicans did some time ago in the dead of the night.

But be that as it may, I think I need to point out that we are bringing this legislation at a time when more than 2 million Americans have lost their jobs since the Democrats' $1 trillion stimulus bill became law and that it is somewhat of an insult to those people. We have a 9.5 percent unemployment rate and a budget deficit of more than $1 trillion which is predicted to go to $2 trillion before the end of the fiscal year.

Given those facts, it's a little unclear to know what exactly are the priorities of the Democrats in charge of this Congress. Small business and middle class families are struggling all across this country; yet, the Democrats in charge of Congress are poised to ask them to bankroll a $700 million welfare program for wild horses. This is just another example of how out of touch Washington Democrats are.

If Democrats want to join Republicans in focusing on job creation, then we should be dealing with our American Energy Act which will create new jobs, bring down energy costs, and pave the way for a cleaner environment. And we should scrap this job-killing health care bill Speaker Pelosi is seeking to rush to a vote before the end of the month.

Now, what this bill is going to do that's underlying this rule, which I'm going to urge my colleagues to vote against, it will establish a horse census every 2 years. It provides for enhanced contraception and birth control for horses. It makes available an additional 19 million acres of public and private land for wild horses. It covers a $5 million tab to repair damage done by horses to other property and mandates that government bureaucrats perform home inspections before Americans can adopt horses.

I hardly think this is what the American people expect us to be doing these days as they face the many challenges that they're facing.

And with that, Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

My friend is engaged in revisionist history again. We did have a good economy under President Bush. After he inherited a recession and after 9/11, things went south in our economy. The President asked the Congress to cut taxes. It was a Republican-controlled Congress. We had 54 straight months of job creation.

Then the Democrats took over the Congress in January of 2007--and we have charts to show it--all of the sudden the economy really went south. Things started going downhill when Democrats took control of the Congress and have been going downhill ever since. Now, we have a Democrat-controlled Congress and a Democrat in the White House, and things are really going badly.

I think that we can prove with historical facts, not revisionist history, that under the Republicans in the House and Senate and the Republican President that the economy was in pretty good shape.

I yield to my friend from Utah, Mr. Chaffetz, 5 minutes.

I yield myself such time as I may consume. As my colleague from California (Mr. Dreier) was saying, we are supposedly in the midst of an appropriations process, which is so time consuming and has to be so tightly controlled that we have not been allowed to offer amendments in an open process on the floor on the appropriations bills.

Yet, here we are today, handling a bill that obviously is not an emergency, obviously doesn't need to be dealt with now, and is only being put forward because the majority didn't have an excuse to keep us in town today, when people could be at home in the real world, meeting with their constituents, hearing what they have to say, and being able to learn more about the problems that are out there.

The Democrats in this House believe all the wisdom of the world is in Washington, D.C. We Republicans believe the wisdom of the world is out in our district, and that's where we ought to be spending more time, instead of here, creating problems for the American people.

With that, I yield such time as he may consume to my very distinguished colleague and former attorney general, the gentleman from California (Mr. Daniel E. Lungren).

Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

I just would like to say again to my colleague from Massachusetts that he keeps saying that the Republicans dug a deeper ditch than they expected to have. I just want to point out again that at the end of the Republicans' being in the majority in the Congress at the end of 2006, the economy was growing. We had 54 straight months of job growth. The Democrats took over in January of 2007, and that's when the economy started getting in trouble. They dug the ditch. We didn't dig the ditch.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, there is so much to say in so little time. I don't think that Republicans need a lecture on how we should be spending our time and whether we should be in Washington 5 days a week. There is an old saying that nobody is safe as long as the Congress or the legislature is in session, and I think most Americans believe that. Being here in Washington is not necessarily meaning that Congress is being productive, and I think that is the point that we have made over and over again. Again, I will say, the wisdom of the world is not here in Washington; and I think with what's been happening, particularly in the last 6 months, the American people have found that out. I am going to be very interested to see how long our colleagues on the other side continue to defend their actions and the action of this administration as the year goes by.

In terms of looking after all God's creatures, I am a person--and my husband is--who are both owned by a dog and a cat. They live in our house. We have farmed all our lives. We have raised horses. We are very, very fond of animals. We give a lot of money to organizations that look after animals. In fact, there is one organization out West that keeps animals until they die a natural death. We feel very strongly about that. So questioning my feeling about how we should treat all of God's creatures is not going to go very far with me. This is also a group of people that wants to provide government-funded abortions and kill unborn babies at the same time we're talking about saving horses and spending money on that. That argument doesn't go very far with me.

