gentleman is recognized for 30 seconds. mr. walden: to be able to -- thank you, madam speaker, to be able to offer up amendments on appropriation bills like historically members of this house were always able to do until just recently when we've seen a historic and unprecedented gagging of members of the republican party by members of the democratic party, when we've tried to offer up alternatives, positive alternatives, suggestions, ways to protect freedom of speech and freedom of religion and to cut back on this outrageous deficit spending and i guess those must be tough votes for the majority and they don't want to take them because they won't even allow our amendments to be debated on this house floor and considered. and so i'm sorry we've gotten into the gag and spend rules making process around here. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from massachusetts. mr. mcgovern: i find it ironic that my friends on the other side of the aisle want to talk about fiscal responsibility and they're worried about the deficits and the debt. where were they for eight 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 the republican -- no, i'm not going to yield this time -- the republican policies, economic policies, are responsible for this economic crisis. this president inherited an economy, the worst economy since the great depression. we need to dig ourselves out of this ditch and we're going to do that. i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentlelady from north carolina rise? ms. foxx: to recognize our colleague from iowa, mr. king, for two minutes. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for two minutes. mr. king: thank you, madam speaker. and i thank the gentlelady from north carolina. in response to this point, i've stood here on the floor for hours and hours over the years listening to many, many members of the democrat, then minority in congress, plead that if they would just get the majority,

give them the gavel that the economy of this country would be brought back on track again. that happened in january of 2007 and it happened prior to any economic decline. so they claimed that they would fix the economy if they could just have the majority. they won't the majorities partly on that claim, and the economy went south and it really tanked in the anticipation of the president we have today. and it's getting worse. so i don't think that point can be made impeercally. but i came here to rise in opposition to this rule. i rise in opposition to this rule for a number of reasons. i wanted to support the gentleman from utah's statement about not having an opportunity, a legitimate opportunity to make his case before the rules committee. and it's clear that didn't happen. one-hour window. he got an amendment in and filed. that was great staff work, but we have other things to do rather than sit outside the window of the hole in the wall on the third floor. this process has got to change. we have to bring it to the floor so the american people can see what's being talked

about almost in legislative code here. i also want to point out this legislation is not legislation that comes here because it's well thought out or needed by the american people. this is brought by hsms, the humane society of america. they are trying to take the meat off the plates of the people around the globe. nobody came from my district and said, what are we going to do about too many horses? hsus contributed to this problem because they blocked horses for human consumption. and now we will accumulate one million extra horses in the united states and barely do they get that over with and they come back to us and say now we need $700 million american taxpayer borrowed dollars to take over more public lands in order to put more horses in. this will only continue. those horses are eating a billion gallons of ethanol every year and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired.

the gentleman from massachusetts reserves his time. the gentlewoman from north carolina. ms. foxx: thank you, madam speaker. i yield one minute to the gentleman from washington, mr. hastings. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from washington is recognized for one minute. mr. hastings: i thank the gentlelady for yielding. i want to respond to my friend from massachusetts. he talks about deficits and where were we. let me point out this this gentleman, the highest deficit under george w. bush's administration was in 2004 and that was right after we built up our forces to go into afghanistan and iraq. and it was slightly over $400 billion. under your first watch, your first watch as majority in this congress, the deficit was $460 billion, and this year's projected to be $1.8 trillion. and here we are today on the floor talking about a bill to expand that deficit another $700 million. boy, talk about -- i can't say the word -- but talk about less than truthfulness. it certainly comes from the other side of the aisle on this

issue and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. mr. mcgovern: madam speaker. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from massachusetts. mr. mcgovern: if anyone on the other side of the aisle wants to defend the same old same old policies of george bush, go ahead and do it. mr. hastings: will the gentleman yield? mr. mcgovern: the american people spoke overwhelmingly against rejecting those policies. mr. hastings: will the gentleman yield? mr. mcgovern: the republican party and -- drove this country into a ditch and we are trying to dig dig ourselves out of it. mr. hastings: will the gentleman yield? mr. mcgovern: i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady from north carolina is recognized. ms. foxx: i give the gentleman from washington 10 seconds. mr. hastings: the gentleman from massachusetts has over 15 minutes and he doesn't want to engage in a a colloquy of somebody that wants to stand up and at least engage. i thank the gentlelady for yielding. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentlelady from north carolina. ms. foxx: thank you, 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've 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 six months of this year $9,342,000.83. we face the greatest economic we have -- problem we've had in 23 years. 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. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady's time has expired. the gentleman from massachusetts. mr. mcgovern: madam speaker, you know, we're here today because we're doing the work of the american people. and we're 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 in the appropriations -- on two major appropriations bills. so there's a lot of work going on here, a lot of important work. trying to dig ourselves out of this mess that this president inherited. i mean, you know, it is -- it is interesting -- again, to hear my friends on the other side of the aisle talk about, you know, fiscal management and about the need to control deficits and debts when, you know, they voted for tax cuts for rich people that weren't offset. they voted for wars that weren't paid for.

and there was silence and the economy started -- 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. can't try 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. we wanted -- people wanted to deal with the issue of climate change and creating green jobs. the party of no says, no, can't do that. they don't want us to deal with that issue. you know, no, no, no, no. well, the reality is -- i'm closing. no, i will not. and the american people want us to deal with, you know, with the issues of law enforcement, with issues of immigration, with the issues of, you know, with a whole number of issues. and the party of no says no. they vote against everything.

they're against everything. and so here we are. we're dealing with this issue today. you know, i think this is a commonsense bill. the chairman of the resources committee explained there was a hearing and there was a markup in full committee. you know, i would urge my colleagues to vote yes on the previous question and yes on the rule. and i would yield back the balance of my time and i move the previous question on the resolution. the speaker pro tempore: all time for debate having expired, the question is on ordering the previous question. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the ayes have it. ms. foxx: madam speaker. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady from north carolina. ms. foxx: on that i request the yeas and nays. the speaker pro tempore: the yeas and nays are requested. those favoring a vote by the yeas and nays will rise. a sufficient number having arisen, yeas and nays are ordered. pursuant to clause 8 of rule 20, further proceedings on this question will be postponed. >> madam speaker.

the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from oregon rise? mr. walden: i rise to a question of the privileges of the house and ask the resolution previously noticed. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the resolution. the clerk: whereas the gentleman from oregon, mr. walden, submitted an amendment to the committee on rules on the government appropriations act, whereas the said gentleman's amendment would have protected the free speech rights of broadcasters and american citizens by prohibiting funds made available in the act from being used to implement the fairness doctrine and certain broadcast localism regulations. whereas a similar amendment was adopted by the house in 2007 during consideration of h.r. 2829, the financial services and general government appropriations act 2008 by a vote of 309 yeas and 115 nays and became law. but the democratic leadership allowed the provision to expire.

whereas the gentleman's amendment compiled with all applicable rules of the house for amendments to appropriations measures and would have been in order under an open amendment process but regretly the house democratic leadership has dramatically and historically reduced the opportunity for free speech on this floor. and whereas the speaker, ms. pelosi, the democratic leadership, and the chairman of the committee on appropriations, mr. obey, prevented the house from voting on the amendment by excluding it from the list of amendments made in order under the rule for the bill. now, therefore, be it resolved that house resolution 644, the rule to accompany h.r. 3170, be amended to allow the gentleman from oregon's amendment be considered and voted on in the house. the speaker pro tempore: does the gentleman from oregon wish to present argument on why the resolution is privileged for immediate consideration? mr. walden: yes, madam speaker, i do. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized.

