[Senate Hearing 106-958]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
S. Hrg. 106-958
U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE:
OVERSIGHT OF THE FEDERAL AID PROGRAM
=======================================================================
HEARING
BEFORE THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON FISHERIES,
WILDLIFE, AND WATER
OF THE
COMMITTEE ON
ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS
UNITED STATES SENATE
ONE HUNDRED SIXTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
__________
OVERSIGHT OF THE USE OF ADMINISTRATIVE FUNDS IN THE OPERATION OF THE
FEDERAL AID PROGRAM OF THE U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
__________
JULY 19, 2000
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Environment and Public Works
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
71-520 WASHINGTON : 2001
_______________________________________________________________________
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing
Office
Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: (202) 512-1800 Fax: (202) 512-2250
Mail: Stop SSOP, Congressional Sales Office, Washington, DC 20402-0001
COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS
ONE HUNDRED SIXTH CONGRESS
second session
BOB SMITH, New Hampshire, Chairman
JOHN W. WARNER, Virginia MAX BAUCUS, Montana
JAMES M. INHOFE, Oklahoma DANIEL PATRICK MOYNIHAN, New York
CRAIG THOMAS, Wyoming FRANK R. LAUTENBERG, New Jersey
CHRISTOPHER S. BOND, Missouri HARRY REID, Nevada
GEORGE V. VOINOVICH, Ohio BOB GRAHAM, Florida
MICHAEL D. CRAPO, Idaho JOSEPH I. LIEBERMAN, Connecticut
ROBERT F. BENNETT, Utah BARBARA BOXER, California
KAY BAILEY HUTCHISON, Texas RON WYDEN, Oregon
LINCOLN CHAFEE, Rhode Island
Dave Conover, Staff Director
Tom Sliter, Minority Staff Director
------
Subcommittee on Fisheries, Wildlife, and Drinking Water
MICHAEL D. CRAPO, Idaho, Chairman
CRAIG THOMAS, Wyoming HARRY REID, Nevada
CHRISTOPHER S. BOND, Missouri FRANK R. LAUTENBERG, New Jersey
JOHN W. WARNER, Virginia RON WYDEN, Oregon
ROBERT F. BENNETT, Utah BOB GRAHAM, Florida
KAY BAILEY HUTCHISON, Texas BARBARA BOXER, California
(ii)
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
JULY 19, 2000
OPENING STATEMENTS
Boxer, Hon. Barbara, U.S. Senator from the State of California... 13
Crapo, Hon. Michael D., U.S. Senator from the State of Idaho..... 1
Smith, Hon. Bob, U.S. Senator from the State of New Hampshire.... 14
WITNESSES
Clark, Jamie, Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service........... 4
Prepared statement........................................... 40
Hill, Barry, Associate Director for Energy, Resources and
Science, U.S. General Accounting Office........................ 3
Letter, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service....................... 7
Prepared statement........................................... 31
Lamson, Susan, Director, Conservation Wildlife and Natural
Resources, National Rifle Association.......................... 22
Prepared statement........................................... 62
Nussman, Mike, Vice President, American Sportfishing Association. 24
Prepared statement........................................... 65
Peterson, R. Max, Executive Vice President, International
Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies...................... 21
Prepared statement........................................... 45
Riley, Terry Z., Director of Conservation, Wildlife Management
Institute...................................................... 26
Prepared statement........................................... 68
ADDITIONAL MATERIAL
Memorandum, International Association of Fish and Wildlife
Agencies....................................................... 53
Letters:
American Fisheries Society................................... 70
National Wildlife Federation................................. 71
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, to GAO....................... 7
Statement, Safari Club International............................. 72
(iii)
U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE:
OVERSIGHT OF THE FEDERAL AID PROGRAM
----------
U.S. Senate,
Senate Environment and Public Works Committee,
Subcommittee on Fisheries, Wildlife and Water,
Washington, DC.
The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 9:32 a.m. in
room 406, Dirksen Senate Building, Hon. Michael Crapo (chairman
of the committee) presiding.
Present: Senators Crapo, Boxer, and Smith [ex officio].
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. MICHAEL D. CRAPO,
U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF IDAHO
Senator Crapo. This hearing will come to order.
This is the Subcommittee on Fisheries, Wildlife and Water
hearing on the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service use of Federal
Aid program administrative funds. I appreciate the witnesses
joining us here today to explore the issue of the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife administration of the Federal Aid program.
This program has been a great success. However, revelations
of the use of administrative funds has cast a shadow on the
program, and that's part of the reason that we are here today.
we need to ensure that the faith placed in this program is
restored. And the intent of this hearing is to find out what
must be done to restore the trust and responsibility and
accountability within the program.
It's rare to find citizens advocating a tax. But hunters,
shooting enthusiasts, fishermen and boaters have all stepped up
to the plate to help fund a program that helps wildlife and
sports fish and all Americans. It's important that the people
who pay into this program have the assurance that their money
is going toward the programs that they were intended for, for
State wildlife and sport fish restoration programs.
I would be remiss if I did not note all the hard work that
Representative Don Young of Alaska, chairman of the House
Resources Committee, has invested in this issue. It was
Chairman Young who initiated the investigations into the
problems with the program and brought public attention to the
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Administration. Additionally, Chairman
Young was the first to introduce legislation to help rebuild
the trust in the program by reforming the administration of
these funds in the Division of Federal Aid.
The House Resources Committee and General Accounting Office
investigation into the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Federal Aid
program have raised serious questions about the management and
administration of the program. I anticipate that the General
Accounting Office will outline the findings of their
investigation in their testimony.
I look forward to hearing the testimony of the GAO, the
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and testimony from those who
have so willingly contributed so much to the program, and those
who benefit from that program. These testimonies and
discussions will be helpful in discovering the problems and
strengths of the program, and most importantly, what is
necessary to fix the problem.
The problems uncovered by the House investigation and the
General Accounting Office clearly indicate that fixes are
necessary. A 423 to 2 vote in the House shows that this is not
a partisan reform. It's obvious that legislation is necessary
to restore faith in the system.
This is about good government. And although this is a
hearing on administration of the program, I have no doubt that
there will be discussions and critiques of the bills that have
been introduced to address the problems with the administration
of these funds. I look forward to this discussion.
Before we start, I'd also like to thank the many people who
have submitted written testimony for the record. The public
uses and benefits from the Federal Aid program projects and
programs are vital to ensuring support for the program.
Hunting, fishing, dog field trials, hunter education and
improvement programs are all important and appropriate
activities under the Federal Aid program. And we appreciate
hearing from the advocates of each of these uses.
I look forward to a constructive hearing and one that will
explore how we can best ensure that trust and accountability
are restored to the Federal Aid and wildlife and sport fish
restoration programs. I welcome our witnesses here today, and
we will be calling you to the table after other members, if
they show, are going to have an opportunity to share some
comments.
Without objection, those who cannot join us will be
permitted the opportunity to provide written testimony for the
record.
I should say that we've had a lot of interest expressed in
this. It may not appear so from the lack of attendance at this
point. But I understand that the CARA markup--is that right?--
is going on right now. So a lot of our friends on the committee
and otherwise who would like to be here to either participate
or listen are unavoidably at another location. We hope that
they will be able to make it here for part of the hearing.
And I'll assure those of you who have prepared your
testimony and made the effort to get here that even if some of
them are held up in the CARA hearing for the entirety of this
hearing, that your testimony will be read, reviewed and
carefully evaluated.
And since we at this point do not have any other members
present who may wish to make a statement, I believe that we
will proceed immediately to the first panel. Our first panel is
Mr. Barry Hill, the Associate Director for Energy, Resources
and Science of the General Accounting Office; and the Honorable
Jamie Clark, Director of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Services.
We welcome you both here today.
And Mr. Hill, we will have you go first. I will explain to
all of the witnesses, including those who are not in the first
panel, what the rules are. We have a series of lights here.
You'll be given 5 minutes to summarize your written testimony.
That's never enough time to get through all of your written
testimony, and so we encourage you to try to summarize it as
best you can, so that the opportunity for give and take can
take place between us in terms of questioning.
I assure you that your written testimony is very carefully
evaluated.
And with that, oh, I should explain, the green light will
stay on for 4 minutes. The yellow light will come on for the
remaining minute, and then the red light means that you should
wrap up your testimony so we can proceed.
Mr. Hill.
STATEMENT OF BARRY HILL, ASSOCIATE DIRECTOR FOR ENERGY,
RESOURCES AND SCIENCE, U.S. GENERAL ACCOUNTING OFFICE
Mr. Hill. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Before I begin, I want to thank you for the opportunity to
discuss the results of our work on the Fish and Wildlife
Service's wildlife restoration program. And I'd like to point
out that the information I'm presenting today is based on the
work that we completed last September. Therefore we've not had
an opportunity to update the work or to determine what actions
the Fish and Wildlife Service has taken in response to our
findings.
The work we did last year focused on the Service's
management and oversight of the administrative funds associated
with the wildlife restoration program, and to a lesser extent,
the sport fish restoration program. Our results were provided
to the House Resources Committee in testimonies on July 20th
and September 29th, 1999. Funds for the wildlife and sport fish
restoration programs are derived from excise taxes from the
sale of firearms, ammunition, archery equipment, fishery
equipment, and other items. These programs received about $550
million in fiscal year 1998, of which about $31 million was
used for administration and implementation, $13.5 million for
wildlife and $17.4 million for sport fish.
The Service's Office of Federal Aid has the responsibility
for providing overall program support and direction for
implementing both of the restoration programs.
Let me briefly recap our July 19, 1999 testimony. Last
July, we identified numerous problems with the way the
administrative funds were used and managed. We believed that
these problems had spawned a culture of permissive spending
within the Office of Federal Aid. The problems we identified
were not trivial, and included inadequate controls over
expenditures, revenues and grants, inability to track millions
of dollars in program funds, non-compliance with basic
principles and procedures for managing travel funds, non-
compliance with basic internal control standards or Office of
Management and Budget guidance for maintaining complete and
accurate grant files, inconsistent use by regional offices of
administrative funds and the use of these funds for purposes
that were not clearly justified, inaccurate charges for
Service-wide overhead, lack of routine audits to determine
whether administrative funds were being used for authorized
purposes and questionable processes used for resolving audit
findings involving States' use of program funds.
It's important to point out that many of the problems we
identified were the same as those we previously reported on in
1993 pertaining to the sport fish restoration program.
Therefore, the agency had not been entirely responsive to our
earlier recommendations to correct the management problems.
Now, I'd like to turn my remarks to what we said about the
options to improve the use of the administrative funds. In
light of the broad scope of the management problems that we
identified, we believe that there were at least three primary
options to consider for controlling the use of administrative
funds. First, the Office of Federal Aid could have been given
additional time to correct the problems we identified in our
work. This option would probably have had the least impact on
the Office's current operations, but it would have required
followup at some point in time to verify that the promised
corrective actions had been taken.
Second, legislative limits could be placed on how the
Service spends administrative funds. For example, the spending
of administrative funds could be limited to functions necessary
for the Office of Federal Aid to carry out its most basic
responsibilities, such as administering the formula for getting
grant funds to the states and other qualified government
recipients. This option would likely result in less money being
spent for the administration of the program and would make more
funds available for distribution to the States and other
qualified government recipients.
A third option would be to require the Service to use
appropriated funds to administer the wildlife and sport fish
restoration programs and devote all excise tax revenues to
State and other qualified government recipient grants. This
option would require the Service to annually justify to the
Congress the amounts of funds it needs for administering the
program.
Therefore, the programs would be more visible to the
Congress and would be competing against other programs within
the Department of Interior for appropriated funds.
Finally, Mr. Chairman, subsequent to our July 20th
testimony, the House Committee on Resources asked us to respond
to a number of questions that it had about issues raised at
that hearing. We've included our responses to those questions
as an appendix to my statement today.
Mr. Chairman, this concludes my prepared statement. I'd be
happy to answer any questions that you have.
Senator Crapo. Thank you very much, Mr. Hill.
And we'll ask questions after Jamie has concluded her
testimony. So Ms. Clark, would you please proceed?
STATEMENT OF JAMIE CLARK, DIRECTOR, U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE
SERVICE
Ms. Clark. Thank you and good morning, Mr. Chairman.
I do appreciate the opportunity to talk with you about the
Federal Aid program this morning. I know that you personally
are aware of how important the Federal Aid program is to Fish
and Wildlife and to hunting and fishing in our country.
The sport fish and wildlife restoration programs have
provided reliable, consistent funding for conservation for many
years, and will continue to do so in the future. They've
brought back some of our most important game species. They've
allowed for the growth of fish and wildlife management as a
profession. And they've provided for hunter safety training.
They also have provided facilities and opportunities for
hunting, fishing and boating.
I must admit that when I became Director 3 years ago, I
didn't expect to be spending so much time on strengthening the
management of our Federal Aid program. The program's been in
existence for over 60 years, and candidly, it seemed to be
running along pretty well. In hindsight, the program had become
perhaps so familiar and routine that as the years went by, it
was not receiving the kind of top level management scrutiny
that it needed.
In the last year, both the General Accounting Office and
the majority staff of the House Resources Committee
investigated the Service's management of the Federal Aid
administrative dollars. They did find poor record keeping,
citing deficiencies in our use of funds and other management
concerns. And as the current Service Director, I have the
responsibility for these programs and for these problems. And
I'm committed to fixing them on my watch. These programs are
way too important to be poorly managed.
There have been a number of allegations about diversion,
waste, or illegal use of Federal Aid funds made by some
parties. I don't want to spend a lot of time responding to
these, but I'd like to briefly address a few of the inaccurate
claims that have raised considerable concerns among our
program's constituents. First, no Federal Aid money was ever
granted to any anti-hunting organization, nor did the Service
ever intend to issue such a grant. No employee was ever
dismissed for refusing to grant money to an anti-hunting
organization.
Second, and equally important, no money is missing. GAO
auditors did find poor record keeping in our Washington
division of Federal Aid Office, and there were discrepancies
between accounting systems maintained in the division, in our
Service-wide accounting system in Denver. These accounts have
all been reconciled and every single dollar has been accounted
for.
Finally, I'd like to point out that despite these various
allegations, the GAO has never accused the Service of doing
anything illegal. Interestingly, GAO has yet to even issue a
final report on this audit, though I formally asked them for
it, which seems surprising in view of their harshly worded
House testimony last fall.
Although we strongly disagreed with some of their
testimony, as detailed in my formal statement, we nevertheless
took GAO's criticisms very seriously. We've undertaken a wide
ranging review of the program, both internally and in
cooperation with our State partners. And as a result, we've put
in place a considerable number of changes to improve
management.
With the help of the International Association of Fish and
Wildlife Agencies, we convened a State Federal review team. The
team issued recommendations in November, and we're in the
process of implementing many of them right now. We've tightened
oversight of spending with the Federal Aid program and are
phasing in spending reductions to lower the administrative
costs to 4 percent of total receipts for each program.
We've eliminated the Federal Aid administrative grants and
the Director's Conservation Fund, two grant programs with
record keeping that was strongly and rightfully criticized by
GAO. We've implemented a direct cost assessment for common
service expenses.
We're now testing a new computer interface for
communication between the Federal Aid accounting system and the
Service's main financial system to avoid any future
discrepancies in accounting for program funds in the future.
We've also initiated an outside audit of our Federal Aid
administrative expenses, and the Washington office of Federal
Aid now has new leadership while organizational changes and
personnel changes have been made both in Washington and the
regions.
