AMENDMENT NO. 1 OFFERED BY MR. RAHALL
Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Amendment No. 1 offered by Mr. Rahall:
At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the following new section:
SEC. __X. LIMITATION ON USE OF FUNDS FOR SALE OR SLAUGHTER OF FREE-ROAMING HORSES AND BURROS.
None of the funds made available by this Act may be used for the sale or slaughter of wild
free-roaming horses and burros (as defined in Public Law 92-195).
The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of today, the gentleman from West
Virginia (Mr. Rahall) and a Member opposed each will control 10 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. Rahall).
Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, I am offering this amendment on behalf of myself, the gentleman from Kentucky
(Mr. Whitfield), the gentleman from New York (Mr. Sweeney), and the gentleman from South Carolina
(Mr. Spratt).
Mr. Chairman, America is blessed with a rich natural heritage. Part of that heritage are the
herds of wild horses, direct descendants of animals that came here with early explorers and
missionaries, which still roam the ranges in parts of the American West.
In 1971, Congress formally protected these wild horses and mandated that they could not be
sold or processed into commercial products, in effect, slaughtered.
Since that time, when the Bureau of Land Management has determined that the wild horse
population is excessive to the ability of the range to support them, captured animals have been
offered to the public through adoption.
All of that changed as a result of a rider tucked away in the dead of night in the massive
omnibus appropriations bill enacted last December.
With no public notice or comment, this rider trashed 33 years of national policy and lifted
the prohibition on the commercial sale of America's wild horses.
Today, the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Whitfield) and I, along with our colleagues,
the gentleman from New York (Mr. Sweeney) and the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr.
Spratt), are offering this amendment to restore that prohibition, to stop the slaughter.
There is an urgency here. So far this year, 41 wild horses that we know of have been
sent to one of the three foreign-owned slaughterhouses in this country. Moreover, the BLM
has estimated that 8,400 horses need to be sold to comply with the recent change in the law.
To what end? To what end, I ask? So their meat can end up on menus in France, Belgium and
Japan where it is considered a delicacy.
Incredible, simply incredible. We do not allow the commercial sale of horse flesh in this
country for human consumption, but we are exporting horse meat for that purpose abroad.
Since introducing the legislation which is the basis for this amendment, I have received an
impressive volume of heartfelt letters and e-mails from across the Nation.
The very notion that wild American horses would be slaughtered as a food source for foreign
gourmets has struck a chord with the American people.
They see in this issue the pioneering spirit and the ideals of freedom, and the current
policy has created disillusionment with many over how their government works and what their
elected leaders stand for.
From Florida, Stacey wrote, ``Knowing that the horses won't be there for my kids has made me
feel sad, hurt and angry at our government.''
A former West Virginian named Valerie who now resides in Nevada wrote, ``I, and our friends,
have enjoyed going on to the desert to see wild horses roaming free.''
Jeremy from Oregon wrote, ``Your support will help to restore the public's confidence by
assuring us that Congress operates under the principles of for the people and by the people.''
We must restore the people's faith. We must stop the slaughter of these American icons.
A week and a half ago, an annual rite of spring was held called the Running of the Kentucky
Derby, a uniquely American institution.
I am wearing on my lapel a pin here, a symbol which bears the likeness of Ferdinand who won
the 1986 Derby and the 1987 Breeders' Cup Classic, notable achievements. Yet his reward was to
end his life in a Japanese slaughterhouse. Ferdinand was not a wild horse, true, from the
American plain, but the issue is one in the same.
As children, many of us recall reading the compelling story in the book ``Misty of
Chincoteague.'' What type of message would we be sending today's youth if Misty was rounded up
and sent to be slaughtered.
For Misty's sake, for America's sake, vote for the Rahall-Whitfield amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Whitfield), a cosponsor
of the amendment.
Mr. WHITFIELD. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the gentleman for yielding me time very much;
and as he so aptly stated, we would not be here today except for the action of Senator Conrad
Burns in the last omnibus bill.