mr. walden: i appreciate that, madam speaker. rule 9 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 effect 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 an opportunity to fully represent our constituents. if that does not affect the rights of this house, if that does not affect the dignity and the integrity of its proceedings, if that does not affect my rights as a representative, i don't know what does. 220 years we went long in this house with the opportunity to offer amendments. and sure, there were instances along the way where both parties 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. so all we were trying to do was 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 instayed what we have now -- and instead what we have now affects the very rights of this house collectively, affects its dignity and integrity of its proceedings and affects the rights of its members as described under rule 9 individually in their representative compass aity. that is why -- 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.

and in fact when you go to the speaker's website, at least i think it's 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's part of what we do here or what we were sent to do here. it's pretty hard to offer up alternatives to spending bills to reduce deficits and 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 9 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, its 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 me as an individual has 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 9 my representative capacity is diminished and that of many other members in this chamber and many who are watching right now.

the public needs to understand this as well. that something's changed here and it's not for the good. and i think it reflects badly on our proceedings. and i think it injured the integrity of this institution, let alone its disneyity -- dignity and that's why i make this parliamentary argument. that under rule 9, under rule 9, members -- it talks about collectively affecting the house. tell me when members of the minority or majority come before the rules committee and seek -- first of all, even have to go to the rules committee that didn't used to occur on appropriations bills, did it? didn't used to occur. only rarely. maybe once or twice in a year. and otherwise -- 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 the 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 otr 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 to so 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's been passed. so it's kind of ironic. now we'd have this argument whether my privileged resolution was in order which would have allowed me, if had it been secured, it would allow 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 pause at this point, that under rule 9 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's at issue here, these proceedings, i think americans have come to understand, bills are rammed through here without the opportunity to be read, we got 1,026-page bill on the energy and commerce committee think a can't imagine anybody's 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 sbegrilt of these proceedings and you -- integrity of these proceedings and you believe 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 and i return the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the chair is prepared to rule. in evaluating the resolution offered by the gentleman from oregon, under the standards of rule 9, the chair must be mindful of a fundamental principle illuminated by antations of precedent in section 706 of the house rules and manual. the basic principle is that a question of privileges of the house may not be invoked to

prescribe a special order of business for the house. the chair finds that the resolution offered by the gentleman from oregon, by proposing directly to amend house resolution 644, prescribes a special order of business. under a long and well settled line of presently culminating in the rule of july 9, 2009, such a resolution cannot qualify as a question of the privileges of the house. the chair therefore holds that the resolution is not privileged under rule 9 for consideration ahead of other business. instead the resolution may be submitted through the hopper in the regular course of business. the gentleman from oregon. mr. walden: madam chair, i regretfully appeal the rules of the chair. mr. mcgovern: madam speaker. the speaker pro tempore: the question is, shall the decision of the chair stand as the judgment of the house -- mr. mcgovern: madam speaker, i move to table the ruling of the chair.

i move to table the appeal of the rules of the chair. the speaker pro tempore: the question is on the motion to table. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. mr. walden: madam speaker. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from oregon. mr. walden: since a motion to table gags any opportunity to debate, then i ask for the yeas and nays. the speaker pro tempore: the yeas and nays are requested. those favoring a vote by the yeas and nays will rise. a sufficient number having arisen, the yeas and nays are ordered. members will record their votes by electronic service. pursuant to clause 8 and clause 9 of rule 20, the 15-minute vote on the motion that the appeal be laid on the table will be followed by five-minute votes on ordering the previous question on house resolution 653 and adopting house resolution 653. if ordered.

[captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of amendments an

review a wide range of things.

commissions to volunteer at community health centers. should we have a government run plan or other ways of doing this? the key is the basic difference is reforming or paige the system. host: you were kind enough to bring by the bill itself. energy and commerce and hr 3200. i want to move it to get a look at the spien and the thickness of the reading that you and your staff have to do to understand this. guest: think of most phone books. there was a previous version and this. if you go to see your doctor. the doctor says your medical history is too big, i'm not going to have time to read it and do tests, here is your

precipitation and what i advise you. you think that's strange. you say, dock, rpt you really going to take time to review this, you would be pretty horrified. something this important, i want to make sure we are not seeing this as a precedents. i want to make sure we are ñ reform. host: do you think this is taking more time? guest: i think we should be taking more time. it's extremely important. that was on an earlier version. we are not going to have a score on this bill. it's like buying things without looking at the price tag and analyzing it.

i want to make sure we are doing the best for people's health in america. your hearing will be on c-span.org beginning at 10. you gave el in with headline this is morning it carries significant weight used in determining the cost of the impact. what sort of impact will his words have? >> a very big impact. the president said he was not interested in signing a bill that would not interested in reducing the spending. that's a big concern for members across the aisles. we'll take some calls.

tim murphy here until at least 8:30 this morning. ulys, texas. caller: thank you. i would preface this by the fact that republicans are operating from a memo giving them talking points about government mandate yrs healthcare. in pennsylvania, you had a rise in healthcare premiums. it went from $6, 647 to $513. the con krae congressional incr.

in terms of raising the question about healthcare, i think that you have to start talking about having all the congressmen go into the new healthcare plan. guest: let me respond to some of these. yes, healthcare plans are going up. this is about fixing the problems, not financing the problem. the new england healthcare institute said about 700 billion of that waist is the wrong medications at the wrong times, inappropriate use. we need to go as medicare and

medicaid and clean it up. >> what happens is that by saying the government is going to pick up the tab, it doesn't get. i'll give you an example in pittsburgh. introducing rehospitalization. you can reduce it by 70% by managing diabetes differently. we have to approach healthcare in terms of real reform.

one of the reasons health insurance costs so much is brauz there is so much unmandated. that's another reform we need to look at and shop around. host: palm springs, texas on the independent line. caller: good morning. i don't have a lot of questions to ask about the healthcare but i do have a question. i want to know when you holdup a big stack of paper like you've got there right now, does the house printing office actually print that much paper and put it on every senator or congressman's desk. guest: we received this on our desk yesterday. . you can get pieces on the

internet. my website has information on that. i understand there's a lot of reference in here. host: we'll have this linked as well later on. daniel, a republican caller. caller: i think when it comes down to it. if we would just stay healthier in the long term, that would help out in the united states. the healthcare reform is something that needs to be done. why do we feel like we have to it.

if it's something you do on line, your healthcare goes up 20%. host: is any of that addressed in the bill? guest: no. there are some elements of prevention. that's not clear. it will be developed overtime. he's bringing up a point of vol untarry healthcare. the question is if you smoke, should you pay a higher premium? should we have more transparent

si host: tell us more about health insurance exchanges guest: i wish i knew more about that. it's something where you can go to a yet to be determined site. that's good if you are comparing apples to apples. but the government plan will have 10 different thing it's will civer. private plans would be stuck in their state. my daughter in college, it's an unfair advantage. we ought to open up this marketplace and get information like a consumer report. you ought to get that oven healthcare and return it in that

situation. >> welcome karen. caller: i listened to a lot of debate last night. guest: god bless you for doing that. caller: it's pretty trying. i don't know why we are consulting with republicans on any of this. you all sound like you just fell off the turn ip truck. i'm 58. my entire lifetime, we ought to know by now if we are going to sa save any money. my mother is on medicare, we go to any doctor sheants and she has a supplemental.