In short, our critics did identify some real administrative
problems that clearly needed corrections. My formal statement
has more details on what we're doing to resolve these problems.
The Service has many very dedicated professionals who are
working to put the program back on course, who are working with
States and constituent groups to ensure that the Federal Aid
program not only improves, but prospers.
And I pledge to you, Mr. Chairman, and to all of America's
hunters, boaters and anglers that the Service can and will do a
better job and a more effective job of administering these
critically important programs.
I'd like to touch briefly on the pending legislation. We
have three concerns. First, the funding level is insufficient
to permit proper management of the program. We've proposed to
reduce the amount of administrative funds from the wildlife
restoration fund by 50 percent and from the sport fish funds by
one third, so that we would not use more than 4 percent from
either program for administration.
That's a major reduction. To cut further would require us
to eliminate staff. Neither GAO nor any of the other program
constituency groups has ever contended that our program is
overstaffed.
Second, there's no flexibility to permit us to meet
legislative but unanticipated expenses. We propose a process
similar to reprogramming to address this, in which we'd give
the committee and House Resources written notice, 30 days in
advance, for the justification prior to making any such
expenditure.
And last, the bill in Title III directs that specific staff
positions within this program be created and abolished. That's
unnecessary micromanagement, which I hope you'll resist.
Mr. Chairman, both you and Congress and those who pay for
these programs have a right to expect the funds for the Federal
Aid program to be wisely used. With the changes we've
initiated, we expect this will be the case, and we welcome any
oversight hearing at this time next year to further review and
measure the efficiencies we're implementing in our
administration of the Federal Aid program.
This concludes my statement and I'd be pleased to respond
to questions.
Senator Crapo. Thank you very much.
Let me begin first with you, Mr. Hill, and some questions.
In your statement, you noted that there had been an absence of
routine audits in the Federal Aid's use of administrative
funds. Given the problems that you found, who should conduct
those audits and how often should such audits be performed?
Mr. Hill. We have not carefully examined either the House
bill or the Senate bill. But I do believe that the Senate bill,
2609, does include independent audits to be done every 2 years.
We think this would be a very good idea. That kind of audit
oversight is necessary, and I believe it calls for an
independent auditor to basically conduct these audits, which we
would also support.
Senator Crapo. Thank you. When you completed your work last
September, the Office of Federal Aid said that it was taking a
number of initiatives to address the concerns that were raised.
Can you review some of the steps that were promised, or
promised actions, and do you think that those actions are
sufficient if they are implemented?
Mr. Hill. Yes, Mr. Chairman. As a matter of fact, those
corrective actions were sent to us in an August 10th letter
from the Fish and Wildlife Service. And if I could, I'd like to
submit that for the record.
Senator Crapo. Without objection.
[The information referred to follows:]
U.S. Department of the Interior,
Fish and Wildlife Service
Washington, DC 20240, August 10, 1999.
Mr. Barry T. Hill, Associate Director,
United States General Accounting Office,
Washington, DC 20548
Dear Mr. Hill: The General Accounting Office raised a number of
important issues at the July 20, 1999, oversight hearing by the House
Resources Committee regarding the Fish and Wildlife Service's
administration of the Federal Aid program. As the hearing was recessed
before we had the opportunity to present testimony, we are writing to
clarify several issues and inform you about a number of important
initiatives and actions the Service has already taken, or has begun, to
improve the overall effectiveness of the Federal Aid program. The
Service is committed to assuring the quality and integrity of the
Federal Aid program.
FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE INITIATIVES TO IMPROVE THE FEDERAL AID
PROGRAM
First, we want to highlight a number of corrective measures that
were initiated by the Service well before the beginning of the current
GAO audit. In September 1998, we published a Federal Register query to
solicit public input to identify better ways to manage the
administrative grants. Subsequently, we decided to terminate both the
administrative grants program and the Director's Conservation Fund.
While due in part to budgetary constraints, the decision was also in
recognition of concerns received in response to the Federal Register
notice regarding the management of these grants. In a May 12, 1999,
letter to the International Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies
(IAFWA), the Service officially announced its plans. We then published
a Federal Register notice terminating Federal Aid administrative
grants.
At an early May meeting with the IAFWA, the Service initiated an
oversight evaluation of Washington and regional-level administration of
the Federal Aid program to be conducted in cooperation with our State
partners. The State/Service Review Team met formally for the first time
on July 27 and 28, 1999, and then again on August 4--6, 1999,
to identify ways in which Federal Aid can be refined and improved
to meet the challenges ahead. During this evaluation, the Review Team
will also carefully consider current and previous GAO findings and
recommendations to improve program management.
GAO POINTS THAT HAVE BEEN OR ARE BEING ADDRESSED
First, GAO's testimony correctly refers to an $85 million
discrepancy due to administrative errors, such as clerical mistakes, as
the Service attempts to reconcile accounts in its new grant financial
management and information system. However, this figure is not put in
context. Many of these ``errors'' were nothing more than differences
between informal accounts maintained by staff and actual postings by
our Financial Service Center. Such differences arose due to the timing
of official postings. In 1998 in order to address this and other
problems, Federal Aid and the Service's Division of Finance commenced a
joint effort to identify the specific grant records, correct data
errors, and most importantly, create a new data management system. This
reconciliation has been a time and labor intensive effort, but much
progress has been made. In fact on the date of the hearing, the
discrepancy had been reduced to less than $7.5 million, and we soon
expect to have full reconciliation. We are also confident that we will
complete the new management system in the fall of 1999, and it will
eliminate recurrence of this problem.
There is also a reference in GAO's testimony to a ``missed
opportunity to earn over $400,000 in interest income.'' The Service's
transfer of $9.7 million for work on the National Survey of Hunting,
Fishing and Wildlife Associated Recreation represented the amount we
believed at the time was essential for the Bureau of the Census to
ensure on-schedule completion of the survey. We recognize that interest
income was lost. To avoid similar future losses, we will make only
those payments essential for incremental progress in carrying out the
survey. We would note that the Service was cost-conscious in its
planning for the 1996 Survey and was able to complete this project at a
cost almost $5 million less than the 1991 National Survey.
GAO testimony notes travel discrepancies in the Of lice of Federal
Aid. Concurring that this problem warrants immediate attention, the
Service has suspended the Limited Open Travel Authorization for the
entire of lice and re-apprised all staff of Service travel rules and
regulations. In addition, the Chief of the of rice was directed to
submit all future travel vouchers to his supervisor, the Assistant
Director for External Affairs, for appropriate review.
GAO testimony notes that the Service does not have a routine audit
program for the review of the use of administrative funds. In 1998, the
Service initiated efforts with the Defense Contract Audit Agency (DCAA)
to establish such an audit program, but DCAA ultimately advised us they
would be unable to develop this program. The Service agrees that an
audit program for administrative funds is important and has asked the
State/Federal review team to offer guidance as we establish an audit
procedure.
GAO states that there is neither uniformity nor guidance concerning
regional office uses of administrative funds. The Service has sought to
provide a workable degree of consistency--recognizing that our State
clients and their needs vary dramatically from Region to Region. As
part of our annual budget guidance, the Service has directed Regional
Directors as follows: ``No assessments may be levied against any
program, budget activity, subactivity, or project funded by the
[Federal Aid in Wildlife Restoration] Act unless advance notice of such
assessments and the basis therefore are presented to the committee on
Appropriations and are approved by such committee.'' The Service
acknowledges that not all Regions have followed this guidance. In order
to assure accountability and adherence to budget guidance, the Service
will identify and adopt specific steps to help provide consistency and
uniformity. Additionally, the Service will seek guidance in this area
from the State/Service Federal Aid Review Team.
GAO POINTS THAT NEED CLARIFICATION OR CORRECTION
GAO made a number of points in their testimony we believe were
based on incomplete or erroneous information or assumptions.
GAO's testimony refers to an accumulation of ``over $100,000 in
contract generated fees, the disposition of which is unclear.'' The
Service has thoroughly reviewed the contract in question and finds no
ambiguity whatever regarding the ``fees'' generated under this
contract. The contract specifically states that the Government pays to
the contractor the costs of providing services to cooperators. The
contractor is allowed to charge non-cooperators, primarily non-
government organizations and private researchers, costs for copying,
compiling, and mailing information they request. Thus, the ``generated
funds'' are not ``profits'' to the contractor, but are fees the
contractor collects to offset its costs. Nonetheless, the Service's
contracting officer will make necessary modifications to clarify
language to avoid possible misinterpretation.
GAO also notes that the Service has completed audit reports on how
grant funds are being used in 22 States, and that the resolution in the
case of two states may not comply with legal program requirements. In
the view of our Solicitor, these resolutions are consistent with legal
requirements and the Service may decide these matters within its
policymaking authority.
ADDITIONAL CONCERNS
Other witnesses at the hearing made misleading and inaccurate
statements about Federal Aid grant recipients. Therefore, we hope that
GAO will respond quickly to the committee's request to specify the
recipients of the Director's former Administrative Grants and the
Director's Conservation Fund moneys. It is important to clarify that
none of the Federal Aid grant funds have been directed to animal rights
or anti-hunting groups. Your response to the committee will help them
verify that the Service has issued grants only to groups representing
the recipients authorized by law--hunters, anglers, and boaters--or to
projects of benefit to State wildlife agencies and managers.
In summary, it is important to note that Service management is
providing leadership in identifying and dealing with Federal aid
issues. The Service acknowledges the accuracy and merit of many of the
GAO findings and welcomes your assistance in our efforts to improve our
management of the Federal Aid Program. At the same time, we hope that
GAO will take note of our efforts to address criticisms of our
administration of Federal Aid. The success of this time-tested program
is essential, not only to our State partners, but also to the natural
resources of this nation.
Sincerely,
John G. Rogers, Director.
Mr. Hill. Basically, there were a number of actions
promised, and some of these actually were promised prior to the
conclusion of our audit work. For example, they terminated both
the administrative grant program and the Director's
Conservation Fund.
In dealing with the travel voucher approval situation they
re-appraised all the staff of what the rules and regulations
were. They advised the chief of the Office of Financial Aid to
only have a supervisor sign his travel vouchers and not have
subordinates sign them.
And they also said they were going to deal with the issue
of the lost interest income by making payments to the Census
Bureau for studies and surveys on a more incremental basis,
rather than in an up-front lump sum.
Senator Crapo. And have those actions been completed, to
your knowledge?
Mr. Hill. That I do not know. We have not done any
additional followup work. So we don't know what the status of
those actions or if they have been implemented effectively.
Senator Crapo. That was going to be my next question. If
they are or were implemented already, or if they are ultimately
implemented, do you think that those actions are adequate?
Mr. Hill. I think the actions that are outlined in the
August 10th letter, if implemented effectively, would go a long
way toward correcting many of the problems and the abuses that
we found operating in the program.
Senator Crapo. Let me just briefly shift over to you,
Director Clark. With regard to those actions promised in that
letter, have they been fully implemented at this point?
Ms. Clark. Many of them that Mr. Hill mentioned have. In
fact, all the ones that he has mentioned. We had suspended, GAO
did find some very serious management discrepancies. And we
took swift action to address those.
We suspended or eliminated the two funds that he mentioned
prior to this review, for financial reasons and management
reasons. The travel issue that he brought up and the signing of
travel vouchers and travel papers, were also suspended. We have
new leadership in the whole Office of Federal Aid and are
undergoing an entire management review of the operation, both
in Washington and the regions. All the money has been accounted
for and we have an outside contractor that's reviewing and
auditing the Federal Aid administrative unit and the
administration of funds within the Federal Government.
Senator Crapo. Thank you.
Let me say, as I proceed with further questions for you,
Director Clark, I want to say first of all, I have appreciated
working with you on many issues, and have trust in your
management and your commitment to address this issue and find
solutions to it. And I believe that when you say that you
recognize a problem exists and you're going to solve it that
you will. And so I appreciate that very much.
In fact, I also appreciate your candor in indicating that
this was a program that maybe fell between the cracks in terms
of its oversight, and that it's become a problem that you're
now aware of and you're going to address it. And I think that's
a very candid explanation of what may have brought us to this
point.
Certainly with a program that's 60 years old and had the
kind of public support that this did, one would think that
perhaps it had found itself a groove and was operating
properly. And apparently that's not the case, and so we're here
to find out how to fix it. But I do want to say that I
appreciate your attention to these matters, and have confidence
in your commitment that you will try to solve them.
Nonetheless, we are going to go through and evaluate this
very carefully, and that's one of the purposes of this
oversight hearing.
In your testimony, you indicated that no anti-hunting
groups had been given any funds and that no one had lost their
job for refusing to approve grants to anti-hunting groups. I'm
sure you're aware of the allegations that have been made. I
just wanted to go over that again with you carefully, because
I've seen information that raises a big question about that.
But you are indicating that no money has been used out of this
fund for groups that are anti-hunting, and that there is no
pressure within the agency to cause employees of the agency to
direct funds in that direction?
Ms. Clark. Absolutely not. I mean, it's very clear what
these funds are to be used for. That doesn't mean we don't get
grant requests. I can't control the incoming. But certainly we
have an obligation to manage the outgoing. And there have been
no moneys granted to anti-hunting organizations, and as my
testimony indicates, no employee was ever dismissed for failing
to do so.
Senator Crapo. And you would agree, wouldn't you, that the
purpose of these funds, that it is not a proper purpose or a
proper use of these funds to support anti-hunting efforts, such
as those which are at issue in these allegations?
Ms. Clark. I would agree.
Senator Crapo. You also indicated that no money was
missing. And my understanding was that in about 1998, the
Service undertook a strong effort to reconcile the financial
and reporting systems that tracked sport fish and wildlife
obligations. It was my understanding that as of about August of
last year, there was still a discrepancy of about $7.5 million.
And I understand then that today you're telling me that that
discrepancy has also been closed, and that you are in a
position to account for all of the dollars.
Ms. Clark. The discrepancy is zero.
Senator Crapo. Good. You also raised some legislative
concerns. Your first concern was the concern with regard to the
funding levels being insufficient. As you're aware, the funding
levels in the Senate bill have been raised above that which was
in the House bill. But do you still believe the Senate bill is
insufficient?
Ms. Clark. Yes, I do. And I say that with some hesitation,
because I think it's awkward to react to an amount while we're
undergoing a review, we're undergoing a pretty significant
review about what is the appropriate Federal oversight role.
And so rather than saying it's $10 million or $15 million or
$30 million, or a percentage, you know, we worked hard or are
working hard to describe the legitimate uses and the legitimate
roles. And in our review thus far, we believe ratcheting down
to 4 percent of whatever the total is is appropriate, which
will cause some streamlining and some consolidation.
But clearly, the numbers in the House bill would have sent
us beyond, I think, any appropriate Federal oversight limits.
That's something we'd like to work with the committee on.
Senator Crapo. And then you also indicated, I think your
second concern was the concern with regard to how you would
deal with unanticipated expenses. What would your proposal be
there?
Ms. Clark. I certainly agree--I'm right there with the
committee about refining and clarifying and making very
transparent the appropriate uses of these two funds, these two
accounts, you know, what is a legitimate use and what are the
kinds of projects and proposals that should be funded.
But clearly, and I've learned this in other programs, the
minute you have a closed loop process, something can pop out.