What this motion and amendment that we are proposing today is really about, it is not so
much about a few wild mustangs and burros, only 31,000 remaining in the wild western grazing
lands. But what this is really about, it is about the fact that we have 18,000 permits issued
by the Bureau of Land Management to ranchers in the West on 214 million acres of land, of which
these ranchers are paying less than six cents per acre, per year. Now that is a good deal, and
I can understand why they would be excited about it. They are grazing over 8 or 9 million cows
on this land, and we are talking about 31,000 wild mustangs and burros on this 214 million
acres of land, and the ranchers do not want any wild mustangs or burros on this land. That is
really what this is all about.
The question becomes, is it in the heritage of America to protect the few remaining wild
mustangs and burros? This amendment simply reverses the Burns amendment and restores 37 years
of public policy of protecting wild mustangs and burros.
I can tell my colleagues I have a lot of cattle ranchers in my district in Kentucky, and
they are in Tennessee and Florida and Texas and Alabama and Mississippi and Louisiana and all
around this country, and all of them pay a lot more than six cents per acre per year for these
permits and for land.
I might also add that these 18,000 permits of ranchers on these grazing lands in the West
provide only 2 percent of the cows slaughtered in America, and we all like a good steak. We
want to continue slaughtering cows for steaks because they are raised for that purpose; but we
also have a responsibility to protect wild mustangs and burros who are native to this country,
who have been protected in this country. They simply lost that protection because of a 4,000
page omnibus bill, and none of us was aware that the Burns amendment was in it.
So that is what this amendment is about.
Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from New
York (Mr. Sweeney).
Mr. SWEENEY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time, and I want to
get briefly to the point.
We can all have our differences as it relates to this issue, but as my colleagues have
pointed out so appropriately, surreptitiously last year, snuck into the omnibus bill, is a
piece of legislation that many of us have disagreement over. We all agree in this
appropriation process that that is not the way Congress ought to go about doing its business
and, worse yet, that legislation overturned decades, indeed generations of Congressional
policy.
Now, we can argue the substance and the differences as to whether this is economically
feasible and right, and whether this is humane or not, but the fact of the matter is it was
surreptitiously snuck in, it ought not to have happened, I believe it violates policy for more
than a generation and 30 to 40 years of Congressional intent. We ought not to let that happen.
So I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.
Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. TAYLOR of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I rise to claim the time in opposition to the
amendment, and I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, this issue is about the proper management of wildlife and public lands, and
the Committee on Appropriations is in charge of trying to adequately fund the United States
agencies. If we want to get into the question of whether or not the six cents is being paid
for grazing land or anything else, you need to go to the authorizing committees and have a
debate there and get it changed and so forth.
We in the Committee on Appropriations have a situation where wild horses and burros cost
the taxpayers $40 million annually. Now, this is more than BLM spends on all wildlife
management activities on public lands. There are currently 24,000 wild horses and burros
that are kept in short-term, or long-term, either way, holding facilities. They are not
roaming free. They are being housed in these short-term facilities, and that is costing
$20 million, and they are living there until they die.
BLM has the authority to sell the older or unadoptable animals. Now, if they are 10 years
or older, or if they have been offered three times for sale and been turned down, then this
would give BLM the authority to sell these older, unadoptable animals and conserve the $40
million that we are talking about. That is what we are asking, and we think that is a prudent
measure, so we urge our colleagues to defeat this amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 1/2 minutes to the gentleman from Nevada (Mr. Gibbons).
(Mr. GIBBONS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)
Mr. GIBBONS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. I come from the
district that has by far and away more wild horses in it than any district in the United
States, bar none. Of the 30,000 horses we are talking about, 20,000 of them are in the Second
District of Nevada. This amendment, if it is passed, will be a rule of unintended consequences
on what happens to the management of these horses.
My colleagues, in Nevada horses do not always look beautiful like the horse that we see in
Black Beauty. Sometimes they are misshapen. Sometimes they are deformed. That is because we
cannot manage 20,000 horses on land which does not look like Kentucky, does not look like West
Virginia. These horses get starved, they are weakened, they become diseased and, of course,
they are not as easily adopted as before.