my sister has lived in many countries. she said the best system was in france. i don't know why we are trying to reinvent the whole here. my question for you would be. you are talking about how we are going to pay for this. isn't that decided by the finance committee? guest: we all have a responsibility to pay for it. one of the great benefits in a country like ours is the diverse opinions. france has some good things but also a lot of problems. medicare and med i credit came up, there's been no fundamental

reform to get those things to work better. out of those 450 bis, only 12 passed. we recognize that we need to have a system that continues to improve. i worked in healthcare all my professional life. i bring that expert he's to congress. i don't think it is a matter of i don't agree with you, shut up to the republicans. we all have an opinion. one side of the aisle doesn't have eamon oply on truth and examples. host: two different headlines this more

host: what are you hearing in terms of those two different poles of issues? what are they concerned about? guest: they still want their sdr r doctors to make the decisions, not the bureaucrats. part is looking at what the cost will be. especially for small business that will be facing a charge if they do not have medical.

host: our next call from pensacola, florida. on the independent line. thank you for calling. caller: good morning. my question is, they are saying it is going to to be a tax you may have healthcare insurance by the person or by the government. how is it justified to tax people with certain of money or are the people with insurance going to be required to pay for

it? . guest: they are paying an individual rate and paying employees. they come back and say, they cannot suddenly have a jump what they are paige employees is not host: the state is trying to eliminate the costly fee for service. the "new york times" massachuset massachusetts. what is that and is the house learning any lessons? guest: we need to learn from massachusetts and the negative

side is that people don't have a doctorháo handle the ore he energy andommerce will spend a long time discussing those cost increases and make it better healthcare and not just pay for what is there. host: you come of the practice, is it any different from that of a heart disease has downhilled the risk of depression. that doubles the cost of healthcare. improving the healthcare is making sure there is an

integration of healthcare. their information exchanges hands. when that doesn't happen, healthcare costs good up. host: from florida, good morning. caller: i've been on. i've had three operations. a hernia, hemorrhoid and tonsils out. i have paid all my bids. i added them all up divided by 12 months, it comes out to $91 a month. i don't have a supplement

program. of course the republican's definition of socialized medicine. rather than write a you going to add it as some kind of -- all it's going to gets is straight republican votes. you know that. guest: one of the things that happens with medicare is that you are allowed to shop around. the government pays the bill and tries to negotiate prices. this new plan will not have that same access. some are loushing changing to

lower your income level, it gives you more flaechl ikt host: to new york city we go next. this is a democratic caller, john. caller: i'd like to make a sure they pay high taxes, drive small cars. i pay for my health insurance out of pocket to my employer each month. it's expensive. i can't get any n.

the private plan in new york city would cost me double. through aarp, i can 0 new york city has a plan called healthy new york. it's clear, straight forward and simple.  make a little too much money. i would advise insurance claims, you put people back to work. i think that's an idea that should be floated about. guest: i like that idea and it is one i support in terms of letting you shop around.

the speaker pro tempore: on this vote, the yeas are 236, the nays are 186. the resolution is adopted. without objection, a motion to reconsider is laid on the table.

the speaker pro tempore: the house will be in order. members please take their conversations off the floor.

for what purpose does the gentleman from west virginia rise? mr. rahall: i call up resolution 1018 and ask for its immediate consideration in the house. the speaker pro tempore: clerk will report the title. the clerk: a bill to amend the wild free roaming horses and burrows act to improve the management and long-term health of wild, free-roaming horses and burrows and for other purposes. the speaker pro tempore: the amendment in the nature of the substitute is adopted and the bill as amended is considered read. after one hour of debate on the bill, it shall be in order to consider amendment in part 111-212 if ordered by the gentleman from virginia, mr. rahall, which shall be considered as read, or

considered for -- debated for 10 minutes equally divided by the proponent and an opponent. it shall be in order to consider a further amendment in the fache of a substitute printed in part b of house report 111-212 if ordered by the gentleman from washington, mr. hastings, or his designee, which shall be debated for 30 minutes equally divided between the proponent and an opponent. the gentleman from virginia, mr. rahall, and the gentleman from washington, mr. hastings, each will control 30 minutes. the house will be in order. the chair recognizes the gentleman from west virginia. mr. rahall: i ask unanimous consent that all members have five legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and insert ex-troin -- extraneous material in h.r.

1018. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. rahall: i'm pleased to bring before the house h.r. 1018, the restore our american mustangs act, which will save american taxpayers money and save tens of thousands of wild horses and but roes 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 burrows entrusted to their care by the american people. the announcement was even more stunning given that congress enacted the wild free horse and burr rowe act in 1971 -- and burro act in 1971, declaring these were historic, living symbols of the pioneering spirit in the west and are to be considered an integral part of the natural system of our

public lands, end quote. how in the world can a federal agency be considering massive slaughter of animals that the law says they are supposed to be protecting. at my request, the government accountability office conducted a complete review of the program and documented its numerous shortcomings. the bill before us amends the 1971 act to implement the suggestions made by g.a.o. 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 burr ros. -- burros. when the original act in 1971, 20% of b.l.m. was hope to the -- open to the horses. today they're only allowed on 13% of b.l.m. land. the agency has never justified the removal of horses and

burros from these missing acres. this bill will require consistency in management planning with publication of standard operating procedures for managing these animals across all our public lands. it will prior better accounting methods so the agency can be certain how many an rals are -- animals are out on the range. it will strengthen the adoption program so more horses and burr ros -- burros can go to adoptive homes and will strengthen cooperation between individuals and nonprofits so animals may be moved to nonfederal lands. each of these will make the program more cost effective and 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 last congress, we have the benefit of a comprehensive g.a.o. report identifying many more strategies 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 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 -- we are not creating an entitlement for horses. so the welfare joke falls