And so that happens with appropriations at times, and we have
the reprogramming process that allow the agency, the Department
to come to Congress to engage in a conversation or a debate on
whether or not that could also be considered appropriate.
So I don't mind at all the list of allowable uses. But we
think that having a kind of reprogramming like capability to
address unforeseen circumstances, that may be in the Congress's
mind, would be an appropriate use. But it just wasn't
anticipated when we were creating the list for the legislation.
But the process would involve Congress in that kind of
deliberation.
Senator Crapo. So now, in Mr. Hill's testimony, he talked
about several different possible ways to approach this, one of
which would be to have an annual appropriations approach by
Congress. I assume you're not suggesting that for the overall
administrative funds section. But do I understand you to be
suggesting perhaps something like that in the context of
unanticipated expenses, where you would come to Congress and
ask for reprogramming?
Ms. Clark. It's a reprogram-like exercise. I believe it
would be prudent for us to have the flexibility, at any given
time during the year to come back to the Congress if there was
an opportunity or an issue that fell outside that list of 12 or
whatever the number is. And have the discussion, if it's off-
cycle, of whether or not that could be an appropriate use or an
appropriate expenditure of the flexible administrative funds.
And so I call it reprogramming, because that's a process I'm
used to on the appropriations side. But it's something like
that.
Senator Crapo. Mr. Hill, what do you think of that idea?
Mr. Hill. Well, clearly this is an important program and
there are administrative expenses that can be expected in any
type of program like this. You want to make sure that there are
sufficient funds to cover legitimate administrative expenses.
The problem in the past was in making sure that the expenses
that were being claimed were legitimate and were directed or
being used toward the administration of this program.
So I think if Fish and Wildlife can come back and
demonstrate that these are legitimate costs of running the
program that are currently not covered under the law, it is
certainly worth your attention and has to be dealt with.
Senator Crapo. Thank you. I just have one other question,
then I'll turn to my colleagues for their opening statements,
and then we'll allow them to also have a round of questions.
My question was on your third point, Director Clark, and
that is your point that the legislation should not micromanage
by directing what staff positions are needed or not needed.
Could you get a little more detailed in terms of what specific
concerns you have with the proposals that are in the
legislation?
Ms. Clark. Certainly. On the organizational front, I
believe strongly whatever the program is that the Fish and
Wildlife Service is responsible for, the accountable official
is the director. I've certainly learned that in living
technicolor in the last year.
But that aside, I think it is unnecessary micromanagement,
given the kind of nature of an executive branch organization,
to prescribe what a division chief of the organization should
or shouldn't be. So whether or not I have an assistant director
for Federal Aid or we combine programs or whether or not we
abolish the chief of a division I think is not necessary, when
in fact the accountable official is the director. And I believe
that the director, whoever that might be, should be the
accountable official and have discretion to align their
organization to meet today's resource challenges in whatever
way the constraints of budget and organization require, as long
as they're responsive to the Congress.
Senator Crapo. Thank you. Mr. Hill, do you have an opinion
on this issue?
Mr. Hill. This is a difficult one, because you've got a
program here that for 60 years has basically run with little
oversight. Now we find it's got poor management and internal
controls. I think the knee jerk reaction of Congress,
rightfully so, when the agency has not managed this program, is
to step in and make sure that the taxpayers' dollars are being
used wisely.
So there's a fine line here. I think it's a question of
trust in the agency. The agency does not, based on their
record, have a lot of trust right now, rightfully so. So it's a
balancing act. I think the solution to this thing is for
continued and long-term oversight by the Congress on a yearly
basis.
Senator Crapo. Thank you. I will note for Senator Smith and
Senator Boxer that we were aware, because of other things going
on this morning, that you may not be able to get here on time.
So I indicated that when you arrived, you'd be welcome to make
your opening statements.
Senator Boxer. I insist.
[Laughter.]
Senator Crapo. Then we'll turn first to Senator Boxer.
Senator Boxer. Thank you.
Senator Crapo. And pleased be assured that following your
opening statements, you'll also have full opportunity for
questioning.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. BARBARA BOXER,
U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
Senator Boxer. Thank you so much, Mr. Chairman.
I did have the honor, and a very hard day, we lost Senator
Coverdell, Fritz Hollings' brother passed away, it's just a
tough day for some of our colleagues and for a lot of us. And I
just want to say thank you for understanding.
I had the privilege of introducing Norm Mineta to John
McCain's committee today. He has, as you know, been nominated
for Secretary of Commerce. So I just came from there. It was a
joyful moment in this difficult time.
Mr. Chairman, I'm pleased that you're having this oversight
hearing to discuss the Federal Aid program. For decades, this
program has served as a vital source of funding for Fish and
Wildlife restoration efforts and habitat conservation programs.
And I do understand that serious concerns have been raised
about the way the program has been administered, and I don't in
any way debate the fact that there are problems.
But I do believe that the Fish and Wildlife Service is
taking important steps to remedy these issues. And I think what
must not get lost in this discussion is the fact that that
Federal Aid program is a critically important conservation
program, and one that has, despite its problems and for the
most part, functioned effectively and accomplished its goals.
And I think any changes to it should be done carefully and
in a way that allows the program to continue to function
effectively. I am concerned that some of the proposals I've
heard about go too far in their effort to limit Federal
oversight of these State grants. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service has an important role to play in this process. Among
other things, we need to ensure that they have the fiscal
resources that they need to accomplish this task of oversight.
If we ask them to operate with one hand tied behind their back,
the whole program will suffer. We'll only have more problems
with the program.
So I do look forward to working with the subcommittee and
the full committee and my chairman, Chairman Smith, to develop
a proposal that addresses some of the concerns that have been
raised, but which also allow for appropriate and necessary
Federal oversight.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Crapo. Thank you very much, Senator Boxer. And
before either of you arrived, I did indicate myself that I have
a very good working relationship personally with Director
Clark, and have confidence in her commitment to resolving these
issues.
Senator Boxer. Thank you so much.
Senator Crapo. Senator Smith.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. BOB SMITH,
U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE
Senator Smith. Thank you, Senator Crapo. I, too, have had a
good working relationship with Ms. Clark. These things are
embarrassing, but you know, we have to work through them. And
Congress does have, you know, we do have oversight. And
unfortunately, the only time that oversight seems to get any
attention is when we find, something turns up wrong. If the
oversight was done properly, maybe we wouldn't have these
problems in the first place.
I thank you, Senator Crapo, for having the hearing. These
programs are very important to our States, as you well know. I
do have a statement for the record, Mr. Chairman, so I won't go
through all of it. But I am concerned about the GAO, what you
found, that not all the money that States are entitled to are
in fact being given. That's the bottom line.
And both Wallop-Breaux and Pittman-Robertson specifically
require that the Fish and Wildlife Service distribute all funds
remaining after prescribed administrative costs are deducted
back to those States. Instead, the Administration has done
other with those funds, and I would, I do have some specific
questions on that in terms of, when the appropriate time comes
for questions, I'd like to ask you, Mr. Hill, what about a the
legal authority to do that.
But you know, without replaying them all, the dinners and
so forth and all this stuff, it's embarrassing. And again,
these taxpayer dollars are supposed to go to those States for
these programs which have done so much good over the past 50
years, I guess. So I hope that working together, we'll be able
to come up with solutions that will put an end to this.
And I look forward to my opportunity to ask questions, Mr.
Chairman. And I ask unanimous consent that my complete
statement be made part of the record.
Senator Crapo. Without objection.
[The prepared statement of Senator Smith follows:]
STATEMENT OF HON. BOB SMITH, U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF NEW
HAMPSHIRE
Good morning. Thank you for joining us today to discuss the way
that the United States Fish and Wildlife Service has administered the
Wallop-Breaux and Pittman-Robertson Acts. This is an important issue
and I look forward to hearing the testimony. Also I want to extend my
thanks to Senator Crapo for holding this hearing.
Funding for the Wallop-Breaux and Pittman-Robertson Programs are
extremely important to the states. I know in New Hampshire that these
programs provide a significant amount of the State's Fish and Game
Department's funding. Considering how important this funding is to New
Hampshire and other states, I was appalled to learn about the Fish and
Wildlife Service's mismanagement of these programs. A public trust has
been violated when the General Accounting Office finds that a program
is riddled with ineffective management and oversight, inadequate
internal controls and a culture of permissive spending
When the Pittman-Robertson and Wallop-Breaux Restoration Funds were
created over 50 years ago, the intent of Congress was to allow
sportsmen to contribute to the preservation and enhancement of the
fields, streams and great outdoors that they enjoy so much. These Acts
together authorize the collection of an excise tax from the
manufacturers and importers of hunting and fishing equipment. Congress
entrusted the Fish and Wildlife Service, through the Federal Aid
Division, with the responsibility of managing these programs and
distributing the funds to the states. Unfortunately, the Fish and
Wildlife Service has violated that trust.
These are significant wildlife programs, with substantial resources
to fund them. Last year alone, sportsmen contributed over $430 million
to the programs. Every time a hunter buys a gun, or an angler buys a
rod, they know a portion of the cost is supposed to be given to the
states to fund conservation projects such as fish stocking or habitat
restoration. I say ``supposed to'' because GAO recently found that not
all of the money the States are entitled to is, in fact, being given to
them. Both the Wallop-Breaux and Pittman-Robertson Acts specifically
require that the Fish and Wildlife Service distribute all funds
remaining after prescribed administration costs are deducted back to
the states. Instead, the Administration has squandered the funds.
The problems that plague these programs are numerous. The Service
created several grant programs which they had, at best, questionable
authority to do. Initially, they failed to account for millions of
dollars. They ignored their own established guidelines for approving
travel. Furthermore, GAO reported earlier that the Service reimbursed
grantees for alcohol and dinners that cost over $150.00. If the Fish
and Wildlife Service had been a private business and the IRS audited
them, there would be a good chance that the owners of that company
would be sitting in jail by now. This is unacceptable behavior.
It is my hope that this oversight hearing will provide a thorough
airing of the problems identified by the GAO and any measures
implemented by the Service to address those problems. I believe that,
working together, we will be able to come up with solutions that will
put an end to the mismanagement that is in existence today and, at the
same time, institute a more effective way in which to manage these
programs in the future. These are worthwhile programs and it is our
responsibility to work together to solve any management problems to get
these programs back on track.
Senator Crapo. I have finished my first round of questions.
And so, Senator Boxer, if you have questions, we'll turn to
you.
Senator Boxer.
Senator Crapo. Senator Smith, please feel free to go ahead
with your first round of questions.
Senator Smith. Mr. Hill, do you believe that Fish and
Wildlife Service has the statutory authority to create the
Director's Conservation Fund on the administrative grants?
Mr. Hill. The Act expressly states that a percentage of the
funds can be used for ``administration and execution of the
program.'' This is traditionally what has been called and
considered the administrative funding of the program.
The Act also sets legislatively prescribed maximums that
can be used for the administration and execution. It's up to 8
percent for the wildlife program and a maximum of 6 percent for
the sport fish program. So that's clearly specified in the
legislation.
However, the statute does not specify what constitutes
program execution. I think this is where the gray area comes
in. So because of that, the legislation doesn't specifically
authorize or direct the Fish and Wildlife Service to establish
either an administrative grant program or a Director's
Conservation Fund.
But even though this is not specifically authorized or
directed by the legislation, certainly it's not precluded by
the legislation, either.
Senator Smith. Ms. Clark, I just, this is your, Fish and
Wildlife Service, sport fish and wildlife restoration program
pamphlet. It's a glossy, it's nicely done. And you know, as I
look at it, it's troubling to me that if you had, you see these
compare and contrast here between the three, you have the
current $22 plus million program and over here in the middle
you have the proposed 4 percent at $18 million.
And that's fine. But over here is what's troubling. Over
here on this column you have a headline, Sport Fish and
Wildlife Restoration Improvement Act, H.R. 3671, which is
Congressman Don Young's legislation, which is a piece of
legislation pending before Congress. And then you proceed to
tear that apart, that legislation. For example, you contrast
all the way across there, you say in the $22 million program,
35 grant managers, biologists, 15 financial specialists, 37
support personnel process grants within 10 to 15 work days.
Then over here under this proposal, you say, well, those work
days would be 25. And over here you point out that it would be
60 days.
And then you go on and on down the line, you really nail
the legislation hard in terms of what impact it would have on
you, which I don't dispute the fact that you have a right to
your opinion. But isn't that lobbying with taxpayer dollars?
This is a pending piece of legislation in the U.S. Congress.
And I don't think it's appropriate to do that.
Now, that means that somebody's tracking legislation using
taxpayer dollars to send out this brochure to lobby against a
piece of legislation in Congress, whether it's good or bad or
whether you're for it or against it. I mean, I could go through
several bullets in here that are pretty nasty in terms of what
you're saying about this legislation and what it's going to do
to you. And it may very well do that, and you may very well be
right.
But my point is, is that appropriate. And I would just ask
you, what account does that come out of? What lost out here
because somebody spent this money lobbying? This is lobbying,
that's what it is. If you look up the definition of lobbying,
it's trying to influence the passage of a piece of legislation.
And that's what this is doing. And it's being done at taxpayer
expense.
Ms. Clark. Well, I'm embarrassed to say I have not seen
that publication, Senator. But clearly, the Administration, the
Fish and Wildlife Service has a very straightforward position
on the House bill. And we've been asked on numerous occasions
to consider the effects of the House bill on the current
administration or the expected administration of the program.
Putting it in a glossy format is not a wise use of our
time. But I don't doubt the facts that you are reading to me
are very legitimate effects of enacting the legislation.
So the Fish and Wildlife Service's, the Administration's
positions on the effects of the House legislation are the
effects that have been publicly stated prior. But I don't
disagree with the format that we've launched it in. I do need
to check into that. I have not seen that.
Senator Smith. I understand. I just think this is a serious
error in judgment on somebody's part. To me it just shows, I
don't like the, I've never enjoyed nor will I do it now, to sit
and just literally beat up on a witness. That's very easy for
somebody to do sitting up here.
But the point is, what is the end result, what are we
trying to accomplish. I think what I sense is a bit of digging
in and defensiveness regarding some of the things that came out
of GAO. And I think on the contrary, what we need to do is look
at this in a way to correct these errors.
And I think what I am seeing here, and again, that's the
only reason I bring it up, there's nothing wrong with you
coming here and saying, testifying against a piece of
legislation, saying, look, I mean, this is what it's going to
do to my agency. But again, this is a piece of literature
that's put out at taxpayer expense by your agency. And I don't
know what the cost was, but I'm sure it was not cheap, I mean,
glossies cost money.
Ms. Clark. I'd be glad to followup and get back to you
specifically with what the intended purpose of that was and the
background. But if I could make just one comment. I'm way
beyond being defensive about this program at this point.
[Laughter.]
Ms. Clark. Clearly, it was a wakeup call. This program has
been on autopilot longer than it should have. And I've taken
very serious responsibility for regaining the trust of the Fish
and Wildlife Service with these important dollars, and making
sure that these dollars go to wildlife restoration and to sport
fish restoration. So I want to be clear about that.
Did we disagree with some of the allegations and the issues
raised by GAO? Yes, and we've been public about that. That's
probably not a surprise and GAO has responded and listened.
But is there a serious problem with this program? Were
there serious problems that GAO raised and the House Resources
Committee raised? Absolutely. And we immediately, we convened,
I put together six teams, I about shut the agency down, because
I pulled in our finance, pulled in external to Federal Aid, we
can't evaluate ourselves internally, pulled in inside expertise
in the audit functions and in the finance functions that are
outside the Division of Federal Aid, and an external auditor.