If this amendment is passed, the unintended consequence will be to prevent the Bureau of
Land Management from properly managing. And today this amendment is moot. The Bureau of Land
Management today announced strict new rules for the sale of wild horses. These changes will
ensure America's wild horses and burros go to good homes, and the new rules will expressly
prohibit the sale of these animals for slaughter.
Specifically, before horses are sold buyers must sign a contract that will bind them to
providing humane care for the horse or burro. Buyers cannot sell or transfer ownership of any
of the purchased horses or burros to any person or organization that intend to process them
for commercial products. Anyone falsifying or concealing information in that contract is
subject to criminal penalties under U.S. law.
Additionally, the BLM is working to ensure that all three U.S. horse processing plants
make certain any BLM horses, which are easily identified by a unique brand under its mane, are
turned away and the proper authorities are notified.
In sum, the new BLM rules will make it a crime to sell wild horses for slaughter, yet will
allow for the sale of these animals to buyers seeking to provide them good caring homes.
I applaud the Bush administration and the Bureau of Land Management for taking responsible
action to assure America's wild horses and burros are cared for, and I would like to thank the
Ford Motor Company and the Take Pride in America Program, which this amendment will stop dead
in its tracks, for supporting BLM in this effort and creating the Save the Mustangs Fund.
Mr. TAYLOR of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Oregon
(Mr. Walden).
Mr. WALDEN of Oregon. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this amendment, and I certainly
am one who is not in favor of the slaughtering of wild horses, but I am also as a fiscal
conservative who is concerned about what happens along the way, because we are looking at a
price of somewhere on the order of $20 million a year to take care of the horses that nobody
wants to adopt right now.
There are some 37,000 wild horses and burros roaming on BLM managed lands in 10 western
States. That is 9,000 more than the carrying capacity of the land. In the few seconds I have
left, I want to show my colleagues this photo. This is from Nevada. This cage was put over this
grass, and this is what the wild horses have done all around it, in terms of what happens in a
fairly wet area. You get into the dry areas, and they completely overrun the rangeland.
What we need to do is, if there is a problem with someone violating the law, we need to put
the criminal penalties back in so they can be prosecuted, but the BLM have said they will not
issue any contracts that will allow for any slaughter. Taking away their ability to sell the
wild horses, however, will create a huge fiscal burden to the Federal Government and the
taxpayer and not allow us to properly manage these herds.
So I urge a ``no'' vote on this amendment.
Mr. TAYLOR of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Idaho
(Mr. Simpson).
Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Chairman, this debate should be about one of public lands and wildlife
management and nothing more. And I will be the first to say that I do not like to see these
wild horses taken off the range, but at the same time they have to be properly managed.
Over the years, we in Congress and those in State governments have created a variety of
methods to help control animal populations, whether it is placing a species under the
protection of the Endangered Species Act when the numbers are dwindling or allowing
increasing hunting for various species when the numbers of the species are too great. Wild
horses should be no different.
We must remember that wild horses have virtually no natural predators and the herd sizes
can double every 5 years. If these herds are not managed, wild horse numbers will increase at
alarming rates. Left unmanaged wild horses not only degrade our public lands but they also
create conditions where many times these horses would be unable to survive on their own.
In order to be good stewards of our public lands, these animals must be managed, and the
only way to manage these herds is to take some of these animals off the range. The primary
method for controlling horse populations has of course been adoption. But, unfortunately,
adoptions have not kept up with our expanding wild horse and burro herds.
Mr. Chairman, I urge Members to oppose this amendment and support our public lands.
Mr. TAYLOR of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Idaho
(Mr. Otter).
Mr. OTTER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman for yielding me this time and for his
leadership on this issue.
Our public lands are of multiple use and must be managed for a variety of purposes,
including hunting, grazing, fishing, recreating, wildlife, and many other uses. The Horse and
Wild Burros Act recognized that horses and burros would have to coexist with these other uses
and have been managed thusly since 1960.