What the difference is between our colleagues on the other side and us is that we don't believe in growing government. These are not the things the Federal Government should be about. The Federal Government should confine itself to the very narrow set of issues laid out for us in the Constitution. We should adhere to the 10th Amendment which says that if it isn't mentioned in the Constitution, then it's a province of the States; and that's what we should be doing. So I thought my colleague promised me fun today, but you brought up some issues where you've gone to meddling.

I now yield 2 minutes to my colleague from Oregon (Mr. Walden).

I yield the gentleman 30 additional seconds.

I yield our colleague from Iowa (Mr. King) 2 minutes.

Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Hastings).

I yield the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Hastings) 10 seconds.

Madam Speaker, it appears as though we are beginning to touch a nerve on the part of our colleagues because we are presenting the facts, and they can't handle them.

We know that this economy is in terrible shape. All they can do is continue to blame President Bush. As one of my colleagues said, they asked for a chance to be in charge. They have been given a chance to be in charge. And what have they done? They have increased the debt to every American in this country in the first 6 months of this year by $9,342.83. We do face the greatest economic problem we have had in 25 years, not since the Great Depression.

Madam Speaker, I am going to urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this rule because we don't need to be dealing with this issue now. We should be dealing with the American people who are hurting and continuing to lose jobs under the policies of Speaker Pelosi and the Bush administration.

I am asking my colleagues to vote no on the previous question. If the previous question is defeated, I will offer an amendment to the rule making in order an amendment by Mr. Chaffetz of Utah which was not made in order by the Rules Committee.

This amendment reconfigures the Joint Advisory Board to ensure representation by affected Indian tribes and State grazing boards. It also ensures that all members of the advisory board have expertise in wildlife management, rangeland management, animal husbandry or natural resources management and requires that the board members reside in a State in which wild free-roaming horses and burros are currently located.

Amendment to H. Res. 653 Offered by Ms. Foxx of North Carolina

At the end of the resolution, insert the following:

Sec. 3. Notwithstanding any other provision of this

resolution, after consideration of the amendment printed in

part A of the report of the Committee on Rules it shall be in

order to consider the amendment printed in section 4 of this

resolution, if offered by Representative Chaffetz of Utah or

his designee. Such amendment shall be considered as read,

shall be separately debatable for 10 minutes equally divided

and controlled by the proponent and an opponent, and shall

not be subject to a demand for a division of the question.

Sec. 4. The amendment referred to in section 5 is as

follows: Section 8, strike paragraph (2) (page 17, lines 4

through 11) and insert the following new paragraph:

``(2) by striking `Governments' and all that follows

through `management.' and inserting `Governments shall

include two representatives of the livestock industry; two

representatives from State grazing boards (or equivalent

State agency) who are not State employees; two

representatives of the environmental community; two

representatives

of the animal protection community; two representatives of

Indian tribes who manage wild horses or burros; and four

scientists. All advisory board members must have expertise in

wildlife management, rangeland management, animal husbandry

or natural resources management and must reside in States

comprising the current range of wild free-roaming horses and

burros.'; and''.

Madam Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Madam Speaker, I rise to a question of privileges of the House and offer the resolution previously noticed.

Yes, Madam Speaker, I do.

I appreciate that, Madam Speaker. Rule IX is intended to allow a Member to raise questions which, and I quote, ``those affecting the rights of the House collectively, its safety, dignity, and the integrity of its proceedings; and those affecting the rights of Members, individually, in their representative capacity.''

So I pose the question, What is more fundamental to the rights of Members of this House than the ability to represent their constituents and affect legislation brought to this floor?

The Democratic majority, under Speaker Pelosi, has unilaterally ended a 220-year tradition of allowing any Member to amend a spending bill. When my constituents sent me to Congress, they didn't send me here to just push the buttons using this card in a voting terminal. They wanted me to exercise all of the abilities granted to a Member of Congress. And the rule which this House passed yesterday by only a handful of votes, after arm twisting by the majority, denies me and every other Member the opportunity to fully represent their constituents.

If that does not ``affect the rights of this House,'' if that does not affect its ``dignity and the integrity of its proceedings,'' if that does not affect my rights as a Representative, I don't know what does.

For 220 years, we went along in this House with the opportunity to offer amendments. And sure, there were instances along the way where both parties probably restricted amendments that could be offered on appropriations bills, but not very often.

This is unprecedented and historic in terms of the gagging of Members on both sides of the aisle. We had them on the floor yesterday trying to offer an amendment, a Democrat, and he too was turned down and upset. So I'm sure the Chair can find some technical reason why my resolution to protect free speech rights on the public's airwaves may not be in order.