Because I was struggling not to react. There was a lot of
kind of sensationalism, allegation out there. And I was trying
not to react until I had fact. And there were some facts that
weren't real pretty. And I believe we have a corrective action
plan that will get us in the right place.
And the legislation that's being framed around that
corrective action, as far as I'm concerned, is rightful and
fine. I'm just concerned that it be reasonable, so that we
don't overcorrect.
Senator Smith. That's fair enough, and I know my time has
expired, Mr. Chairman. Let me just say we'll work with you, and
you are a career person that came up through the career ranks,
and I think you have a lot at stake here, which I think is
good.
Ms. Clark. Absolutely.
Senator Smith. So let's try to work together to correct it.
But you ought to look into that particular point there.
Ms. Clark. I certainly will.
Senator Smith. Because I don't think that's appropriate,
honestly. And even if it were something that I would support,
or oppose one way or the other, I don't think it's appropriate.
But we'll work with you.
Ms. Clark. Thank you.
Senator Crapo. Thank you.
Senator Boxer, did you have any questions?
Senator Boxer. I just want to say that I agree with Senator
Smith and his critique here. I think it's fine if somebody
writes a letter into the agency that says, dear Ms. Clark, I
heard about this bill that Congressman Young has, what are the
facts. You want to respond to that, you want to send a fact
sheet out, that's one thing.
But I agree with Senator Smith on this point. I mean, I
looked at it, I don't think it, it is factual, it doesn't say
this is the worst piece of legislation ever to hit the Hill,
but it's clearly improper, in my view. Unless again you're
writing this in response to some inquiry, fine. So I want to
associate myself with him on that point.
And I do want to thank you for your candor here. You know,
it's awful when bad things happen to good programs. And I think
you put your finger on it, when something runs on automatic
pilot and people say, well, they did that before, and I guess
it's OK if I go to dinner, because they did that before, it's
very dangerous. So I think it should be a signal to all of us,
you know, whether it's in our own offices and looking at what
we do all the time, and reevaluating what we do all the time.
And I'm just pleased that you're willing to, first of all,
look into this. Because I think this is important, not only for
this agency, but all agencies under any president. And you
understand, you know, it's an understandable thing that people
are going to fight for their survival and their program, and
they don't see it as wrong.
I mean, I've seen Members of Congress who felt, well, I did
it this way 30 years ago. What do you mean I can't do it this
way any more? Well, there are changing ethics, and there are
changing values. We grow and we learn, we make mistakes and
we've got to change. And this is a program that clearly just
needs to be looked at from what I would call the zero based
budgeting way, you just bring it down to the bottom and build
it up and get rid of these bad practices.
And I am just comfortable, Mr. Chairman, that this will
happen. And I'm very hopeful that we will be able to work
together. And I think with your attitude, Director Clark, I
think we're going to be in OK shape. And with the leadership of
my colleagues, who I think are being quite reasonable here, and
I want to compliment them as well.
Thank you.
Senator Crapo. Thank you.
I just have a couple other quick questions. Mr. Hill, can
you explain how the service-wide administrative support account
is funded and used? Just briefly.
Mr. Hill. The service-wide administrative support account
is an account that's used to pay for service-wide overhead and
support such as phone bills, rent, training, and postage. The
funding for the account comes from three sources. There's
appropriated money that's used. There's money from reimbursable
agreements. And there's money that comes from a general
administrative services account, which is an assessment across
programs to help pay for the indirect expenses.
Senator Crapo. And can you tell me in your investigation,
did you find whether any reintroduction efforts or other
projects and initiatives had been funded through the service-
wide administrative support calendar?
Mr. Hill. Yes, we found that through the period of 1990
through 1998 that this account was used to fund over $10
million of director's office projects and initiatives that
included $400,000 for Atlantic salmon work, $200,000 for wolf
monitoring and reintroduction, $100,000 for rhinoceros
conservation studies. All of these were projects that were
being funded with an account that was set up to pay for
indirect expenses. These are clearly not indirect expenses.
Senator Crapo. And Director Clark, it's my understanding
that this revelation is one you've already dealt with? Could
you just explain how you're handling that issue?
Ms. Clark. Certainly. Well, the service-wide account is as
Mr. Hill explained. And the general administrative services,
the kind of assessment piece, we've refined, given the advances
in computer technology and the Department of Labor and GSA
having better space tracking capability for our Federal space.
And so we've gone to a direct cost. So each of our programs,
and we have many of them, now pay the direct cost of what their
overhead is. The projects, whether it's wolf introduction or
Atlantic salmon or rhino tiger kinds of work, were in fact
historically funded out of what was managed out of the
Director's office.
But the color of money, that's the only way I know how to
explain it, the accounting, the color of money can be tracked
back to endangered species or refuge operations or fisheries.
It was just the way that the Director discretionarily, that's
probably not even a word, but would manage some of these
projects that would come up during the year that wasn't within
the regional director's allocation.
The way that is' now handled is each of the programs,
whether it's refuge ops or fisheries or habitat conservation or
endangered species or the myriad of programs that we manage,
hold, for want of a better way to say it, hold money in
Washington to deal with projects that come up during the year.
And it's about this time of year that we kind of have a
projection of what we're going to close out September with, and
so we'll release those dollars to the regions in the project
area, or in the program area that they are.
For instance, the best way I can give you an example, out
in the west, we're dealing in Yellowstone with brucellosis, the
bison, elk, interaction. And it cropped up this year between
the National Park Service and us, dealing with the need to kick
off an EIS with the Senators and the Governors and
Congressional members of those States, Montana and Wyoming. We
released, because we had what I call holdback in Washington, in
refuge ops, I just authorized a release of whatever it was,
just for discussion's sake, $100,000 out of that account, out
of refuge ops.
Prior to it being sitting in those accounts, it would
cobble together in the Director's office. But the color of
money could always be tracked back to the program, and now it
stays sitting in the program. That's kind of a convoluted
answer. But it's much more transparent and much more visible,
and there's not a debate over where those moneys came from, as
a result of the way that we're now tracking the budget and the
way that we're now managing the accounts.
Senator Crapo. Mr. Hill, is that the kind of corrective
action that will solve this problem?
Mr. Hill. I can't say. We haven't looked at what the new
system they have. I think clearly we envision that this account
would strictly be set up to pay for overhead expenses. To
commingle appropriated funds being used to support projects
versus paying rent and phone bills gave us problems last year.
I'm not sure if the corrective action that the Director just
explained would solve that or not. We'd have to look at that in
some detail.
Senator Crapo. Thank you. Now, these projects that you're
talking about, Director Clark, are they what falls in the
category I've heard referred to as national projects, or
projects that are done on a national scale, so they don't
become part of the funds that are allocated out to the States
for the States to use?
Ms. Clark. That's a different issue. That's the allegations
about the slush fund. And the projects that I was referring to
were coming out of service-wide accounts.
Senator Crapo. OK.
Ms. Clark. The slush, the Director's conservation account
that we believed and our solicitors believed was within the
side boards of execution, and as Mr. Hill said, there's not
been a well defined agreement on the administration and
execution, which is what the statutory language, but what the
side boards of execution are.
But those dollars that were in the Director's conservation
fund funded explicit issues like National Fishing Week,
Becoming an Outdoors Woman, Hunter Ethics, Shooting Symposium,
Webless Migratory Bird Research. And so all of those dollars,
which were Federal Aid administrative dollars, all funded
wildlife restoration or sport fish restoration. And those were
clearly managed in a different way.
Senator Crapo. And it's my understanding that that fund,
the Director's conservation fund, has been eliminated.
Ms. Clark. It has been eliminated, as has the National
Administrative Grants program, which was also under question.
But I'll say this, the National Administrative Grants program
that some also challenged whether it met the definition of
execution, funded grants that came to us after deliberation by
a committee of the International Association of State Fish and
Wildlife Agencies.
So the States as partners evaluated all these proposals
with the Fish and Wildlife Service and came up with these
lists. And that's what will ultimately become, those kinds of
projects will ultimately become in some iteration of management
or legislation the projects of national benefit.
Senator Crapo. And so those projects won't necessarily be
lose, they'll just be handled in a different way at this point.
Ms. Clark. Possibly, yes.
Senator Crapo. All right, I have no further questions.
Senator Smith and Senator Boxer, do you have any more?
All right, thank you very much to both of you. We will
excuse you at this time. And we appreciate your attention to
these issues.
We will next call up panel No. 2. Mr. R. Max Peterson, the
Executive Vice President of the International Association of
Fish and Wildlife Agencies; Ms. Susan Lamson, the Director of
Conservation and Natural Resources, of the National Rifle
Association; Mr. Mike Nussman, Vice President of the American
Sportfishing Association; and Mr. Terry Riley, Director of
Conservation for the Wildlife Management Institute.
We thank all of you for coming. Again, I would remind you
of the instructions on your testimony to please try to watch
the lights, so that we'll have time for the questions as the
members of the panel come back. And we will start with you, Mr.
Peterson.
STATEMENT OF R. MAX PETERSON, EXECUTIVE VICE PRESIDENT,
INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF FISH AND WILDLIFE AGENCIES
Mr. Peterson. Thank you, Chairman Crapo.
You have my full statement, so I will try to brief it, if
you will make it available for the record.
Senator Crapo. We do, and I should indicate that the full
statements of all of you will be a part of the permanent
record.
Mr. Peterson. Let me first recognize that the two programs
we're talking about, the Federal Aid in Wildlife and the Sport
Fish Recreation programs, are undoubtedly the two most
successful programs we've ever seen in terms of Federal-State
cooperation and funding fish and wildlife. There isn't any
question that the 1937 Act that established the Wildlife
Restoration Fund and made it permanent made it possible to
recover common species like deer and turkey and elk and so on.
So the question of the effectiveness of these programs is
not in question. What is in question is whether the
administration of these programs within the discretionary
funding of the Service has been used wisely.
I would start out by saying that we are, as States, very
concerned about the problems, and we do not agree that they can
simply be solved administratively. We think Congress needs to
define what's administration. We think Congress needs to
specifically authorize a multi-State grant program, which has
been very important to the States. Because it doesn't make
sense for all 50 States to each do something if they can do it
cooperatively.
Let me just give you one example. Recently, we've had a
project called the Automated Wildlife Data System to help
States automate their systems of issuing fishing and hunting
licenses and to collect data on wildlife. When one State did
this alone, it cost $8 million to $10 million. When the States
went together with the project, you could get hardware
manufacturers and software manufacturers interested in putting
money into it, and we reduced the cost to about $1 million per
State.
So that program is very important. It's been in place for
about 25 years. It has been considered within the discretion
and use of administrative funds, although our own counsel some
years ago said that they would feel better if it were
specifically authorized in the Act.
And so we're in favor of legislation that specifically
defines administration. I don't at all doubt Director Clark's
indication that she's committed to doing things to improve this
program. Let me point out that a year from now, there will
probably be somebody different sitting in that chair. And these
problems are not problems that were created entirely down in
the Federal Aid shop. The excessive overhead was done at the
Director's level. The excessive overhead, the establishment of
the Director's Conservation Fund, which went from about $50,000
from John Turner to $1 million was done at the Director's
level. The excessive travel was authorized sometimes at various
levels.
So I think that I understand that Director Clark said she
got a rude wakeup call when she heard about this, and she
didn't expect to hear about it. But the problem is, when you
have a very broad definition of the use of funds, people get
very creative in how they use those funds. We expressed grave
concern in 1995 when these funds were used to transfer fish
hatcheries. We didn't see what this fund had to do with the
transfer of fish hatcheries, Federal fish hatcheries.
We've expressed concern for more than 5 years now at what
we consider questionable expenditures from administrative
funds. Because if it is not spent for administration, it's
apportioned to the States. The statute says up to 6
percent(Wallop-Breaux), or up to 8 percent(Pittman-Robertson).
Up until about 1993, the full amount was not used. Beginning at
that point, which was prior to Director Clark, the full amount
was taken. And since then, the full amount's been taken.
The National Administrative Grants Program was dropped, not
because of questions about legality, but because of use of
funds for administration. In other words, it was wiped out
because of the growing cost of administration.
As I see it, as this fund has grown over the years, using
the formula, there was additional funding sitting there. And
having, as you know, run a Federal agency at one time, I know
the temptation to say, well, why don't we use the discretion we
have to use a little more of those funds for overhead. And I
think that's a temptation that should be removed.
So we favor Congressional legislation, and we think that
will help the reform of it.
Let me mention one other thing Director Clark did mention.
We had a joint Federal-State review team last year that looked
at these programs. These programs have been administered
essentially the same since 1937. The States' capability is much
different now than it was in 1937 or 1950. We need to update
these programs reflecting the State capability. I don't think
we need as much direct detailed involvement in projects as
we've seen in recent years.
We do need and favor the oversight of the Fish and Wildlife
Service. We do favor audits, both of the States and the Fish
and Wildlife Service. We're as concerned about the integrity of
these programs as anybody. Mr. Chairman, we would be glad to
work with you and others and with the Service as they attempt
to help these programs.
Thank you.
Senator Crapo. Thank you very much, Mr. Peterson.
Ms. Lamson.
STATEMENT OF SUSAN LAMSON, DIRECTOR, CONSERVATION WILDLIFE AND
NATURAL RESOURCES, NATIONAL RIFLE ASSOCIATION
Ms. Lamson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I appreciate the invitation extended to the NRA to testify
this morning.
Given citizens' general disdain of taxes, it's nothing
short of remarkable, as you mentioned in your opening
statement, Mr. Chairman, that in the 1930's, in an era of great
economic upheaval and misery, sportsmen passed into law a self-
imposed excise tax to raise funds for wildlife, called the
Federal Aid and Wildlife Restoration Act, and commonly known as
Pittman-Robertson.
Because the purchase price of every firearm and every box
of ammunition includes the Pittman-Robertson excise tax, it
makes every firearm owner, hunter and recreational shooter a
stakeholder in how Pittman-Robertson is managed. I don't think
it would be farfetched to suggest that if the excise tax, if an
excise tax like Pittman-Robertson was suggested today, the
response would be a resounding no. And the answer would be no,
because the faith and trust of sportsmen and millions of gun
owners across the country has been eroded by the findings of
investigations conducted by the General Accounting Office and
the House Resources Committee.
It's not necessary, though, in my testimony to address
those findings. They're a matter of public record, and they've
been highlighted already this morning.
But what I'd like to do is focus on what I think we are all
here for, the solutions. All of our members support sound
wildlife conservation and firearm safety programs and a
continuation of Pittman-Robertson. What they want are the
problems with the management of the trust fund to be fixed and
fixed soon.
Using the reform legislation that's been introduced, H.R.
3671 and S. 2609, as templates, there are a number of
provisions we, the NRA, would like to have in a reform bill.
First, we feel it would be crucial for a reform bill to contain
a specific list of what costs are allowed to be covered by
administrative funds in order to eliminate the problem of
permissive spending.
And let me say this morning, we could certainly support a
relief valve that the Director suggested. But I think we have
to have a specific list.
Second, a mechanism is needed to ensure the taxpayer/
sportsman that his dollars are truly being held by the Service
in trust. That means audits should be required, along with
reporting requirements, so that all the sportsmen, who are in
essence stakeholders, are informed about the financial
management of their trust fund.