Unfortunately, horse populations have far exceeded the desirable levels for years, causing
serious resource damage. Serious-minded conservation groups, such as the National Association
of Conservation Districts, the International Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies, the
Nature's Conservancy, and others have recognized the damage caused by these horses.
Balanced management must be restored in the public lands where wild horses roam. In an
effort to achieve this balance, Congress gave the BLM the authority to sell the excess. All
this, Mr. Chairman, has been said before, and I am not going to go into it again, except I
will tell you that without this authority the only feasible option is leaving unadopted excess
animals in contracted long-term holding facilities that we are now doing to the cost of at
least $9 million a year.
The loss of this new tool in selling would only mean that priority funding will keep going
to care for and feed unadoptable animals instead of managing the number on the range and in
balance with the demands of our other resources.
I would hope, Mr. Chairman, that my colleagues would see the wisdom in turning back this
probably well-intended but misdirected amendment.
Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Whitfield),
the cosponsor of the amendment.
Mr. WHITFIELD. Mr. Chairman, I might add that BLM has already told us that under the Burns
language they have no criminal penalties available to them. Even though they may put in a
contract that a horse cannot be taken to slaughter they have no recourse if someone does it.
I would remind people once again that these are public lands, 214 million acres of land. We
are talking about 30,000 wild horses we need to protect. We have companies like Ford Motor
Company taking in horses now, and we have over 214 entities out in the country doing it. I
think that there is plenty of money available.
Also, we would urge the BLM to euthanize horses rather than send them to slaughter. That is
an option also. But this is a well-intended amendment and it would reintroduce the policy that
has been the accepted policy in the U.S. for 37 years.
Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from Kentucky has just touched upon a very
important point, and that is that there are alternatives available to the outright slaughter;
adoption and euthanization. These are alternatives rather than the slaughter of these animals.
In regard to what the gentleman from Nevada said, that BLM has recently done, what BLM has
proposed in the last day or two in an effort to head off the successful passage of this
amendment is illegal under the change in law that was made by the omnibus appropriation bill
last year.
And I would say to the distinguished chairman of the subcommittee, in defense of the
gentleman from California (Mr. Pombo) and myself on the authorizing committee, this change was
made in an appropriation bill, not in an authorization bill. Therefore, it is incumbent the
change or reversal be done in an appropriation measure.
So I would urge that my colleagues look at the humane side of this amendment, look at what
is only fair to these American icons and vote for the Rahall-Whitfield-Sweeney-Spratt
amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. TAYLOR of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 1/2 minutes to the gentleman from
Virginia (Mr. Goodlatte), the distinguished chairman of Committee on Agriculture.
(Mr. GOODLATTE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)
Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chairman, this is one of those issues where our opponents are trying to
use emotion to overwhelm good policy. As is usually the case in such debates, the results are
exactly the opposite of what is being advocated.
So it is with the proposal to revoke the Secretary of Interior's authority to sell excess
wild horses and burros. Ironically, rather than saving wild horses, the amendment will have the
perverse effect of ensuring their numbers will stay at unsustainable levels, adoption efforts
will be hampered, and thousands of old unadoptable horses will stay stuck in limbo in long-term
holding facilities, or as the gentleman from Kentucky suggested, euthanized. Oh, that makes a
lot of sense.
But this is what you get. This is what you get with this kind of policy, horses that are
starving to death on the range. The BLM has conducted an analysis of their wild horse and burro
program and determined that if they had not removed many of the wild horses from the range,
rolonged drought, reduced forage production, and poor health would have resulted in large
losses during the winter of 2005.
In Cedar City, Utah, for example, over 100 horses had to be removed from the range to prevent
their suffering and potential starvation.
It is ironic that the authority that was used to save nearly 2,000 horses this past year is
the very authority the sponsors of this amendment are trying to repeal.
If this amendment prevails, the only method to remove these horses will be adoption, which
historically has failed to keep up with the explosion of the population. Inadequacy of the
adoption program has resulted in many of these horses being sentenced to spend the rest of
their lives in long-term facilities unsuitable for wild horses. I urge my colleagues to oppose
this amendment.