completely flat. any increase in funding for the wild horse and burro 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% of b.l.m. land back to the 20% available to them in 1971 should not cost the taxpayers anything. it is merely a 7% management adjustment, nothing more. our friends across the aisle always claimed the b.l.m. owns too much land. now, we don't think so, but they certainly own enough to accommodate horses and burros. furthermore, the management efficiencies and other parts of this bill will actually save money. here's what we're 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 b.l.m. 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. witness these photos. these are american wild mustangs. this was fair fate. this was their fate. held in captivity. abused. this is not -- this is not, my friends, 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 ache sers a goal rather than a legal requirement. so i would urge my colleagues considers about the costs involved to support the amendment at the time and support this legislation on final passage. i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from west virginia reserves his time. the gentleman from washington. mr. hastingings: i -- mr. hastings: i yield myself such time as i may consumened and ask permission to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. hastings: thank youing mr. speaker. 9 1/2 of -- 9 nevada% of americans are out of working the highest unemployment rate america has experienced in over a quarter century. president obama and the economic advisors expect the number of jobless to climb higher into double digits. after bailouts for wall street and a stimulus bill that 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, that is a historic and worrying amount that president obama 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 estimate this is a since january, the obama implosive budgets will lead to an increased spending of $2.6 trillion over the next 10 years. so mr. speaker, with this back drop 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. last -- in the last congress, the house passed legislation to ban the commercial slaughter of wild horses and burros. it was a one-page bill. c.b.o. estimated it would cost taxpayers less than $500,000 a year. now we're just two 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 c.b.o. 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, this congress, of $700 million. 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 two 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. 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 mandate this is a government bureaucrats perform home inspections before americans can adopt a wild horse. that's what the spending would be encompassed in the $700 million. again, just to repeat, just to be sure what 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 create jobs in this country but this democrat congress seems more worried about hundreds of millions of dollars for wild burros and wild horses. with that, mr. speaker, i reserve my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from washington reserves his time. the gentleman from west virginia. mr. rahall: mr. speaker, before recognizing the distinguished subcommittee chair, i'm joined in co-sponsoring this legislation by the gentleman from arizona, mr. grijalva, and by my colleague from kentucky, mr. whitfield. at this point, i recognize the gentleman from arizona, the distinguished chairman of our national parks forest and public lands subcommittee, mr. grijalva, for three minutes. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for three minutes. mr. grijalva: i rise today in

support of restore our american mustangs act, h.r. 1018, a bill that will ensure wild horses and burros continue to have a place to roam on our public lands. mr. speaker, as a steward of our public lands, i have been appalled by the proposal of the bureau of land management to euthanize tens of thousands of healthy ld horses. according to the recent report by the government accountability office, the b.l.m.'s wild horse and burro program is terribly inefficient and infective and the b.l.m.'s so-called solution to this inefficiency is to simply put the animals they care for to death. mr. speaker, there has to be a better way. the better solution includes more options and more rigorous management, the roam act will provide both. it includes reasonable tools such as the use of fertility control, the establishment of sanctuaries and a much more robust adoption program, all leading to a more humane and constructive scheme. mr. speaker, the amended bill

being considered today has taken into account input from a range of stakeholders, including the administration, wild horse advocacy groups and based on their experiences and their efforts in the field this bill has been put together. perhaps most significant, the bill provides the definition for the term thriving natural ecological balance. which appears in the 1971 law but was not defined. the definition makes clear that the management of horses and burros should seek to achieve a balanced, multiuse of public lands, ensuring the health of all aspects of the range. testimony given to the natural resources committee on the consideration of this bill from the director of game and fish department in my home state of arizona highlighted the need for such a definition and the bill provides one. the amended bill is a solid foundation from which to correct the problems which b.l.m. management of wild horses and burros and begin to restore

these animals to their natural rightful place on our public lands as intended by the original 1971 law. i strongly urge my colleagues to vote in favor of the bill before us today and to reject the substitute. the substitute has no cost savings, it guts h.r. 1018, it continues the costly practice of holding animals in pens that cost $27 million a year to taxpayers and it's a cart blanch for the b.l.m. to kill outright up to 30,000 horses they have sitting in their holding pen. this amendment is expensive and inhumane and i ask -- urge its defeat and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from washington. mr. hastings: thank you, mr. speaker. mr. speaker, i'm pleased to yield seven minutes to the gentlelady from yime, somebody that has an absolute hands-on experience with the issue we're dealing with here today. she's also a member of the natural resources committee, so i yield seven minutes to the

gentlelady from wyoming. mrs. lummis: i thank the gentleman from washington for yielding. i am from wyoming, a state that has many wild horses on its public lands. i also have a degree in animal signs and i -- science and i may be the only member of this body who has ridden a b.l.m. wild horse. my sister adopted two. this bill is not respectful of the grass resource. let's talk about the ecology and environment of the plains of this great country. wild horses graze differently than cattle, sheep, elk and dear. and the reason is, they have a solid hoof whereas buffalo, elk, dear, cattle have a split hoof. when a solid hoofed animal is

pounding our fragile soils in the west, they are tamping or compacting that soil so it does not accept water that is needed to sustain very shallow, very fragile topsoil and the important diversity of grass species that are supported and are needed by every animal that grazes those lands and every endangered and threatened species that uses those same lands. furthermore, wild horses are there year round. livestock is only there at certain times of year and wild horses that were not native to these lands in the spring create tremendous damage when the that youing occurs that creates great rises and disruptions of the soil, furthermore when they graze they pull the plant from the roots, some of these species

are themselves threatened and endangered grass and flowering plant species. that is why the wyoming nature conservancy has opposed this bill. let me read what you the wyoming nature conservancy has to say. h.r. 1018 is an affront to efforts that have united conservation and ranch interests to achieve real on the ground results throughout the west. western range land supports population of native plants, wildlife, wild stock and wild horses. it is our conviction that management of this range land must be based on science, not a motion -- emotion. this bill is based on emotion and not science. you furthermore, when -- furthermore, when flies congress gate on wild horses in the summer, the horses tend to gather closely and try to roll

to prevent the flies from staying on them and laying their eggs. consequently, they're destroying sage grass habitat. sage grass is a threatened species that is headed for the endangered species stat fuss we do not control the activities of -- status if we do not control the activities of species that endanger sage grass. this bill is elevating wild horses above threatened and endangered species, above all of the plant and animal species that share the same habitat in the west. and this is inappropriate land management, grass management, it creates an unsustainable situation. that is why wyoming's democrat governor has also opposed the bill. governor of wyoming, h.r. 1018, to be frank, props up a program

in need of sweeping reform. the current adoption program is full and is not responsive to the real issues of wild horse management, by increasing expensive holding facilities where many of these animals live out their lives because they are unadoptble, h.r. 1018 ignores the reality that wild horse and burro populations are out of control and doesn't get to the real problems that cripple our ability to truly manage these animals. and furthermore, wyoming's highly respected premier game and fish department, simply put, we are very concerned that expanding the management of free roaming horses and burros to all public lands would have devastating impacts to the long-term sustainability of the public's fish and wildlife resources and their habitats in the west. the list goes on and on of opponents. these opponents are people that manage fish and wildlife. these are people who manage grass resources.

these are people who have boots on the ground experience and know that you cannot elevate one nonnative species over native species of plants and animals and have an ecologically sustainable grass resource and prairie ecosystem. mr. chairman, i have great respect for your knowledge of the mining laws that are so important to my state and your state. but i can tell you respectfully, mr. chairman, that wild horses are a problem in wyoming. and i'm very hopeful that you'll choose not to import the problem to your state of west virginia. but if you do will you find, of course, that you can sustain ma'am als in terms of a number -- mammals in terms of a number of mammals per acre. in wyoming it's the number of

acres per mammal and it can vary anywhere from 35 acres to sustain one mammal to over 100. because of that, the consequences of overgrazing are enormous. today's population of wild horses stands at approximately 36,000 and we know that the wild horse program stipulates that the total population of wild horses on public lands should not exceed about 28,000 in order to promote a thriving ecological balance. mr. chairman, we are talking about ecological balance. yes, this is an expensive program and i concur with the remarks of my ranking member from washington, but i want to emphasize the disrespect that this bill places on our sensitive, fragile grass

resources in the west that during times of drought and during times of heavy pressure are unable to sustain this horse population, nonnative, that is in need of control. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from washington reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from west virginia. mr. rahall: mr. speaker, i yield three he minutes to the gentleman from virginia, mr. moran. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from virginia is recognized for three minutes. mr. moran: thank you, mr. speaker. and i thank my very good friend, the chairman of the committee. i was struck by the comments of the gentlelady from wyoming referring to what she calls a feral problem here. and the idea that we might be likely to vote on the basis of

emotion rather than pure science. well i'm going to give some hard and fast numbers, but in response to that, it seems to me that we should reflect upon the fact that virtually all of our heroes are depicted in statues on horses. they were killed in battle, the horse has both front hooves up in the air, they were wounded, one hoof is up. now there's nothing scientific about that. it's all about emotion. it's about inspiring the american people. it's about what this country was about. and one of the things this country was about was its wild open spaces where horses and buffalo were free to roam. now, the argument is made, well, they are nonnative.