And I think it's also a way to make small course changes
when needed, which will prevent a crisis situation from
developing again that requires reform legislation to solve.
Third, NRA supports the reduction in the amount of
administrative funds that the Act presently authorizes.
However, we can support an increase in what the reform bills
set aside as long as the increase can be justified.
Fourth, the NRA strongly supports provisions in both bills
that reserve a specific amount of excise tax revenue to be
apportioned among the States for hunter education and shooting
range programs. In the 1970's, when the Act was extended to
handguns and archery equipment, sportsmen backed down from
asking for some of that revenue to be earmarked for shooting
ranges after receiving assurances from the States that those
funds would be used to benefit recreational shooting, because
that's where most handgunners and archers happen to conduct
their sport.
Unfortunately, the promise didn't play out. While there are
a number of States that have used some of that discretionary
money for range development, many States have a dismal track
record. Providing a modest amount of dedicated or earmarked
funds over and above the discretionary funds that are already
allowed in law will help to fulfill a commitment made long ago.
Fifth, the NRA supports the creation in law of a multi-
State grant program and supports the funding level in the
Senate version of the reform bill. However, we're not wedded to
that dollar figure, either, and would support a higher amount,
so long as the States concur.
What is important to NRA is that the multi-State funds not
be used by any organization or for any project that promotes or
encourages opposition to hunting or trapping, that the projects
benefit a majority of the States, and that sportsmen be
consulted in the preparation of the multi-State project list.
And last, the NRA supports establishing a position of
Assistant Director for Wildlife and Sport Fish Restoration
Programs within the Fish and Wildlife Service. Such a position
is needed. Many of the problems uncovered about the Federal Aid
program I believe can be attributed to the fact it was
relegated to a lowly position within the Service, a backwater
program, if you will.
Furthermore, if Congress passes the Conservation and
Reinvestment Act, hundreds of millions of dollars will flow
through the Pittman-Robertson trust fund annually, in Title III
of CARA. It will greatly increase the Service's trust fund
responsibilities and, therefore, I think it ought to be
reflected in the Service's management matrix and should be done
in this reform bill.
So in conclusion, the NRA is most anxious for the Congress
to pass reform legislation. We know what the problems are and
the solutions. There may be disagreement over some of the
provisions. But I'm confident that resolution can be achieved
if everyone who's at the table is committed to really getting
the reform bill passed this Congress.
Thank you.
Senator Crapo. Thank you very much.
Mr. Nussman.
STATEMENT OF MIKE NUSSMAN, VICE PRESIDENT, AMERICAN
SPORTFISHING ASSOCIATION
Mr. Nussman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I appreciate the opportunity to testify today on behalf of
the American Sportfishing Association. In addition, the
recommendations in my testimony are supported by the American
Flyfishing Trade Association, and the American League of
Anglers and Boaters, a coalition of 25 angling and boating
interest groups.
Federal Aid in Sport Fish Restoration is an excellent
example of a user pays-user benefit program. It was launched in
1950 when Representative John Dingell and Senator Edwin Johnson
passed the Federal Aid in Sport Fish Restoration Act. Based on
the Pittman-Robertson Act that placed an excise tax on hunting
equipment, the Sport Fish Restoration Act was aimed at dealing
with the expanding number of anglers and the declining quality
of the fishery resource.
Using the same user pay-user benefit model as PR, the DJ
Act was an immediate boon to underfunded States' fish and game
agencies. And during the years following the passage of the
Act, moneys from the collection of excise taxes vastly improved
the quality of America's sport fishing resources.
In 1984, in response to a growing list of needs, a new set
of amendments to the program was passed by Senator Malcolm
Wallop and then Representative John Breaux. These 1994 Wallop-
Breaux amendments expanded the list of taxable sport fishing
articles to include nearly all sport fishing equipment. All
together, the Wallop-Breaux amendments increased the pool of
money made available to the States by sixfold, from an average
of $40 million before 1984 to over $240 million this year.
Since the 1984 amendments, the Act has undergone a number
of changes to better reflect the new challenges we face in
angling and boating. These changes include the establishment of
a clean vessel program, a coastal wetland program and a
national outreach effort.
The impact of Dingell Johnson-Wallop Breaux on fisheries
has been substantial. Over $3 billion has been provided to the
States since the original Act passed 50 years ago. Indeed, Mr.
Chairman, the DJ-Wallop-Breaux Act has had a huge impact on the
sport fishing industry as well. It affects our pricing
decisions, it affects our marketing efforts, it even affects
our production choices.
However, through the investments in the fishery resource,
the program has enabled the sport fishing industry to grow
substantially throughout the 1960's, the 1970's and the 1980's.
GAO has raised a number of serious questions regarding the
administration of this program. We, as you might imagine, are
deeply concerned by those charges. No industry can pay 10
percent of every dollar it collects in addition to income taxes
on its profit and not be troubled by the GAO testimony.
There's no doubt that the Fish and Wildlife Service can and
should do a better job of administering its sport fish and the
wildlife restoration programs. The two bills that have been
introduced, S. 2609 and H.R. 3671, make significant strides
toward defining the responsibilities of the Service and
increasing their accountability to Congress and to the States.
However, we believe the legislation falls short in four
specific areas. First, the bills provide too little funding for
the multi-State conservation grant program. Currently at least
four existing programs that are supported strongly by the
States and the industry would fall under this new effort. These
include the national survey, the management assistance team,
administrative grants and the library reference service. The
funds provided by the two bills are not sufficient to fund
these existing programs, much less other projects of multi-
State or national benefit. We would recommend that 2 percent of
each fund, or approximately $4.5 million each, be set aside for
this effort.
Second, neither bill provides funding for the Sport Fishing
and Boating Partnership Council. The Council was created to
provide a mechanism to give advice to the Secretary of Interior
on sport fish restoration and other fishing and boating issues.
The States, the industry, as well as anglers and boaters, are
represented on the Council. We believe the Council is an
invaluable tool for ensuring that those that pay the tax have
their voices heard.
Third, we believe the Service needs around $16 million to
administer both the sport fish and the wildlife programs. The
bills provide somewhat less than that, and we fear that it
would affect the long-term success of these efforts.
And fourth, over the years, several grant programs have
been added to the Sport Fish Act. These include clean vessel,
boating infrastructure and outreach. Legislation should clearly
specify that the administrative funding for these programs
should come from the funding set aside for each individual
effort.
In closing, Mr. Chairman, let me say that we believe the
legislation is needed to provide direction and focus for the
Sport Fish Act. We believe our recommendations will enhance the
legislation and ensure the continued success of these very
important programs.
Thank you very much.
Senator Crapo. Thank you very much.
Dr. Riley.
STATEMENT OF TERRY Z. RILEY, DIRECTOR OF CONSERVATION, WILDLIFE
MANAGEMENT INSTITUTE
Mr. Riley. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
You'll have to forgive me a little bit if I stammer and
stutter. I just moved here from South Dakota, and I'm more used
to leaning up against a tractor tire or avoiding stepping in
cow pies when you talk with local farmers.
Senator Crapo. That suggests to me you're probably going to
give us just some good old down-home, common sense in your
testimony.
Mr. Riley. Well, I concur a lot with what has already been
said, and I don't wish to elaborate on that any more. It is in
my written testimony and hopefully that will become part of the
record, as you had mentioned earlier.
The Wildlife Management Institute has a long term interest
in both the PR Act and the associated program developments that
have gone on at the State level. In fact, I spent the early
part of my career working for a State agency in Iowa as the
pheasant biologist, and Iowa and pheasants go together very
well, particularly when it translates into $40 million to $60
million a year to the State's economy.
The grants I received from the Pittman-Robertson Wildlife
Restoration Act were vital to the program there, and they kept
me going professionally for quite a long time in my career.
Many of my other jobs working for State and Federal agencies,
before I joined the Wildlife Management Institute, involved
dollars and programs that were funded through the PR Act. And
they are an important component of wildlife management on the
ground and the States desperately need these dollars.
To make a long story short, we don't believe that a lot of
the concerns that have been expressed about the administration
of these acts need to be fixed legislatively. We believe most
of them have already been fixed. And we can work on ways to
make sure that they can be fixed, and that they remain fixed
into the future, perhaps with some kind of advisory team made
up of sportsmen and sportsmen's groups that actually can
oversee what's going on and perhaps report back to Congress on
a regular basis, perhaps once every 5 years.
However, we all know that legislation is possible, and to
make sure that we don't miss out on the opportunity to make
some changes and update the legislation that was signed many
years ago, we have made recommendations and they are in my
written testimony.
In conclusion, I really feel that these are vital programs.
Again, probably if we have fixes in the legislation, they would
be focused more on making the programs that we have even
better. Perhaps strengthening some of the multi-State
administrative grants that have helped a lot of States pull
together their own resources and accomplish projects over a
large region, rather than just everybody trying to do their own
thing out there.
So I think it's a very valuable program and we support it
very much, and we hope that if there are legislative fixes,
they do strengthen the program rather than tear it down some.
Thank you.
Senator Crapo. Thank you very much, Dr. Riley.
Senator Smith?
Senator Smith. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Let me
just ask each of you, if you would, to respond to this
question. You heard the testimony and the questioning of the
previous panel in terms of the problems that have prevalent, I
guess, in the agency for a few years, and the GAO's analysis of
that.
I think one of those problems has been lack of oversight. I
think that always is the problem, as I said to the previous
panel, we only have oversight when we find out there's a
problem, unfortunately, which is not doing good oversight.
Congress does not, in my view, do a very good job of oversight.
We're always investigating something, as I say, after the
problem arises.
Let me just ask you this. Do you believe it would be useful
to place this program on a 5-year reauthorization schedule? N
Not in any way to sunset anything, that's not the purpose or
the intent. But just like other programs, such as endangered
species, Duck Stamp Act, they're all on 5 year authorizations.
How would you feel about this program being put on a similar
authorization?
Mr. Riley, we'll start with you and just go right down the
line.
Mr. Riley. Well, I would have a lot of fear or that.
Working out in the real world out there, there are many fears
about writing new legislation, or at least reviewing it,
because the players change and the issue change. And those, as
Ms. Lamson said earlier, if they had to rewrite the legislation
now, or at least introduce legislation that was similar to it,
we may not get it through.
Senator Smith. Well, we don't have to rewrite it, just have
to amend it. We have a $385 billion or $390 billion Pentagon
budget. They have a 5-year reauthorization schedule. Why not
this? Wouldn't this help to avoid some of the problem? I mean,
it's costing you, isn't if, if we find there is mismanagement,
then it's going to cost you folks on the receiving end? But I
don't mean to argue about it.
Mr. Riley. Well, my feeling on it is basically, if you go
back and try to amend something that's working very, very well
and has worked very, very well, it may perhaps waste taxpayer
dollars to do that. Particularly if other fixes, other possible
fixes are available.
Senator Smith. So, and I'll ask the same question of the
rest, but in your opinion, there's been no negative impact to
you as a result of what's happened here at the national level
with what you just heard in the previous panel?
Mr. Riley. Based on my experience of using the dollars and
applying for grants through the program, as a pheasant
biologist in Iowa and through other positions I have held, it
has been a very, very successful process. And I will say that
there are times that I was glad that I saw other proposals that
were not approved, because they did not meet the standards of
the Act.
Senator Smith. Well, if people are taking foreign trips and
spending money on alcohol and food at $150 a pop, wouldn't that
negatively impact what money you might receive at your end?
Mr. Riley. I agree it probably would.
Senator Smith. All right, that's all.
Mr. Riley. Obviously, with this large of a program and the
complexities associated with the different levels of
bureaucracy, most State agencies won't see those kind of
things, and especially any biologist that puts together a grant
proposal and goes after the dollars.
Senator Smith. Well, one of the reasons we didn't see them
either is because we don't do oversight. And with an
authorization, you'd have to look at it every year and you
wouldn't run into that.
But anyway, Mr. Nussman, same question.
Mr. Nussman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
No, no one cares more about this program than my members.
Each quarter they write a check. For many of them, it's the
largest check they write during the year. So would they like to
see better administration? Do they think Congressional
oversight would play a role? Yes, absolutely.
However, we want to make sure the medicine is not worse
than the disease.
I believe we need to have more Congressional oversight of
the program. It absolutely is essential. Having said that, we
would be fearful that we would get into a situation where we
would be fighting back amendments for which moneys would be
taken for purposes that were not envisioned under the original
Act.
But I do think it would be appropriate for us to have more
oversight, rather than less oversight.
Senator Smith. OK. Ms. Lamson.
Ms. Lamson. I think in the House and Senate bills, the
provisions that provide audits and reporting requirements, and
the reporting requirements are to the Congress, the States, to
the public, I would feel comfortable with just having that as
the way of having that sort of audit oversight of the program.
And I think that that would be sufficient.
If that proved not to be the case, I think what has
occurred in this past year with the House attention and also
the attention of this committee on the issues shows that when
sportsmen and industry come forward in this kind of situation
and say, we've got some problems, that the Congress has in fact
responded.
So I'd like to see the audit process work. I think that
that is enough assurance, that process.
Senator Smith. Mr. Peterson.
Mr. Peterson. It seems to me that most reauthorization acts
end up in a big argument about what's going to be authorized
within the law. In other words, amendments to the basic law. I
think what you're looking at here is oversight, which it seems
to me that the best thing you can do to ensure oversight is
first more clearly define what constitutes administration, so
that you don't invite people to wander off and spend money on
things that are inappropriate.
Second, I agree with the idea there should be an audit. The
States are subject to periodic audits now, and we used that at
times when some unit of government got thinking they might take
off a little more for overhead or so on. The fact that the
State had to undergo an audit was an important deterrent to
doing that.
So I think audits are extremely important. They should be
independent audits. And those audit reports should be made
available to the Congress. And I think it should be a periodic
report to the Congress, saying, here's the way we spent this
money, so that Congress knows how the money's been spent.
So I'm all in favor of additional oversight. I don't
believe that reauthorization per se is the way to do it. Right
now, you probably know that the boat fuel tax that goes into
Wallop-Breaux is subject to reauthorization as a part of the
transportation bill, periodically. But you never really get
into the detailed administration there. You end up with arguing
how the money's going to be spent, which doesn't detect what
you were talking about in terms of, are we sure the money's
being spent properly.
Senator Smith. Thank you.
Senator Crapo. Thank you.
Let me ask a series of questions to the whole panel, and
I'd like to ask you to keep your remarks as brief as possible,
because this could get really long.
But when Director Clark testified, she indicated three
areas of concern with the existing legislation that we were
considering. I'd like to see what the reaction of the members
of the panel is to each of those three suggested changes to the
legislation. Some of you have already indicated your answers to
some of these questions. But I want to just get a feeling from
the panel.
Her first point was that the level that both bills have for
funding of administrative purposes was too low. I believe that,
Mr. Nussman, you agree with the fact that it's too low, and you
suggested a $16 million figure.
What is the reaction of the other members of the panel to
that issue? Is the amount in the legislation that is proposed
too low?
Mr. Peterson?
Mr. Peterson. Yes, I think it is too low. We recommend $16
million, that's what we'd recommend. And that's based on the
Federal-State review team, who did a pretty in-depth review of
the program. It's not a number picked out of the air.
Another alternative would be a fixed amount that would be
adjusted based on CPI, if you don't like the percentage.
Senator Crapo. All right. Ms. Lamson?