Mr. Chairman, this is one of those issues where our opponents are trying to use emotion to
overwhelm good policy. As is usually the case in such debates, the results are exactly the
opposite of what is being advocated.
So it is with the proposal to revoke the Secretary of the Interior's authority to sell
excess wild horses and burros. Ironically, rather than saving wild horses, the amendment will
have the perverse effect of ensuring that their numbers will stay at unsustainable levels,
adoption efforts will be hampered, and thousands of old, unadoptable horses will stay stuck in
limbo in long-term holding facilities. Horses on the range will, most likely, starve to death.
Because of the overwhelming cost of these facilities at the expense of the federal
government, the number of horses on the range is still well above the appropriate management
levels called for in law. furthermore, one-half of the entire wild horse and burro operating
budget is used to take care of ``unadoptable'' horses held in these facilities. This amendment
would only cause those costs to skyrocket at the expense of the adoption program.
Last year, Congress enacted a law that allowed BLM to sell unadoptable horses that are over
10 years old or have been offered unsuccessfully for adoption three times, until the
appropriate management level is reached. These proceeds are then used by BLM to help promote
and finance their adoption program.
Currently there are 8400 horses in these long term facilities that need to be moved on
through the program in order to prevent malnutrition and starvation that is associated with the
overpopulation of the range land herds. By denying the funds to implement the sale program for
wild horses and burros, this irresponsible amendment would eliminate a far more efficient tool
in the management of the program. By not allowing BLM to keep the herd in manageable numbers,
this amendment endangers the welfare of the wild horses by exacerbating the deplorable
conditions these animals must try to survive in where their only escape is death by starvation.
Vote for the welfare of the wild horses. Vote ``no'' on the Rahall-Whitfield Amendment.
Ms. HERSETH. Mr. Chairman, today I will vote in support of the amendment to the FY06
Interior Appropriations Bill, offered by Mr. RAHALL, that will prevent the Secretary of the
Interior from expending funds to conduct sales of wild horses for the next fiscal year. That
said, I am not categorically opposed to the sale of wild horses that live on federal lands and
will seek to work with my colleagues to find a feasible solution to the federal land management
challenges that underlie this issue.
Initially, let me indicate that I believe the process by which Wild Free-Roaming Horse and
Burro Act was amended, with language inserted in an omnibus appropriations act without any
public hearings or comment, was extremely inappropriate and that fact alone is grounds for
Congress to revisit this issue.
I strongly believe that we must provide the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) and all federal
land management agencies the tools and the resources they need to conserve our precious public
resources. Ultimately, this may mean granting horse-sale authority to the BLM. I do not
believe, however, that these wild horses should end up in slaughterhouses. The fact that
forty-one wild horses were recently slaughtered at a foreign-owned processing facility, and an
additional fifty-two barely escaped the same fate, clearly demonstrates that the current sale
program is flawed, despite BLM efforts to implement safeguards and pursue a measured approach
in administering the sale authority.
Humane alternatives to slaughter obviously exist, and federal agencies already have the
authority to carry out such humane actions as adoption, sterilization, relocation, and
placement with qualified individuals and organizations. Federal land managers may simply
lack the resources they need to carry out these alternatives, but the answers to such
questions are currently unclear. I urge Chairman POMBO of the House Committee on
Resources to hold hearings on this matter so that we can ascertain the status of the BLM's
management authorities and resources. I pledge to work with him to find solutions to this
issue. In the meantime, because I believe that a one-year moratorium on BLM's sale authority
for wild horses is needed to allow this debate, I offer my support to the Rahall Amendment.
Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to support the amendment to the Department
of the Interior appropriations bill being offered by Mr. RAHALL and Mr. WHITFIELD to help save
a national treasure--the wild horse. The wild horse is known throughout the world as a symbol
of the American west, and we should be doing everything we can to protect it.
At the turn of the 20th century there were more than one million horses roaming the vast
lands of our west, however by 1971 that number dropped to approximately 60,000 due to the
actions of their main predator--humans. Public outcry and the work of a group of citizens
lead by Wild Horse Annie forced Congress to find a solution and pass the Wild Free Roaming
Horse and Burro Protection Act to protect the wild horse.