well the caos are nonnative, too -- cows are nonnative, too, and this is to provide more room for cow grazing. now, i -- let me g to some hard and fast numbers, which is what i intended to do because i strongly support mr. rahall's bill because not only is it fiscally responsible, it is the right thing to do. mr. hastings -- mr. hasting's substitute is not. now the house has voted three times on this issue, with overwhelming bipartisan support every time. this provides cost effective, on the range management for our mustangs. the bureau of land management's program really isn't working very well. they're rounding up wild horses, keeping them in holding pens, the not good for the horses and it's wasting money, frankly.

now, when you spend 2/3 of your program feeding captive wild mustangs in costly pens, you ought to figure out if there isn't a better alternative. mr. rahall's bill and mr. grijalva's is a much better alternative. now, the gentleman suggests this is welfare for horses. the u.s. geological survey, the journal of wildlife management and the g.a.o. all agree that this saves money as well as saving 30,000 horses. mr. hastings -- mr. hasting's amendment would be voting to slaughter 30,000 wild horses. i can't imagine that we -- can i have two more minutes. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for an additional two minutes. >> i thank my very good friend from west virginia. i can't imagine we would want that -- imagine we would want

that picture magnified 20 times -- is it 20,000 times? 20,000 times that slaughter will be caused by mr. hastings' amendment. 30,000 slaughtered horses. now as to this wild horse welfare, the reality is that the geological survey has figured by implementing herd control with birth control, mr. rahall's bill saves more than $600 million a year. the u.s. geological survey says it will save $7.7 million a year. what is planned is to use a much less expensive, far more humane process of birth control, frankly, contraceptive

measures. to humanely reduce the number of horses, while allowing them to use the range. we're talking about federally owned, bureau of land management land. we're not talking about letting the horses loose in everybody's backyard in wyoming or any other state. we're talking about b.l.m. land. the g.a.o. found, and i quote, reducing authorized grazing levels for livestock would likely be cheaper than wild horse removals to achieve the same reduction in forage consumption. that's the economics of this. now we make a strong case. this is fiscally responsible. this saves money, according to experts. but there's also something to be said for the other. the noneconomic. nonpragmatic issue. it seems to me it is wrong for this congress to vote to

slaughter 30,000 wild horses. it's basically, it was their land and we took it from them. let's go with mr. rahall's amendment and do the right thing. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired this gentleman from washington. mr. hastings: before i yield time to my friend from utah, i point out that the amendment i'm going to offer is precisely, word for word a bill he voted on two years ago. with that, i yield five minutes to my friend from utah, mr. bishop. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. bishop: i guess the problem i have is that i've read this bill and some of the amendment this is a will be proposed. it seems we are in a situation where we are more concerned or at least the leaders are concerned about homes for horses than jobs for americans and from the few people we -- who still have jobs, we are going to take $700 million at

the minimum to solve a problem this congress has solved. in years past, the bureau of land management has begged us not to take away management tools, yet year and yoof we in congress have micromanaged this. we prohibited sales of the horses, even though the bill prohibited the sale to resell for slaughter purposes. there is an effort, even the administration complained about a provision that will be in the bill and that will remain in this bill about the process of taking a horse that has died of natural cause to a rendering factory could be construed as a felony. the administration complained

about that witness stand we have done nothing to take out that micromanagement element to it. we have made in years past the secretary of interior did have the right to euthanize old, sick, or lame horses, but we have narrowed that down as well, to the point it can only happen with a terminally ill horse as a mercy approach. in addition to that, other elements this house has passed in the agricultural bill and finance bills have eliminated abilities of those in the private sector who have horses to do anything else except what's left of them, dump these on the federal range, which means the count the people have been talking about by the states, there's only 10 of them impacted with the wild horses and wild burros, recognize there is a significant undercount of this problem and situation. we already have dedicated solely to wild horses and wild burros, an amount of land owned

by the bureau the size of the state of new york. even with that land, our micromanagement in taking cools away from the land management who complained about that has caused uh to have an overabundance of horses on that land until 35,000 horses have to find other activities for them. and, mr. speaker, it is important to know, by the laws of this country they cannot be slaughtered. there is no slaughter of horses. we have banned the practice. we have banned the transportation. no one is talking about the slaughtering of horses. the closest this bill comes to slaughter is the rules chairman who limited all the amendment that were possible under this particular bill. unfortunately, because of how we have micromanaged this land, the appropriations for our horse and burro program, which will run close to $60 million in next year's budget, 75% has to be done to the excess that we have that has been caused by

decisions that we have made on this floor. now the solution being presented today is simply not trying to give the land managers the tools they ask, it is to expand the amount of land by a size equal to the state of west virginia. for more area at a cost of $700 million according to c.b.o. however the agency itself said this will be well over $1 billion when we are finished with this solution which could have been done in a much more generous area. we have found we have a problem in this area where stimulus bills don't create the jobs we expected, our bloated budgets don't create the jobs we expected, our tax increases don't create the jobs we expected, so instead of tackling that issue, which would be a perfectly legitimate subject today, we're talking about horses. horses roaming an area the size of the state of new york. we may be willing to ration health care for humans, but not

health care for horses. we have more concern with the habitat for horses than homes for humans. and i have a big problem and i'll speak to the amendment now so i will not come back work the concept of the change the gentleman from west virginia is offering. by changing this bill from mandating that size of west virginia be found somewhere to setting it only as a goal, which makes it a much more pernicious issue. a goal is not a legal requirement. but a goal is not defined anywhere in terms, in law, which means a goal may actually be an incentive to force them to reprioritize in a way that the b.l.m. does not want to reprioritize. a goal in statute for lawsuit this is a will never again -- can i have another minute? mr. hastings: i yield the gentleman an additional two minutes. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized.