Ms. Lamson. NRA doesn't have a position on a specific
dollar figure, other than in my remarks that we agree it can be
increased, but it ought to be justified.
Senator Crapo. All right. And Mr. Riley.
Mr. Riley. We believe that 4 percent would be appropriate,
of their overall fund.
Senator Crapo. OK. Did you add anything, Mr. Nussman? I
think I already got your answer.
Mr. Nussman. No. We basically looked at the Federal-State
review team and took their number.
Senator Crapo. OK. I want to divert for just a second. Dr.
Riley, you said you were a pheasant biologist?
Mr. Riley. Yes, I was.
Senator Crapo. Did you mention the State of Iowa?
Mr. Riley. Yes, sir.
Senator Crapo. How's the pheasant hunting in Iowa?
Mr. Riley. It's getting better.
Senator Crapo. All right, good. Maybe you could come and
help us get it improved in Idaho.
The next point that Director Clark made was, she sees a
need for a flexible response in the event that the amount of
funding we determine is available is not adequate, so something
that she described as a reprogramming effort or something like
that could be put in place. And again, Ms. Lamson, you've
indicated that that's an agreeable concept with you, but you
feel it has to be closely monitored, so that we stick with the
proper purposes.
But again to the panel, any objection to a very tightly
worded and closely monitored mechanism by which Congress could
authorize additional funding in terms of administrative needs?
Mr. Peterson. Conceptually, no. It could be done as part of
the annual budget process, too.
Senator Crapo. OK. Mr. Nussman?
Mr. Nussman. I do think it would make a lot of sense to
have some capability to use funds for special unforseen
circumstances.
Senator Crapo. Dr. Riley?
Mr. Riley. I totally agree, particularly with populations
of grassland nesting birds that are declining very rapidly, and
they're going to have a significant impact on landowners if all
of a sudden they become listed as endangered or threatened. If
we have administrative costs that would be focused on dealing
with those issues, that could be a real bonus. So I think it
would be important to have that option.
Senator Crapo. All right. And then the third point that she
made was that the legislation seems to micromanage by directing
the creation of an office of assistant director, or in other
words, telling the agency what management structure it should
use to operate in this context. Any comments on that issue? Mr.
Peterson.
Mr. Peterson. I'd say we reluctantly agree that the
legislation should provide for an assistant director. Our
executive committee looked at that. With the expected passage
of the Conservation and Reinvestment Act, we're talking about
almost $1 billion of funding. And I think one of the problems
that we've had is the Federal Aid program was run at too low a
level, as Ms. Lamson's already said.
I think the recent reorganization, which combines this
program with migratory birds, is not a good idea. Because the
migratory bird part is a big load. And combining that with
administering the Federal Aid program to us does not make
sense, to tell you the truth.
Senator Crapo. All right. Ms. Lamson.
Ms. Lamson. Just to underscore what I said in my oral
remarks, yes. We think it should be should be raised to the
level of assistant director. I agree with Mr. Peterson that it
should bemade a standalone position. I think that the
stakeholders, the industry, the sportsmen, deserve that.
Also as I mentioned, if you're looking at the Conservation
Reinvestment Act, and NRA supports that because of Title III,
and the funding going to the States, that could be over $300
million a year. It's a significant amount of money that could
potentially come into the Service. And we agree with the
Service managing it.
But I think, you know, it's a new day. We ought to be
looking at a different management approach on this.
Senator Crapo. Mr. Nussman?
Mr. Nussman. I would agree with what's been said thus far.
Senator Crapo. Thank you. Dr. Riley?
Mr. Riley. I would probably say that I would rather see the
Administration, executive branch at least, decide how to
structure their own positions they assign. However, we do
believe that the level of administration with this program has
not been adequate.
Senator Crapo. All right, thank you. And just one last
question. And this one is really sort of a yes or no answer.
Several of you, again, have already answered this. But one part
of the legislation here is the creation of a national or multi-
State grant program. I am assuming that there is a lot of
support for that part of the legislation. Do any of you not
support that part of the legislation?
I take it you all support it then. All right, thank you.
That concludes my questions.
Senator Smith, do you have any further questions?
Senator Smith. No, I have no further questions, Mr.
Chairman.
Senator Crapo. All right, thank you very much. I should say
to all of you that this hearing record will be kept open for an
additional week, if you desire to submit any further testimony
or comments on what has come up today. And you may get some
questions in writing from members of the panel who were not
here or other questions from those of us who were here. And we
would ask you to respond to those very quickly if you do get
those questions.
And with that, this hearing is adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 11:01 a.m., the subcommittee was adjourned,
to reconvene at the call of the Chair.]
[Additional statements submitted for the record follow:]
Statement of Barry T. Hill, Associate Director, Energy, Resources, and
Science Issues, Resources, Community, and Economic Development Division
United States General Accounting Office
Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee: We are pleased to be
here today to discuss the Fish and Wildlife Service's (Service)
management and oversight of the administrative funds associated with
the Wildlife Restoration Program and, to a lesser extent, with the
Sport Fish Restoration Program. The information we present today is
based on work that we completed and presented in testimonies to the
House Committee on Resources on July 20 and September 29, 1999. \1\ At
that time, the Service promised a number of corrective actions. We have
not determined whether, or how, the Service has implemented those
promised actions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Fish and Wildlife Service: Management and Oversight of the
Federal Aid Program Needs Attention (GAO/T-RCED-99-259, July 20, 1999)
and Fish and Wildlife Service: Options to Improve the Use of Federal
Aid Programs' Administrative Funds (GAO/TRCED-99-285, September 29,
1999).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Wildlife Restoration Program was begun in 1938 following the
passage of the Federal Aid in Wildlife Restoration Act, often called
the Pittman-Robertson Act. The purpose of the act is to restore,
conserve, manage, and enhance the nation's wildlife resources and to
provide for public use and benefits from these resources. The Service,
an agency of the Department of the Interior, administers the program.
The Service's Office of Federal Aid (Office) provides overall support
and direction for implementing the Wildlife Restoration Program as well
as a sister program, the Sport Fish Restoration Program. This sister
program provides funds to restore and manage the nation's sport fishery
resources and to provide public use and benefits from these resources.
The programs received a total of about $550 million in fiscal year
1998-$170 million for Wildlife and $380 million for Sport Fish.
Funds provided for these programs are derived from federal excise
taxes from the sale of firearms, ammunition, archery equipment, fishing
equipment, and other items. The core mission of these programs is to
distribute funds to states and other qualified government recipients
for the purposes of wildlife and sport fish restoration. A portion of
the funds can be used by the Office for the programs' administration
and implementation-up to 8 percent for wildlife and up to 6 percent for
sport fish. Of the roughly $550 million these programs received in
fiscal year 1998, about $31 million was used for administration and
implementation-$13.5 million for Wildlife and $17.4 million for Sport
Fish.
Our testimony today will recap the results of our work on the
management and oversight of the Federal Aid program which provided
options to improve the program's use of administrative funds and
provided additional information related to the use of administrative
funds.
Problems in the Way Administrative Funds Are Managed and Used
Last July we reported numerous problems with the way administrative
funds are used and managed. We believe that these problems led to a
culture of permissive spending within the Office of Federal Aid. The
problems we identified included the following:
controls over expenditures, revenues, and grants were
inadequate;
millions of dollars in program funds could not be
tracked;
basic principles and procedures for managing travel funds
were not followed;
basic internal control standards or Office of Management
and Budget guidance for maintaining complete and accurate grants files
was not followed;
regional offices used administrative funds inconsistently
and for purposes that were not clearly justified;
charges for Service-wide overhead may not be accurate;
routine audits to determine whether administrative funds
were being used for authorized purposes were not conducted; and
the process for resolving audit findings involving
states' use of program funds was questionable.
It is important to point out that many of the problems we
identified last July were the same as those we identified over 6 years
earlier. In 1993, we reviewed the use of administrative funds for the
Sport Fish Restoration Program. \2\ As part of our work last year, we
found that the Service had not been entirely responsive to our earlier
recommendations to correct the management problems we identified in our
previous review.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ Fisheries Management: Administration of the Sport Fish
Restoration Program (GAO/RCED-94-4, Nov. 8, 1993).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Options to Improve the Use of Administrative Funds
At the time of our September 1999 testimony, we believed that there
were at least three primary options to consider for controlling the use
of administrative funds. First, the Office of Federal Aid could have
been given additional time by the Congress to correct the problems we
identified in our work. In August 1999, the Service said that it had
taken or was taking a number of corrective actions including continuing
with its reconciliation efforts to track the use of administrative
funds, requiring supervisory review and approval of travel vouchers,
and evaluating how to establish a procedure for performing routine
audits of administrative funds. This option would probably have had the
least impact on the Office's current operations, but it would require
follow-up at some point to verify that the promised corrective actions
have been taken. With this approach, we would be concerned about the
Service's commitment to taking the needed corrective actions, given
that it has not been fully responsive to prior recommendations we have
made.
Second, legislative limits could be placed on how the Service
spends administrative funds. For example, the spending of
administrative funds could be limited to functions necessary for the
Office of Federal Aid to carry out its most basic responsibilities;
namely, to (1) administer the formula for getting grant funds to the
states and other qualified government recipients, (2) review specific
project proposals from these entities, and (3) audit these entities'
use of the grant funds for compliance with existing legislation and
program goals. By placing more restrictions on the use of the
administrative funds this option would likely result in less money
being spent administering the program and would make more funds
available for distribution to the states and other qualified government
recipients.
A third option would be to require the Service to use appropriated
funds to administer the Wildlife and Sport Fish Restoration programs
and devote all excise tax revenues to state and other qualified
government recipients' grants. This option would have required the
Service to annually justify to the Congress the amount of funds it
needs for administering the program. Hence, how the funds are being
used and the direction that the program is taking would be more visible
to the Congress. Also, the Wildlife and Sport Fish Restoration programs
would be competing against other programs within the Department of the
Interior for appropriated funds. As in the second option, this option
could potentially have removed much of the organization's flexibility
for determining where to use the funds for administrative purposes.
Additional Information on the Use of Administrative Funds
Subsequent to the July 20, 1999, hearing, the House Resources
Committee asked us to respond to a number of questions about the use of
administrative funds raised by our testimony. Appendix I of my
September 29, 1999, statement provided our responses to these
questions. I have included this as an appendix to this statement as
well. For the most part, these responses elaborated on points made
earlier. However, they also included substantial additional
information, such as our views on actions the Fish and Wildlife Service
was planning to take to correct the problems we identified. In this
regard, we were hopeful but not confident that the agency would be
committed to implementing the planned changes and that the changes
would result in lasting improvement. Our lack of confidence was due to
the Office of Federal Aid's poor track record in dealing with the
identified problems. For example, in response to our past
recommendation that all administrative costs be thoroughly documented,
the Service stated that it had a system that allows it to maintain a
comprehensive file for documenting all direct charges against the Sport
Fish Restoration Program. We later found that, in many instances, we
could not track and verify the status of a grant, the amounts
authorized for payment, or when the expenditures were made.
This concludes my prepared statement. I would be happy to respond
to any questions that you and members of the committee may have.
Contact and Acknowledgments
For further information, please contact Barry T. Hill at 202-512-
3841. Individuals making key contributions to this and our prior
testimonies are Lew Adams, Margie Armen, Cliff Fowler, and Roy Judy.
APPENDIX I
Fish and Wildlife Service: Additional Information Related to the
Uses of Administrative Funds
Federal Aid administrative funds are used for several purposes
within the Fish and Wildlife Service. Examples include the uses made by
the Administrative Grant Program, the Director's Conservation Fund, the
Office of Federal Aid, and regional offices for such purposes as
salaries, travel, grants, and contracts. The Service also uses the
Office of Federal Aid's administrative funds to pay for general
administrative support services such as telephone usage, equipment
servicing and space rental, and a contractor to audit the use of
program funds provided to the states and other qualified government
recipients. This appendix provides our responses to the additional
questions asked by the Chairman, House Resources Committee, about these
and other topics subsequent to our July 20, 1999 testimony. Some of the
responses address promised corrective action by the Service. We have
not had an opportunity to update our work or to determine whether, or
how, the Service has implemented those promised actions.
Question 1. What is the Administrative Grant Program, how have the
program's funds been used, and what problems does GAO have with the
administration of this program?
Response. The Administrative Grant Program is operated by the
Office of Federal Aid. The program uses some of the administrative
funds to support national fish and wildlife projects that provide
collective benefits to at least 50 percent of the states. The Fish and
Wildlife Service (Service) annually publishes a notice in the Federal
Register, announcing the procedures for submitting project proposals,
deadlines, and the amount of money that is available for administrative
grants. The applicants submit their proposals to the Office of Federal
Aid (Office), which reviews each grant against established criteria to
determine eligibility. To determine eligibility for an administrative
grant, the Office makes an assessment of the benefits to be derived
from the proposed project, the importance of providing the grant, the
problems that need to be addressed, the number of states that are
affected, and the approach that will be taken to accomplish the
objectives of the grant. In fiscal year 1998, the Office made about $4
million in administrative funds available for administrative grants.
The Office awarded 18 grants ranging from about $18,500 to $684,000 for
such activities as developing and publishing a fish hatchery
publication and a wildlife law news quarterly, developing a national
hunter retention outreach program, and improving public knowledge of
hunting and related animal use programs in the United States. Since
fiscal year 1994, the Office has funded 83 grants totaling about $19.5
million.
In reviewing administrative grant files, we found that the Office
was not following standard management practices to ensure that grant
funds were properly applied and accounted for. Specifically, we found
that basic internal controls and documentation standards were not being
used and that the agency was not following the Office of Management and
Budget's (OMB) requirements for grant management. We reviewed the grant
files for fiscal years 1993 through 1998 and found them to be
incomplete, out of date, and disorganized. To illustrate, the files did
not contain required key financial documents, status reports, or other
supporting documentation. As a result, in many instances, we could not
track and verify the status of a grant, the amounts authorized for
payment, or the time periods in which these expenditures were made.
We also found instances in which Office of Federal Aid officials
authorized questionable payments to grantees without thoroughly
reviewing the submitted documentation. For example, we found that the
Office paid grantees for alcoholic beverages and excessive meal charges
that should have been questioned, and for work that was neither related
to the grant nor ever performed. We are concerned that the problem of
authorizing questionable payments may be widespread because the
officials responsible for grant management said that they did not
review the details supporting requests for payment. Internal controls
for this aspect of the Office's operations appeared to be nonexistent
at the time of our review. After our July 1999 testimony on this issue,
the Service issued a notice in the Federal Register on July 26, 1999,
terminating the Administrative Grant Program for new administrative
grants effective in fiscal year 2000. In an August 10, 1999, letter to
us, the then-Acting Director of the Service stated that the decision to
terminate the program was due in part to budgetary constraints and in
recognition of concerns received in response to a September 1998
Federal Register notice regarding the management of these grants.
Question 2. What is the Director's Conservation Fund, how has it
been used, and what problems does GAO have with the administration of
this fund?
Response. The Director's Conservation Fund was established in 1994
and was terminated in March 1999. The Fund was set up for use by the
Director of the Service to make discretionary grants. From fiscal years
1994 through 1998, the Director used about $3.8 million in
administrative funds for 53 grants. The grant funds have been used to
support the Service's own activities such as conducting regional
workshops, human resource projects, and specific research projects on
subjects such as mourning dove productivity in the Central Valley of
California. These funds have also been granted to private organizations
such as the FishAmerica Foundation\1\ for such activities as a
challenge cost-share program to enhance sport fisheries and their
habitats and to a state game and fish commission for a symposium on
North America's hunting heritage.