All we were trying to do is offer an amendment that had been offered up in 2007 and approved by over 300 Members of this House. When it was allowed to be considered and voted upon, it was approved by over 300 Members to protect the free speech rights of broadcasters, the citizens of this country as well. And instead, what we have now operating, I believe, affects the very rights of this House collectively, affects the dignity and integrity of its proceedings and affects the rights of its Members as described under rule IX individually in their representative capacity.

That is why I brought this privileged resolution to the floor, because I believe, as a citizen of this country and a Member of this great institution, that our rights have been diminished, and that indeed the integrity of this very House is on the line.

In fact, when you go to the Speaker's Web site, at least I think it is still up, she pledged an open debate and an opportunity for Members of Congress to be able to come to the floor and offer amendments, much like the chairwoman has done over time, and relishes that, as I do. It is part of what we do here, or what we were sent to do here.

It is pretty hard to offer up alternatives to spending bills to reduce deficits and to put ideas into law when the Speaker's Rules Committee acts and shuts down our very opportunity to even bring amendment up for debate.

Whether it passes or not will be up to the collective votes of this body. But we know that if we can never bring them up for debate, there will never be a vote. Now, maybe that's convenient to those who don't like to vote on difficult issues, or stand up for the free speech rights of broadcasters, whether they be religious broadcasters or those on the right or the left on talk radio, which is what my amendment would have sought to protect in the future.

But I really believe that rule IX is intended to allow Members to raise questions affecting the rights of the House collectively, to discuss its safety, and that's not at issue here, but its dignity is. The integrity of its proceedings are. Those rights, these are fundamental to each of us, regardless of the label behind our name that designates our party.

This is the one time we've had in this institution, to come forward with our ideas on how to control the bureaucracy, to offer an amendment that controls it. It's the only time I, as an individual, have that opportunity in the appropriations process, because I'm not a member of that committee, to represent my constituents. That's why I believe, under rule IX, my representative capacity is diminished, and that of many other Members in this Chamber, many who are watching right now. The public needs to understand this as well, that something has changed here, and it's not for the good. And I think it reflects badly on our proceedings. And I think it injures the integrity of this institution, let alone it's dignity. And that's why I make this parliamentary argument, that under rule IX, under rule IX, Members, it talks about collectively affecting the House.

Tell me, when Members of the minority or majority come before the Rules Committee and seek--well, first of all, have to even go to the Rules Committee. That didn't use to occur on appropriations bills, did it? It didn't used to occur. Only rarely, maybe once or twice in a year.

I appreciate the gentlelady's counsel and I will attempt to do that. I was trying to do that here, and certainly I'm arguing in favor of the rules of this House being observed; that's why I argue about the integrity of its proceedings.

In my view, proceedings have been shattered. Members of both parties are denied the opportunity, as our predecessors were allowed to have, to come to this floor and offer up amendments during the appropriations process. So I think my privileged resolution should be made in order, because I think my rights have been affected, and not in a good way. The rights of other Members are affected. I had more than one person on my amendment. And so individually, our representative capacity has been diminished. The voices I'm trying to represent are not allowed to be considered if I can't get my privileged resolution to be considered. All it did was ask for a vote on my amendment, that it be made in order, so that we could vote on it on the rule, which, oh, by the way, at this point, the way this process has been conducted, not only has the rule been passed, but also the bill has been passed. So it's kind of ironic now we'd have this argument about whether my privileged resolution was in order, which would have allowed me, had it been secured, it would have allowed me to have some additional representative capacity and be able to have a vote on the amendment or a vote on whether I could offer the amendment. I guess that's what would have occurred.

So I posit this point: That under rule IX, we are allowed to raise questions about issues that affect the rights of the House collectively. I can't think of something that affects the House more collectively than our inability to offer amendments. And so I think our integrity is at issue here, these proceedings. I think Americans have come to understand, bills are rammed through here without the opportunity to be read. We've got a 1,026-page bill in the Energy and Commerce Committee that I can't imagine anybody has read yet.

So, Madam Speaker, I'll conclude; that I hope you'll rule in my favor because I know, in your heart of hearts, you're a woman who believes in fairness, and you believe in the integrity of these proceedings, and you believe firmly and fervently in protecting the rights of Members, both individually and collectively, and that you, in no way, would want to diminish the capacity for yourself, when you're not in the chair, Members of this body, and for Members who will follow us. So I plead with you to do the right thing and allow a vote on my privileged resolution.

Madam Speaker, I appeal the ruling of the Chair.

Madam Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.