mr. bishop: that will be used against this element. this is the most dangerous of language when no one -- when it is so vague that no one has defined it but it may be used against us, especially when the secretary of the interior is one of the people who has the pow over condemnation. not even the president of the united states has the ability to condemn lands, the secretary of the interior does, and we are empowering that secretary with the goal of finding enough land, public or private, the size of the state of west virginia. may i state one other thing. the chairwoman of the rules committee was new york. the person representing this bill from the rule is from massachusetts, the good gentleman is from west virginia. last year when we talked about this, there were gentlemen from kentucky, ohio, speaking toward this issue. there are only 10 states affected by wild horses and

burros. those states i mentioned have no wild horses. if they take the horses and provide a habitat for them, that would be great. but we are dealing with this problem and congress does not have the wisdom to listen to the experts to do what they know is right to solve this particular problem. this is a conundrum we should not be talking about, we should be talking about how to make life better for americans with more jobs and a better lifestyle. with that, i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from west virginia. mr. rahall: i yield three minutes to one of the co-sponsors of the legislation, the gentleman from kentucky, mr. whitefield. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. whitefield: obviously this is a very important -- mr. whitfield: obviously this is a very important issue, and opponents of the legislation, at least some of them argue

that under these difficult economic times, democrats are spending million os protect wild horses. in my view it is a much more complicated issue than that. this is a classic case of competing interests. on one side, we have corporations, partnerships, individuals, who have leased almost 250 million acres of taxpayer dollars from the federal government. on the other side, we have wild horses. now, there's been some question about whether or not these wild mustangs were native or not. i'm not an expert in that field and i certainly respect the gentlelady from wyoming on her comments. but it was emailed to me that dr. kay kirk patic, one of the

leaders and one of the respected experts in this field has said these wild horses were rereleased native wildlife, they were native, they were captured and rereleased. now because these leaseholders do not want wild mustangs grazing on their land, they have been successful through lobbyists of changing federal law to require that there only be so many wild mustangs for a certain area of land. and because of that, b.l.m. flies helicopters around, they count the wild mustangs if they exceed that number, they move them in these holding areas. and it is without dispute that these holding areas are the most expensive way to deal with these animals. that's why millions of dollars are being spent right now. i think the reason that the

rahall legislation is -- can help solve this problem is this. number one, it reduces the number of horses in the holding areas. number two, it expands the area for grazing, but most important , it directs b.l.m. to use immune noah contraception to reduce -- immunocontraception to reduce the size of herds. when i looked at the conference report on the interior appropriations bill a couple of years ago we found out that these leaseholders of these taxpayer land were paying the federal government about nine cents per acre per year. i can tell you, the farmers of kentucky and in the east cannot get access to land for nine cents per acre per year. so we have this competing interest. the speaker pro tempore: the

gentleman is recognized for an additional two minutes. mr. whitfield: we have competing interests, we have the commercial interest, we admire and respect, we think they should be able to use the land for grazing, we think leaseholders should be able to use it for grazing,fish dude ranches, whatever they might want. at the the same time, we have wild mustang this is a deserve some protection, particularly when the leaseholders are paying about nine cents per acre per year to the federal government. i would urge support of the rahall legislation because it expands the grazing area, it's going to reduce the number of wild mustangs and it's also going to reduce the number held in holding areas which is the most expensive way to take care of these animals. so i yield back the balance of my time and urge support of the rahall legislation. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from washington. mr. hastings: i'm pleased to yield three minutes to the

gentleman from iowa, mr. king. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for three minutes. mr. king: i come to the floor to address the subject matter that seems a bit surrealistic. we have a love for horses in this country. most of us in this chamber agree with that. i'm among those. i can think of a lot of happy times around horses and on horses and working with horses. we also have a responsibility to manage the are resources of this country. and there seems to be a conviction to try to pull this globe back under the, let's say, the climate change legislation or the cap and tax legislation and many other pieces back to what would have been pregarden of eden, before man supposedly desecrated the planet. the default position, amazingly for me, is what was nature like before mangan to compete as a species with the other species on the planet? that default position from the

environmentalists, consistently out of the political left, would be this natural balance of our environment and so i've just heard the gentleman state that these horses were native. but they were not native. they are not indigenous, no surviving species of horse was indigenous to this continent nor this hemisphere. they were brought here by the spanic in the 1500's or beyond and the horses got loose and began to roam the range and competed with the existing species that are there. if our default position is back to whatever mother nature gave us before we competed as a species, we should look at it not as horses as a natural part of the habitat but an unnatural, the ral component of this habitat. when i hear about the million spent about helicopter cowboys rounding up horses and putting them in pens, i think about

visiting the national bison grounds, i forget whether it's southern montana or up into wyoming, but i remember going there to visit and i was fascinated. i drove a long way to get there, i wanted to see what it was like when the buffalo roamed the planes. just like i've -- plains. just like i've walked into the virgin timber and stood there and imagined what it was like to walk through the forest. i wanted to see what it was like, the native buffalo. what i saw were paddock-style pastures. we have, the federal government to manage the bison, built a great big old square pastures and divide it into four quadrants, we manage the bison, moving them from corner to corner we sell them for slaughter and we eat them. we do that with buffalo but a horse is raised to another level of the species. this is amazing to me. as i read through the bill, i don't think i've ever been taken aback reading through language.

i listen to the gentleman from virginia, mr. moran, talk about this contraception that is here, but mr. speaker, i just think it's important, if i could ask for another -- mr. hastings: i yield the gentleman an additional two minutes. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for two minutes. mr. king: i think it's important for us to read the language on this horse contraception. it says research, develop and plement enhanced surgical or immune noah -- immuno contraception or other forms of birth control. this is enhanced contraception for horses. i don't know what that is. i think it could be about anything that human beings might use. but i suspect it doesn't include horse abortion for one thing and so i'm implying that there's a different set of standards for a horse species than human species given the debate we've had in this congress. it is a breathtaking step to think of what enhanced contraception is for horses and it's one of those things that i don't think will be described

here on the floor of the house, it's kind of an imagineary thing but it's difficult to manage these horses and i would say that abstinence will not be part of this. that's also part of the debate. so, as i watch what's going on, there's been a real effort here to block the humane harvesting of horses and the hsus has been successful in doing that. there are no horses slaughtered in america, they're going hauled against the law across the border to be slaughtered elsewhere, but to manage all of our livestock, all of the species in our country, we have to be smart about this. and so what's happened is they have through legislation and litigation blocked the responsible harvesting of horses. it has taken the market of them down from 500, 600 essentially down to nothing and we have a lot more horses than we need and now they have the you a daft to come to this congress and say we're going to have to hit up the american people for $700 million more more in order to

take care of these extra animals that we've decided we now want to keep around as national pets. and so i do the math on this and if you calculate how the increase in the horse population because of the restrictions in the harvesting, never mind the value of what's happened to the property of the horse owners, they will eat up enough hay from enough ground, it will be a billion gallons of ethanol we could produce off of that horse pasture. thank you, mr. speaker, i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from west virginia. mr. rahall: may have a time check. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from west virginia has 12 minutes remaining and the gentleman from washington has 6 1/2 minutes remaining. mr. rahall: this side has the right to close. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from west virginia has the right it to close. mr. rahall: i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from west virginia reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from washington. mr. hastings: mr. speaker, i understand the gentleman is

prepared to yield back on general debate and start the amendment process? mr. rahall: i'm prepared to close before yielding back. mr. hastings: to close on general debate. i will do the same. i yield myself as much time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. hastings: mr. speaker, again, let me repeat that when america is hurting and we should be addressing those issues in which to try to resolve those problems and those issues that are making america hurting. unemployment is at 9.5% and president obama says it could go into double-digits in the near future. so what is our response to that? our response is to, unlike two years ago, address this issue in a kirch manner, to address at least partially the same way but add another $700 billion 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.