We found that the Office had not followed OMB's guidance that
requires agencies awarding grants to notify the public of intended
funding priorities for discretionary grant programs. Moreover, the
procedures used for approving grants under the Director's Conservation
Fund were more open to subjective judgment and much less rigorous than
the procedures used for approving administrative grants. Under the
Director's Conservation Fund, there were no specific criteria that a
grantee needed to meet to obtain approval. The potential grantee
essentially had to identify only the title, purpose, and estimated cost
of the project. As we indicated in our response to question 1, the
criteria for eligibility and approval under the Administrative Grant
Program were much more delineated. To illustrate, we found three
grants, totaling $280,000, that were rejected under the Administrative
Grant Program but subsequently funded by the Director's Conservation
Fund. We found a fourth grant for $75,000 that met the eligibility
requirements for an administrative grant but fell below the cutoff
point for funding. This grant was also funded under the Director's
Conservation Fund. Finally, we found in a limited review of grants
awarded during fiscal years 1994 through 1998, that the Office had not
exercised adequate controls over these grants. Specifically, the Office
had not followed internal control documentation standards and OMB
guidance. As with the administrative grant files, the files for this
program were incomplete, out of date, and disorganized and did not
contain required financial forms and supporting documentation.
\1\The FishAmerica Foundation is a nonprofit organization that
supports projects designed to enhance fish populations through habitat
enhancement and water quality improvement.
In its August 10, 1999, letter to us, the Service stated that it
had terminated the Director's Conservation Fund. According to agency
officials, the Director made this decision in March 1999, shortly after
we initiated our audit.
Question 3. Does existing legislation authorize a national grant
program as exercised in the Administrative Grant Program and the
Director's Conservation Fund?
Response. Program funds for the Federal Aid in Wildlife and Sport
Fish Restoration Acts are derived from federal excise taxes on selected
items used in hunting and fishing. The bulk of the program funds are
available for making grants to states to conduct fish and wildlife
management and restoration programs and projects. However, the
legislation expressly reserves a percentage of the program funds to be
made available for expenditure on ``administration and execution'' of
the programs. This portion of the program funds is often referred to as
``administrative funds.'' The two authorizing statutes also
specifically provide for some additional particular activities to be
conducted with administrative funds, and they set a maximum amount that
can be devoted annually to program ``administration and execution'' (up
to 8 percent of Wildlife Restoration funds and up to 6 percent of Sport
Fish Restoration funds).
While program administration is a relatively well-understood
concept, neither statute specifies what might constitute program
``execution.'' In our view, the most logical interpretation of that
language is that authority to use funds for program execution
encompasses carrying out activities that further program goals but do
not involve making grants to states. The Department of the Interior's
Solicitor has issued several opinions that bear on the interpretation
of program execution with administrative funds. In 1949, the Solicitor
advised that administrative funds could be used directly by the
Department to import bird eggs for the purposes of introducing a new
species of game birds into this country. In 1955 and again in 1985, the
Solicitor advised that administrative funds could be used to conduct
surveys that reported on matters other than the consumptive use of
wildlife. In 1986, the Solicitor determined that administrative funds
could be used to carry out a national education program and to do so by
means of grants to ``public or private agencies and organizations.''
The existing legislation does not specifically direct that either
the Administrative Grant Program or the Director's Conservation Fund be
established. However, the authority to use funds for program execution
is sufficiently broad that these types of programs are not precluded.
Question 4. On August 10, 1999, the Fish and Wildlife Service
provided you with a letter enumerating a number of actions it was
taking to address the concerns raised in your testimony. In light of
your work in 1993 and 1999, what confidence do you have that the
Service will actually follow through on its commitments and implement
the kind of corrective actions it mentions in its letter?
Response. We are hopeful but not confident that these actions will
result in lasting change. Our lack of confidence is due to the Office's
(1) record in dealing with identified problems and (2) reinstatement or
resurrection of programs under different names that had been terminated
in response to prior recommendations.
In 1993, we reported on a number of problems with the use of
administrative funds for the Sport Fish Restoration Program and made
recommendations to the agency on how to correct them. In 1994, the
Department of the Interior notified the Congress that it and the
Service confirmed their agreement with each of the recommendations in
our report and identified actions taken in response to the
recommendations. However, our work in 1999 on the Wildlife Restoration
Program shows that the assurances given to both the Congress and to us
in 1993 and 1994 led to little actual change. For example, in response
to our recommendation that all administrative costs be thoroughly
documented, the Service stated that it had a system allowing it to
maintain a comprehensive file for documenting all direct charges
against the Sport Fish Restoration and other Office of Federal Aid
programs. Nearly 6 years later, we found that, in many instances, we
could not track and verify the status of a grant, the amounts
authorized for payment, or the time periods in which the expenditures
were made. Furthermore, the Office has not effectively used the
agency's accounting system's capability to identify costs at the
project level, thus making it impossible to identify all project-
specific costs. Finally, the Acting Director's testimony submitted to
your committee for the July 20, 1999, hearing stated that an internal
review the Service initiated 4 years ago raised some of the same
concerns that we identified about program administration. The Acting
Director stated that efforts have been under way to address these
issues ``but are obviously not completed.''
The Office of Federal Aid responded to issues raised as a result of
our 1999 work in part by reaffirming existing policy and by terminating
programs. Reaffirming existing policies is just the first step.
Management must ensure that these policies are implemented. Our concern
is that this additional step either will not be taken or that its
effectiveness will gradually degrade because of a lack of management
attention, allowing a similar situation to exist in the future. While
terminating the Administrative Grant Program and the Director's
Conservation Fund provided a quick response, no statutory or other
limitation exists to prevent the programs' reinstatement or
resurrection under different names. This latter point is of concern
because the Office of Federal Aid responded to our previous report by
changing its criteria for approving ``special investigations'' (the
term the Office used for its projects) but then rescinded those
changes. Hence, rather than limiting grants to a maximum of (1)
$200,000 per year for each grantee and (2) 3 years or less duration,
the Office resumed having no limits at all. Also, rather than calling
the projects special investigations, the Office renamed them
``administrative grants'' or included them under the Director's
Conservation Fund. We are concerned that this type of response could
recur and, as a result, the agency will again face the same management
problems that we reported on in our July 20, 1999, testimony.
Question 5. You have talked about problems in Federal Aid's
management of travel funds. Could you please elaborate on the problems
you have identified, including providing specific examples of travel
abuses?
Response. We found that the Office did not routinely follow basic
principles and procedures for managing its travel funds. As we stated
in our July 20, 1999, testimony, the Service's policy is that staff
working for the Office-like all Service employees-must receive specific
approval from the Director of the Service before attending certain
national conferences. However, we found nine instances in which this
policy was violated by Office staff who attended conferences in 1998
and 1999. In addition, we found that the head of the Office filed
almost $68,000 in travel vouchers for 71 trips taken from October 1995
through June 1999 but was inconsistent in obtaining approvals for his
travel vouchers. He had a supervisor approve his travel vouchers for 25
trips taken from October 1995 through February 1997. For travel taken
from late February 1997 through May 1999, he had subordinates approve
38 of his travel vouchers amounting to over $39,000 in travel expenses.
This practice is not permitted under the Service's travel policy.
When we questioned the practice of having a subordinate approve a
supervisor's travel voucher, we were told that the Service's existing
policy allowed subordinates to sign travel vouchers, and we were
provided with a copy of a 1991 policy. However, the 1991 policy
pertained to situations in which an office was isolated or
geographically removed, making it difficult to obtain proper
supervisory approval. Regardless, the policy had been superseded in
1992 by a policy specifically requiring supervisory approval for travel
vouchers. In addition, a statement printed on the back of the travel
authorizations specifies that a supervisor is responsible for approving
a travel voucher.
After we provided our testimony to the House Resources Committee on
this issue in July 1999, the Service concurred with the problems we
identified. In its August 10, 1999, letter to us, the Service said that
it has suspended the use of open travel authorizations for the Office's
entire staff and has reapprised all Service staff of its travel rules
and regulations. In addition, the head of the Office was directed to
submit all future travel vouchers to his supervisor, the Assistant
Director for External Affairs, for appropriate review.
Question 6. Have you identified any additional issues with the use
of General Administrative Service (GAS) funds by the Fish and Wildlife
Service?
Response. In addition to the issues we addressed on our July 20,
1999, testimony, we have identified two other issues that indicate that
GAS assessments were either too high in the past or could be lowered in
the future. The first issue relates to the potential impact on the GAS
assessment from projects and initiatives funded under the Servicewide
Administrative Support account managed by the Fish and Wildlife
Service, which pays for overhead and support expenses such as rental
payments, telephone service, postage, and training. This account is
funded from three sources: (1) appropriated funds, (2) reimbursable
agreements, and (3) GAS. The GAS portion is made up of assessments made
to the Sport Fish and Wildlife Restoration programs and nine other
programs.
From fiscal year 1990 through fiscal year 1998, the Servicewide
Administrative Support account funded over $10 million in projects and
initiatives by the Fish and Wildlife Service Director's Office, some of
which are questionable as central administrative support for the
Service. Examples of the questionable Director's Office projects and
initiatives funded under the Servicewide Administrative Support account
include $400,000 for Atlantic salmon work, $200,000 for wolf monitoring
and reintroduction, and $100,000 for rhinoceros conservation studies.
These projects and initiatives were in addition to projects funded by
the Director's Conservation Fund.
Service officials said that none of these projects and initiatives
was funded with the GAS component of the Servicewide Administrative
Support account. Regardless of which component paid for these expenses,
if these projects had not been funded, the GAS contribution to the
account could potentially be reduced. In July 1999, the Service advised
us that Servicewide Administrative Support funds would no longer be
used to fund the Director's Office projects and initiatives.
The second issue relates to the unobligated balance in the
Servicewide Administrative Support account at the end of the fiscal
year. On the basis of data we obtained, this account had unobligated
balances at the end of fiscal years 1990 through 1998. These balances
ranged from as high as about $7 million in fiscal year 1990 to as low
as about $100,000 in fiscal year 1998. Service officials informed us
that these unobligated balances relate to the appropriated fund
component of the Servicewide Administrative Support account. In total,
from fiscal year 1990 through fiscal year 1995, over $12 million in
unobligated balances expired and were not available for use in the
following fiscal year. Hence, for those years, the GAS component of the
account could have been reduced. To illustrate, in fiscal year 1990,
the Service's total GAS assessment was about $5.5 million, of which
almost $5.2 million came from the Sport Fish and Wildlife Restoration
programs. In that same year, about $7.4 million in unobligated funds in
the Servicewide Administrative Support account expired. If the Service
had spent all of its appropriated fund component in the Servicewide
Administrative Support account, it would have needed less from the GAS
component. That should then have translated into a reduced GAS
assessment and the potential for additional program funds to go to the
states and other qualified government recipients. Beginning in fiscal
year 1996, Interior's appropriations acts have stipulated that
appropriated funds can be obligated over 2 years instead of just 1. And
as a result, it is unlikely that any unobligated balances will expire.
Question 7. The Administrative Grant Program was carried out in
close cooperation with the Grants-in-Aid Committee of the International
Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies, raising questions about the
committee's role. If the now terminated Administrative Grant Program
was to be reconstituted, should Federal Aid officials reshape the
committee's involvement in the grant approval process?
Response. As it was previously conducted, the Administrative Grant
Program relied heavily on an outside group, the Grants-in-Aid Committee
of the International Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies, to
recommend both the direction of the program and the award of
administrative grant funds. (See our response to question 1.) Because
the committee's role was so central to the functioning of the
Administrative Grant Program, officials of the Office of Federal Aid
and others questioned whether the committee should have operated within
the framework of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA). That act
requires, among other things, that a notice of meetings be published in
advance in the Federal Register and that papers, records, and minutes
of meetings be available to the public.
The International Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies is
composed of delegates from the 50 state fish and game authorities,
foreign governments, private organizations, and officials from the
Office of Federal Aid. With about 50 members, the Grants-in-Aid
Committee included state and private delegates as well as key staff
from the Office of Federal Aid. The committee played an integral part
in managing the Administrative Grant Program, setting the focus areas
each year for which grant proposals would be solicited. It also
evaluated and ranked eligible grant proposals, including proposals from
its parent organization, the International Association of Fish and
Wildlife Agencies. Finally, it recommended those grants it believed the
Office of Federal Aid should fund and the amount of funding for each
grant. The committee's grant recommendations were typically adopted and
implemented by the Office.
The Grants-in-Aid Committee was not chartered as a Federal Advisory
Committee. As a result, it performed the functions described above
independently and outside the public view. FACA requires, among other
things, that advisory committees be chartered and reviewed every 2
years by the agency head, that committee membership be representative
and balanced, and that committee proceedings and records be open to the
public.
Officials of the Department of the Interior have questioned the
Grants-in-Aid Committee's status. For example, in a November 1991 memo,
the Chief of the Federal Aid Office stated that he believed that the
grant review process used the committee in an advisory capacity and
that the committee would need to comply with FACA. This opinion was
shared by the Chief's supervisor who informed the Director of the
Service in a January 1992 memo, ``The use of the Grants-In-Aid
Committee has not been approved under the Federal Advisory Committee
Act and also raises an appearance of a conflict of interest.'' He went
on to state that it would be in the best interest of the Service to
discontinue this practice to avoid any further questions or criticism
of the Service. Although this concern was raised informally to the
Department of the Interior's Office of the Solicitor, a written opinion
was not requested, because, according to Service and Office of Federal
Aid officials, the informal advice they obtained was that there was no
violation of FACA.
We did not make a determination about whether the committee should
have been subject to FACA's requirements. The applicability of the act
to the committee's activities was outside the scope of our audit work.
Because the Administrative Grant Program has recently been terminated,
questions about its former procedures are at this point academic.
Nevertheless, the committee guided the disbursement of about $4 million
in Federal Aid funds to administrative grantees each year. It
functioned as a virtual partner in managing the Administrative Grant
Program, and because it was never brought under FACA, it operated
largely without supervision and behind closed doors. If the
Administrative Grant Program were to be reconstituted, the role of any
outside group in setting grant program parameters and in evaluating and
ranking potential grantees should be tailored appropriately. If the
role is not substantially more limited than what had previously
existed, there should be a formal determination that the group is
functioning consistent with FACA.
Question 8. Are the regional offices in the Fish and Wildlife
Service using Federal Aid funds to pay for regional activities in a
consistent manner?
Response. As we discussed in our July 20, 1999, testimony, we found
that the Service had no consistent practices for making regional office
assessments. These assessments are charges that the regions make
against the administrative funds for salaries, travel expenses, support
costs, and other administrative activities. Each of the regions uses a
different approach for making the assessments.
In its August 10, 1999, letter to us, the Service said that it has
sought to establish a workable degree of consistency to the regional
use of administrative funds. It said that as part of its annual budget
guidance, it has told its regions that no assessments may be levied
against any program, budget activity, subactivity, or project funded by
the Federal Aid in Wildlife Restoration Act unless advance notice of
such assessments and their bases are presented to the Committee on
Appropriations and are approved by the committee. Subsequently, Service
and Office of Federal Aid officials told us that they provided this
guidance since 1997. The Service also said that not all of its regions
have followed this guidance. To ensure adherence to this stated policy,
the Service said that it would identify and adopt specific steps to
help provide consistency and uniformity. It also plans to seek guidance
in this area from a State/Federal Aid Review Team that has been formed
to evaluate the administration of the Federal Aid program. The Service,
however, failed to identify the specific steps it plans to take or the
schedule for completing them. Service and Office of Federal Aid
officials told us that they are currently developing a plan that
identifies the steps needed and their completion dates.
