Restore Our American Mustangs Act

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. MORAN of Virginia. 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 horse 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 first 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. If they were killed in battle, their horse has the two front hooves up in the air. If 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 is its wild, open spaces where horses and buffalo were free to roam.

Now the argument is made they are nonnative. Well, the cows are nonnative, too, and in large measure this is to provide more room for cow grazing.

Let me get to some hard-and-fast numbers, because I strongly support Mr. Rahall's bill, because not only is it fiscally responsible, it is the right thing to do. Mr. Hastings' substitute is not the best solution.

The House has voted three times on this issue with overwhelming bipartisan support every time. This bill 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, only to keep them in holding pens. It's not good for the horses and it's wasting money, frankly.

Now, when you spend two-thirds 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 to let them live in the open range but to reduce the population through humane birth control measures.

The gentleman suggests this is welfare for horses. The U.S. Geological Survey, the Journal of Wildlife Management, and the GAO all agree that this saves more than $6 million as well as saving 30,000 horses. Mr. Hastings' amendment would be voting to slaughter 30,000 wild horses.

The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.

Mr. RAHALL. I yield the gentleman 2 additional minutes.

Mr. MORAN of Virginia. I thank my very good friend, the chairman, the gentleman from West Virginia.

I can't imagine that we want that picture that Mr. RAHALL showed on the floor, which was only a half dozen horses, magnified 5,000 times. Mr. Hastings' amendment will cause 5,000 times that slaughter, 30,000 slaughtered horses.

Now, as to this wild horse welfare, the reality is that the Geological Survey has figured that by implementing herd reduction with birth control, Mr. Rahall's bill, H.R. 1018, saves more than $6 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 population control, 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 BLM lands. What the GAO found, and I quote, ``reducing authorized grazing levels would likely be cheaper than wild horse removals to achieve the same reduction in forage consumption.''

Well, that's the economics of this. 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 that it is wrong for this Congress to vote to slaughter 30,000 wild horses. Basically it was their land, and we took it from them. Let's go with Mr. Rahall's amendment and do the right thing. I thank my colleagues.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source