Throughout the years this law has been eroded, and currently, there are only 35,000 wild
horses living on our lands today. Current law will only make this number decrease more
rapidly.
I was saddened to learn about the provision in last year's omnibus appropriations bill
that would allow the sale of any wild horse that has been rounded up and is more than ten
years old. Because of this provision, at least forty-one wild horses have needlessly been
slaughtered. If we do not pass this amendment to ensure that no tax dollars are used for any
sale of wild thousands more could lose their lives.
There is no need for this senseless slaughter. There are other options that we can explore
rather than killing this majestic animal. The Bureau of Land Management could reopen over one
hundred herd management areas or use animal contraception methods to keep the size of the herds
manageable. There is simply no reason for these horses to be slaughtered for use as meat in
other countries.
The horse is more than just an animal to our country. It is a beloved literary figure, a
character in a movie or television show, a symbol of adventure, a friend of the cowboy, and an
important part of our history. William Shakespeare once stated that horses were, ``As full of
spirit as the month of May, and as gorgeous as the sun in Midsummer.'' I can say it no better
and encourage all of my colleagues to join me and support the Rahall-Whitfield amendment and
help save the wild horse.
Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in opposition to the Rahall amendment. Although I
appreciate the good intentions of this amendment, I am deeply concerned about its potential for
unintended consequences. In restricting the ability of the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) to
sell wild horses and burros under the Wild Horse and Burro Act of 1971, we are also restricting
opportunities for responsible owners or groups to purchase horses that might have otherwise been
sentenced to spend their lives in holding facilities or to starve on our rangelands. I disagree
with the actions of individuals who purchased horses under the Act and then sold them to a
slaughter plant; however, I do not believe that we should prohibit responsible people from
purchasing wild horses due to the actions of a few.
This morning, the BLM announced new regulations that will strictly prohibit individuals who
purchase wild horses from sending these animals to slaughter. The BLM has also entered into a
partnership with Ford Motor Company to help protect these wild horses for future generations. I
applaud the BLM for their proactive stance on this issue, and I am hopeful that their
initiatives will be successful so that other horses are sent to slaughter.
Mr. Chairman, I represent a district in Nevada, a state that is home to more wild horses than
all other states combined. Although I agree that wild horses are a symbol of the American West,
I also believe that it is the responsibility of Congress to ensure that these animals are
managed, protected, and controlled in an effective manner. It is a fact that the current number
of wild horses in the nation greatly exceeds the ability of the BLM or the land to handle these
animals. This explosive growth causes significant resource damage, as well as damage to the
animals themselves. The adoption authority granted under the Wild Horse and Burro Act of 1971
has historically failed to keep up with the growth of the wild horse population. We must work to
maintain responsible and humane alternatives, such as sale authority, in order to ensure that
these animals are properly cared for.
Our wild horses are already competing for scarce sources of food and water on rangelands in
arid states like Nevada, causing many of them to waste into skin and bones. I believe that some
of these horses should be allowed to be sold to good homes, where they can receive proper
nourishment and veterinary care, as opposed to competing for little food and water in the wild
or being held in long-term holding pens. This is why I am developing legislation that would
offer an incentive for responsible people who would like to adopt or purchase a horse under
the Wild Horse and Burro Act. This incentive will be dependent on a number of requirements, one
of which will be that these animals cannot be sold to slaughter. I look forward to working with
my colleagues on this issue.
The Acting CHAIRMAN (Mr. Foley). All time has expired.
The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. Rahall).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chairman announced that the noes appeared to have it.
Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote, and pending that, I make the point of
order that a quorum is not present.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further proceedings on the amendment
offered by the gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. Rahall) will be postponed.
The point of no quorum is considered withdrawn.
The amendment passed, 249 for, 159 opposed and 25 not voting.
After the amendment passed Senator Conrad Burns indicated that when the bill reaches the senate, he simply plans to "Throw it out."