so with that, mr. speaker, i will yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from washington yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from west virginia. mr. rahall: mr. speaker, i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. rahall: 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 statement -- war, deficits and at the same time we do not need to allow the status quo 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, go home to

their main strites and pose the request question to their constituents, do you support your federal government slaughtering 30,000 wild horses, do you support them being held in holding pens? i suggest i know what the answer would be. this is -- 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 aps that are 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 the establishment of appropriately 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 sanction wears. many 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. but rather 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, a goal, not a requirement, but a goal to increase the acreage on which wild horses can roam. and by doing so we reduce the number of animals that are called from the herds and placed in holding facilities. these holding facilities which have come up during this debate, i think it's important to recognize that keeping wild horses and burros in these holding facilities costs $21

million annually or 2/3 of the entire cost of the wild horse and burro management program. the cost of these holding facilities have been rising dramatically from $7 million in 2000 to $21 million in 2008. so we're attempting to reduce costs here, reduce the holding cost by lessening the number of roundups through a dwi nation of what we're 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. and, third, even with the actions that i've already outlined, there will not be enough open range land to sustain all of our wild horses. in an effort to contain the cost control 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 a destruction of healthy horses. fatally injured or terminaly ill animals, yes, but not healthy wild mustangs. let us stop the slaughter, stop the slaughter, stop the abuse and 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 and yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. all time for debate has expired. for what purpose does the gentleman from west virginia rise? mr. rahall: mr. speaker, i have an amendment made in order under the rule. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment printed in part a of house report 111-212 offered by mr. rahall of west virginia. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to house resolution 653, the gentleman from west virginia, mr. rahall, and a member opposed each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from west virginia. mr. rahall: mr. speaker, this is

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 to return wild horses and burros to the land which they've been removed since 1971. the c.b.o. cost estimate for this bill was based on the assumption that significant land acquisition would be require. that will not be the case. however, these horses and bureaus -- burros can be accommodated on existing lands.

restoration of those acres would remain an important goal but not a legal requirement. this is a good package of small changes which will improve h.r. 1018 and i urge my colleagues to support the amendment and reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from west virginia reserves his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from washington rise? mr. hastings: thank you, mr. speaker. i rise in opposition to the amendment. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. hastings: mr. speaker, thank you very much, and i want to give credit to my friend and my chairman of the natural resources committee for the creativity that's 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 paid section or word from this bill -- 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 somehow makes the c.b.o. estimate -- their c.b.o. estimate of the 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's an area, as we've said before, larger than the state of west virginia, but just to put this in perspective, also larger than the combined area of new hampshire, rhode island, delaware, connecticut and new jersey. so we're not talking about a small piece of land. we're talking about a huge area. c.b.o. estimates that compliant with the new policies in this bill and restoring horses to this 19 million additional acres will cost over $700 million. now, chairman tries to explain all we're doing is changing this

requirement to a goal. the american people, i think, are not going to grieve any easier when they hear that congress has a goal of spending $700 million to create welfare programs for wild horses and burro. 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 and with that i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from washington reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from west virginia. mr. rahall: mr. speaker, i have no further requests for time. i'm ready to yield back if the gentleman -- the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from washington. mr. hastings: mr. speaker, with that i'll yield back my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from washington and west virginia yield back their time. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from west virginia. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair the

ayes have it. the amendment is adopted. for what purpose does the gentleman from washington rise? mr. hastings: mr. speaker, i have an amendment made in order under the rule. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment in the nature of a substitute printed in part b of house report 111-212 offered by mr. hastings of washington. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to house russ lesion 653, the gentleman from washington, mr. hastings, and a member opposed each will control 15 minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from washington. mr. hastings: 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 c.b.o. estimates -- estimated in the last congress that it would cost under $500,000 a year. members of this house voted for

this bill just two years ago and at that time, at that time, mr. speaker, the unemployment rate nationwide was 4.3%. fast forward to today, when the unemployment rate today has more than doubled to 9.5% and is estimated by officials in the obama administration to go into double digits in the near future. now with this background, we are now considering a bill that bans the slaughter of wild horses and creates -- 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 -- or banning the slaughter of wild horses with the $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, mr. speaker, 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 two years ago. 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 a proper way to go and that is precisely what my substitute does, so i would

urge my colleagues to vote for the substitute. i reserve think my time. -- i reserve my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from west virginia. mr. rahall: i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. rahall: i appreciate the gentleman's comments on my efforts and appreciate the full disclosure. this substitute which is my anti-slaughter bill from last congress in, addresses one piece of a big puzzle. the roam act will address the underlying problems which made slauth aeropossibility. the substitute would address the symptom, while the underlying legislation will provide a cure. i'm pleased that the gentleman from washington state opposes the slaughter of horses.

when this substitute came before the congress last congress, 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 b.l.m. announced the program was bankrupt and they are going -- and they were going to have to kill 30,000 horses and burros. the g.a.o. documented that the b.l.m. program is out of control. first the agency was holding 5,000 horse, then 10,000, now 30,000. the agency claims killing these animals is the only solution. without the other reforms in the underlying legislation

1018, the b.l.m. will have to destroy these animals. the hastings substitute changes the identity of those 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 g.a.o. report. now we have a thorough analysis of the obstacles facing the b.l.m. and recommendations to face the root causes. the g.a.o. documented the enormous cost of the proposed solutions. the congress is in a position to do more and we must do more. h.r. 1018 must do more. adopting this substitute would cost money. cost money, not save it. because it would allow the b.l.m. to continue pouring good money after bad without fixing the inefficiencies which plague the program in the first place. since i authored legislation

mr. hastings is now offering as his substitute, we have worked with the humane society 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 our colleagues understand that now is the time to do more. the substitute is too little, too late, and should be rejected. i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from washington. mr. hastings: i'm pleased to yield one minute to the distinguished gentleman from ohio, mr. boehner. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. boehner: mr. speaker, i think i must be confused. the unemployment rate in our country is at over 9.5% as i speak. unemployment in my home state of ohio is now over 11%. two million americans have been

put out of work since the stimulus bill was signed into law. our budget deficit is already, this year, over $1 trillion and expected to reach nearly $2 trillion. faced with this news, what's the house doing today? talking about a $700 million welfare program for wild horses and burros. is it any wonder, mr. speaker, that our constituents may be confused about their congress? let's get this straight. we're debating a bill to spend millions of dollars to save wild horses but yesterday, democrats in the house blocked republicans from offering an amendment to prevent federal dollars from being spent on saving unborn children. oh, yeah, $700 million today to save wild horses and burroing,

yesterday we weren't -- burros, yesterday we weren't allowed to offer an amendment to save the lives of unborn kids that doesn't make sense to me but i think most of my constituents would look up and go, well, that's just washington being washington. it doesn't make any sense that we're debating a welfare program about wild horses when the american people really want to know, where are the jobs? debating this bill, i frankly think, is an insult to the american people who are out there looking for work. small businesses who are looking for customers, trying to keep their doors open. if democrats want to do something serious, here in this house, they should join with republicans and focus our efforts on those thing this is a will help create jobs in america, which, after all is the number one priority of the american people. probably ought to do a few other things. if we're going to talk about

creating jobs and keeping jobs in america, maybe we ought to speak -- out to scrap speaker pelosi's national energy tax which will cost about 2.5 million jobs every year over the next 10 years. or smabe we should shove the health care bill which is being debated in committee as we speak which is going to take private health care away from millions of americans and shove them into a government-run system and on top top of all that, as a giant tax on small businesses, taxes employment and will lead to greater job losses in our country. if we're serious about wanting to create jobs, maybe we could work together to bring the american energy act to the floor of this house, our all of the above energy strategy which will create well over a million new jobs here in america, bring us more energy to the marketplace with lower prices,

reduce our dependence on foreign sources of isle and guess what if we do all of the above, we'll actually have much cleaner air than the bill that passed here last month. mr. speaker, i think american families and small businesses deserve better than what they're getting out of this congress. they expect us to work together on their behalf and deal with issues to get this economy moving again and help create jobs. not to be debating a $700 million program welfare program to save wild horses and burros. irning the gentleman's amendment is a good amendment. his amendment will cost $500,000. that's $699,500,000 less than the original bill. it would be a step in the right direction so maybe our constituents would think we've

got some sense for once in our life. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from washington. mr. hastings: i reserve my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from west virginia. mr. rahall: i have no further requests for time and i'm prepared to close. mr. hastings: how much time is remaining? the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from washington has 11 minutes remaining, the gentleman from washington has 12 minutes remaining. mr. hastings: i'm pleased to yield three minutes to the gentleman from texas, mr. gohmert. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for three minutes. mr. gohmert: i really appreciate the nobility of the effort to help wild horses at this time. but americans are losing their habitats. we found out for june, another 400,000 americans have lost jobs. in 2009, already, since

president obama has taken office we lost 1.9 million jobs, we're up 9 -- 1.9 million foreclosures. we've got 14.7 million unemployed, that doesn't just represent individuals, that's families we're talking about. who are desperate right now and we're hearing from them. what about my habitat? i understand you want to help wild horsened -- wild horses and burros but what about my habitat? how about american individuals getting help? we are squandering money like never before in history. and folks, you can lose a country by overspending. go ask the former soviet union if you can find any of those people. they lost their country because they spent until nobody would lend them another dime. they were irresponsible.

here, we want $700 million for horses? i appreciate the chairman's comment that this amendment by doc haste sgs a dollar short but it's actually $699,500,000 dollars short basically. this is incredible. but i thought about, when you get on an airplane, we're told, in the safety instructions, that if the cabin loses pressure an oxygen mask will drop. do not put it on someone else first. you put it on your own face first and save yourself, then you'll be in a position to save your children and those around you. but if you don't save yourself first, you can't help anyone. that's where this country is. if we don't save this country, by this reckless overspending, we're not going knob a position

to help anybody. immigrants won't have any place to come for safety and jobs. we have wiped ourselves out. no wonder the chinese laughed when geithner said we were going to reduce our jeff sit. i'm telling you. jobs, what about american jobs? there's one little part in here, it provides for an enhanced contraception for the wild horses. maybe there are jobs in that. maybe somebody out of work can apply for you howe you apply enhanced contrastopings a horse. i'm familiar with artificial insemination, i was not familiar with enhanced contraception. maybe there's a green job or some color there. but we need to help americans. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from washington continues to reserve? mr. hastings: could i inquire of my friend if he's prepared to close after i close? mr. rahall: yes. mr. hastings: i yield myself

the balance of the time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. hastings: my substitute is a substitute that's 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. huge difference between the two. i think in the economic times that we are in right now, the most prudent way for this congress act is to go with the lesser amount of money and that's precisely what my substitute does, so mr. speaker, i just want to make one other point, the distinguished chairman and his manager's amendment made some different calculations as to the $700 million and the $19 million ache -- and the 19 million acres that were to be

part of this bill. i want to make a point, c.b.o. has not scored that one way or the other, but only logic would assume that if an absolute figure of acquiring or moving around 19 million acres costs $700 million, then saying a goal, 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 c.b.o. has not estimated the score of the manager's amendment. the difference here in the debate still is the difference between in this economic time 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 the better way to go and i would encourage my votes to vote for the substitute.

with that i yield back my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from west virginia. mr. rahall: mr. speaker, i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. rahall: mr. speaker, the c.b.o. estimate $700 million that's been thrown out by the other side is a potential cost of this legislation was done last congress. it was done before the adoption of the manager's amendment that we have 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 cost of purchasing 19 million acres of additional federal land for the use of

these wild horses and burros. so, therefore, when taking that cost that c.b.o. has done, they did not consider the fact that there are already federal lands owned by the american people available and out there. c.b.o. did not take into account the management tools contained in the pending legislation with which we intend to help b.l.m. do a better job and improve the status quo. the c.b.o. did not estimate any cost savings from enhanced adoption program or sterilization programs or did not take into account the reductioning costs these holding pence that i mentioned earlier. the $21 million annually and that cost keeps going up of the current holding pens for these

wild horses and burros. so c.b.o. did not consider any of the today costs and how the improved management tools offered in h.r. 1018 will save dollars in the years ahead. so i conclude by urging a no vote not only on the hastings substitute amendment but also the 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. and when you look through the smoke and mirrors of the numbers that have been thrown out today, you'll find out that by implementing herd reduction with birth control we can save more than $6 million alone each year, and, 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, and yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. pursuant to house resolution 653, the previous question is ordered on the bill as amended an on the amendment in the nature of a substitute printed in part b of house report 111-212 offered by the gentleman from washington, mr. hastings. the question is on the amendment by the gentleman from washington, mr. hastings. all those in favor say aye. all those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the noes have it. the gentleman from washington. mr. hastings: mr. speaker, i ask for the yeas and nays. the speaker pro tempore: the yeas and nays are requested.@t

the speaker pro tempore: on this vote the yeas are 240, the nays are 348. the amendment is not agreed to. the question is on third reading of the bill. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the ayes have it. third reading. the clerk: a bill to improve the management and long-term health of wild free-roaming horses and burros and for other purposes. the speaker pro tempore: the question is on passage of the bill. all those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the ayes have it. the bill is -- the bill is passed. without objection a motion to reconsider is laid on the table. the gentleman from west virginia.

>> mr. speaker. i ask -- the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman's request is not timely at this tage. >> i'm sorry. i can't hear you. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman's request is not timely at this stage. mrs. biggert: mr. speaker, the way that i voted i ex-- i

expected there would be a roll call vote on that. i really request a roll call vote. i ask unanimous consent to have a roll call vote. the speaker pro tempore: is the gentlewoman asking for a recorded vote. mr. rahall: i object, mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from west virginia rise? mr. rahall: i object. the speaker pro tempore: the chair is not entertaining that unanimous consent at this time. if the gentlewoman is requesting a vote right after the vote by voice, the chair would accept that. mrs. biggert: yes. i request a vote.

the speaker pro tempore: does the gentlewoman -- been requesting that vote -- mrs. biggert: i ask unanimous consent for a vote. the speaker pro tempore: the chair only wants to establish that the gentlewoman's time has expired was requesting a vote at the time before the vote was called. a recorded vote is requested. those favoring a recorded vote -- mr. speaker, i object. the speaker pro tempore: there is no unanimous consent request. the chair is accepting the gentlewoman's request. a recorded vote is requested. those in support of the request for a recorded vote will rise and be counted. a sufficient number having arisen, a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. this is on passage of the bill and this wiaht