Question 9. You emphasized the absence of routine audits of Federal
Aid's use of administrative funds. However, many, perhaps even most,
federal programs are not routinely audited. Why do you think routine
audits are so important in the case of the Federal Aid program?
Response. We think routine audits of the administrative funds are
needed for several reasons. First, unlike most other federal programs,
Federal Aid receives dedicated tax revenues each year to administer its
programs. As a result, program officials do not have to publicly
justify the programs' spending levels before the Congress each year.
Second, although Federal Aid provides bi-annual reports on its programs
to the public, it does not fully disclose all of its spending, as our
work has shown. For example, the spending associated with the use of
administrative funds by the Director's Conservation Fund and the
Service's regional offices is not discussed in these reports. Third,
only three audits of the administrative funds have been performed over
the past 20 years, each of which has identified some significant
management problems. Since the program funding does not have to be
appropriated and no routine audits are performed, the Federal Aid
program has had very little oversight.
Routine audits will provide independent scrutiny of how these funds
are spent. Given the problems we identified in the Federal Aid programs
in 1993 and the problems we again found in 1999, we believe that
routine audits of the use of administrative funds are essential.
Service and Office of Federal Aid officials told us that they have a
proposal from an independent firm to perform an audit of the
administrative funds covering fiscal years 1999 and 2000.
Question 10. Do you think it is appropriate for Fish and Wildlife
Service's regional Federal Aid officials to be responsible for
resolving the audit findings of the Defense Contract Audit Agency's
(DCAA) state audits?
Response. The Office of Federal Aid initiated a national audit
program in fiscal year 1996 to routinely audit how states and other
qualified government recipients are using the grant funds provided
under the Sport Fish and Wildlife Restoration programs. Under the audit
program, each recipient of grant funds will be audited every 5 years
under a contract with the DCAA. Resolution of the audit findings is the
responsibility of the Service's regional Federal Aid office covering
the entity being audited.
In our opinion, having the Service's regional Federal Aid offices
perform audit resolution is problematic because it places them in a
situation of performing dual and somewhat conflicting roles and
responsibilities. One of the primary missions of the regional offices
is to work closely with the states in advocating and encouraging their
participation in the Federal Aid program to enhance the states'
wildlife and fishery resources. To have these same offices policing the
program by charging them with resolving audit findings could make it
more difficult to maintain independence and comply with existing
internal control standards governing the separation of duties. \2\
According to these standards, key duties and responsibilities in
authorizing, processing, recording, and reviewing transactions should
be separated among individuals. Furthermore, the deterrent for the
states to spend funds inappropriately could be jeopardized if the audit
resolution process is not independent of an organization that has a
significant role in encouraging the use of grant funds. DCAA officials,
who perform the audits of the states, also raised this concern to us.
According to these officials, the Service and the states have a
partnership, and it may be difficult for a regional Federal Aid office
to hold states responsible for making the repayments indicated by audit
findings. Therefore, assigning the responsibility for audit resolution
to a Department of the Interior organization other than the Service's
regions would seem more appropriate.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ Standards for Internal Controls in the Federal Government, U.S.
General Accounting Office, 1983.
Question 11. In addition to grants made via the Director's
Conservation Fund and the Administrative Grant Program, during your
work did you find evidence of other grants?
Response. We found that the Office of Federal Aid's headquarters
made grants in addition to those made from the Director's Conservation
Fund and the Administrative Grant Program. We identified 18 other
grants amounting to about $2.6 million that were awarded from fiscal
year 1994 through fiscal year 1998. The grants ranged from $5,000
awarded to a high school for student training in aquatic environment
and fisheries management to $400,000 each to three marine fisheries
commissions. For example, the Gulf States Marine Fisheries Commission
received its $400,000 in fiscal year 1994 to develop a work plan for
the sport fish restoration administrative program. Other examples of
these grants include $25,000 to a state game commission to conduct a
symposium on North America's hunting heritage, $60,000 to a university
to publish and distribute a fish and wildlife laws newsletter, and
about $93,000 to a management firm to produce a handbook for fish and
wildlife managers and administrators.
It should be noted that the Federal Aid reports made available to
the public do not divulge the existence of these grants, why they were
made, or what the funds were used for, even though the reports
explicitly state that their intent is to provide a complete accounting
of where the Federal Aid funds are spent. For example, the message from
the Office Chief appearing in a 1997 program update states, ``This
Program Update is intended to remove the mystery of where the money
comes from and where it goes, to inform the reader about current
Federal Aid issues and opportunities, and to build knowledge of and
credibility for the Sport Fish and Wildlife Restoration grant programs
and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.'' Similarly, in a program
update for 1999, the Office Chief stated that ``it is in the
conservation community's best interest'' that the Office provides as
much information as can be absorbed.
(141477)
__________
STATEMENT OF JAMIE RAPPAPORT CLARK, DIRECTOR, U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE
SERVICE, DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Thank you for the opportunity to discuss the Fish and Wildlife
Service's administration of the Federal Aid in Wildlife Restoration
Program (Pittman-Robertson Program) and the Federal Aid in Sport Fish
Restoration Program (Dingell-Johnson or Wallop-Breaux Program), and the
pending legislation to revise our administrative authorities for those
programs, H.R. 3671 and S. 2609.
The Federal Aid program became the source of considerable
controversy following testimony by the General Accounting Office before
the House Resources Committee last year, and often unfounded charges by
various organizations. We acknowledge many of the concerns GAO pointed
out in their House testimony last year. Where they identified problems-
-and there were problems--we have worked aggressively, and we believe,
successfully, to resolve them.
We believe enactment of legislation to clarify authorities for
administration of the Federal Aid program could be beneficial to the
program, and play an important role in reassuring America's sportsmen
and sportswomen that their tax dollars are being used for the intended
purposes. However, there are three elements of both bills with which we
have considerable concern, which I will detail later in my statement.
We could support enactment of either bill if these concerns are
addressed.
At the same time we acknowledge many of GAO's concerns, I want to
assure the committee that the sensational charges made in elements of
the news media and by some organizations are completely unfounded. No
funds have been stolen, no grants have been made to animal rights or
anti-hunting groups, nor has any illegal expenditure been made with
these funds. As you know, the grant programs established under the
Federal Aid in Sport Fish Restoration Act (Wallop-Breaux Act), Federal
Aid in Wildlife Restoration Act (Pittman-Robertson Act), Clean Vessel
Act (pump-out), and the Coastal Wetlands Planning, Protection and
Restoration Act provide a broad array of benefits to the States. These
funds have helped states restore fish and wildlife habitats, develop
thousands of boating access sites and sanitation pumpout facilities,
and restore thousands of acres of wetlands. In addition, millions of
the Nation's young hunters have taken hunter education courses offered
by the States, making hunting a safer family activity.
Funds for these programs are collected from excise taxes paid by
sportsmen on firearms and ammunition, archery equipment, fishing tackle
and motorboat fuels. These programs are administered by the Service
through our Division of Federal Aid. They are perfect examples of user-
pay, user-benefit conservation mechanisms and they are being studied by
other countries as potential models for their own conservation efforts.
This year, the Fish and Wildlife Service provided almost $500
million to states to manage the Nation's fish and wildlife resources
and related programs from excise taxes provided by sportsmen. Since the
beginning of the first grant program--the 60 year old Wildlife
Restoration program--over $7 billion has been provided to the States.
I would also like to point out that the Federal Aid program picture
is not entirely a negative one. Additional funds have been made
available for allocations to the States as a result of a Federal Aid
initiative. In 1998, the Service initiated a Working Group, comprised
of representatives from the offices of Senator John Breaux and
Congressman John Tanner (representing the Congressional Sportsmen's
Caucus), International Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies
(IAFWA), Wildlife Management Institute, Archery Merchants and
Manufacturers Organization, Internal Revenue Service, the Customs
Service, and the Bureau of Alcohol Tobacco and Firearms, to review the
accuracy and timing of excise tax collections and deposits in the
Wildlife Restoration Account.
As a result of this Working Group's efforts, more than $20 million
was recovered and transferred to the Account. These funds were
allocated to the States in fiscal year 1999.
Our efforts also identified ways to transfer excise taxes to
Treasury more rapidly from the Internal Revenue Service. Over $10
million in excise tax collections are now available for apportionment a
year earlier than in the past. These earlier transfers lead to more
interest accrual to the accounts. In addition, we initiated with
Treasury's Bureau of Public Debt, a reconciliation of the Sport Fish
Restoration and Boat Safety Accounts within the Aquatic Resources Trust
Fund, which has returned significant funds to the Sport Fish
Restoration Account. Other efforts, such as coordinating closely with
the Corps of Engineers to identify their long-term construction
schedule under the Coastal Wetlands Planning, Protection and
Restoration Act, led to improvements in investment strategy for those
funds, in that we were able to invest at higher rates.
We have also initiated, with assistance from the States and
industry, a training program for IRS District Office Excise Tax agents
who are responsible for monitoring collection of the program excise
taxes. The program is designed to give them a better understanding of
what items are to be taxed and how the revenues are used by the States.
We feel that our oversight and management of revenues has been
aggressive, innovative and productive, resulting in many tens of
millions of dollars being available for the Federal Aid programs. We
look forward to the time in the near future when we will be able to say
the same of our internal operations related to these programs.
I want to begin my detailed discussion of this issue by pointing
out that a considerable number of changes to improve administration of
the Federal Aid program were underway at the time the 1999 GAO review
began. Additional actions have been taken as a result of the 1999 GAO
House testimony. I would note that we have not received a final report
from the GAO on their current review of the program, although I have
formally asked for it in writing. In 1993, GAO released a report on
administration of the program that made the following recommendations:
1) require the Washington and Regional offices to document and support
all administrative cost charges made to the Federal Aid program; 2)
equitably allocate among all applicable programs the costs of
initiatives that benefit the Service or Department as a whole; and 3)
follow established policies and procedures when selecting special
investigations (which later became the Administrative Grants and
Director's Conservation Fund), consider the priority needs of the
States in making these grants, and monitor them to ensure objectives
are achieved and results disseminated. Later that year, we initiated a
new budget review process to ensure that all requests for Federal Aid
funds were adequately justified, and the Federal Aid program began
maintaining files of all direct charges to the Sport Fish Restoration
program.
In 1994, we implemented another of the GAO recommendations by
revising the formula by which Service programs were assessed for
general administrative services, which reduced amounts assessed against
the Federal Aid office, and we required that calculation of the amount
needed for these general administrative services be reviewed annually.
We ended the practice of charging overhead costs to the State grants
portion of the account, and implemented the practice of describing
cross program initiatives involving Federal Aid in the Service's Budget
submission.
We implemented another GAO recommendation by publishing in the
Federal Register policy and procedures for funding special
investigations, redesignated as Administrative Grants; this was
published annually from 1994 until the program was terminated in 1999.
We also referred all proposed grants which met the criteria to the
Grants in Aid committee of the International Association of Fish and
Wildlife Agencies, (IAFWA) which represents all of the State wildlife
agencies, in order to receive their advice on priorities for funding
these programs, again as recommended by GAO.
In 1997, we issued guidance to Regional Directors relating to
approvals for charges against the Federal Aid accounts.
Taken together, these initiatives represent an agency response to
every recommendation that was made by GAO in 1993, and in a manner
consistent with those recommendations.
We also had our own on-going efforts to improve the program. In
1996, we initiated, apart from the GAO recommendations, a new program
to audit the State's use of funds apportioned under the Federal Aid
program. We also began to design a new grant management information and
tracking computer system.
In September of 1998, we published a Federal Register query to
solicit public input to identify better ways to manage administrative
grants. Subsequently, we decided to terminate the administrative grants
program. In a May 12, 1999, letter to the IAFWA, the Service announced
its plans to eliminate the grants program due in part to concerns
received in response to the Federal Register notice regarding the
management of these grants. In July, we published a Federal Register
notice terminating future Federal Aid administrative grants.
During the Fall of 1998, in our review of the uses of
administrative funds, we became concerned about the Director's
Conservation Fund. While these funds supported many worthwhile
conservation projects, it was decided to reduce the funding available
during Fiscal Year 1999 and to terminate the program for future years.
Notification was made on this decision in March 1999.
Another initiative of the Service was the establishment of a State/
Federal Review Team to review administration of the Federal Aid
program. During a meeting with the IAFWA in March 1999, the Service
initiated an oversight evaluation of Washington and regional-level
administration of the Federal Aid program to be conducted in
cooperation with our State partners. The State/Federal Review Team met
formally for the first time on July 27 and 28, 1999, and then again on
August 4, 5 and 6. The Team identified ways in which the Federal Aid
program could be more efficient, effective and responsive. During this
evaluation, the Review Team also considered current and previous GAO
findings and recommendations to improve program management.
In addition, we have established a new audit program for grant
funds in all the states. The audit cycle will complete in-depth audits
of all States by the end of Fiscal Year 2001. The audits are being
conducted independently by the Defense Contract Audit Agency. These
audits are coordinated fully with the Office of Inspector General and
they cover only audit areas not covered by state auditors under the
Single Audit Act. Many state departments of natural resources have had
little or no audit coverage in over 15 years.
I want to stress that all of these actions and decisions were taken
well in advance of receiving any input from the GAO from its 1999
review of the program.
I would now like to address the specific issues raised by GAO in
their House testimony last year. First, GAO's testimony refers to an
$85 million discrepancy as the Service attempted to reconcile accounts
in its new grant financial management and information system. However,
this figure was not then accurate, and the nature of the actual
discrepancy must be put in context. Many of these errors represent
differences among balances in a system maintained by the Division of
Federal Aid and the official administrative accounting system used to
track all Service funds.
Since 1986, the Division of Federal Aid had maintained its own
records rather than rely upon the Service-wide Federal Financial System
(FFS) as the primary system to track its funds, as Federal Aid did not
believe the FFS system provided the information it needed. The primary
difference is that the Division of Federal Aid kept track of amounts
obligated for transfers to the States, while the FFS system tracked
actual expenditures (i.e. the transfer of the funds to the States). The
obligations and expenditures did not occur at the same time, leading to
apparent discrepancies in the bookkeeping when records from one system
were compared to the other.
In 1998, in order to address this and other problems, the Federal
Aid Office and the Service's Division of Finance commenced a joint
effort to identify the specific grant records, correct data errors, and
most importantly, create an interface between the systems. This
reconciliation has been a time and labor intensive effort, but we have
fully reconciled these records, with every dollar accounted for. We are
also confident that we will complete implementation of the new
interface later this month, and that it will eliminate recurrence of
this problem.
It is important to note here that the error was in how Federal Aid
maintained its own set of books, which were not reflective of how money
was actually expended by the financial arm of the Service, and that no
funds have been lost.
Second, to address the financial management weaknesses within the
Federal Aid program that the GAO identified, we established six
internal working teams and a management structure to guide the efforts
of the teams. The structure and approach are based upon discussions
held with Federal Aid representatives and auditors for both GAO and the
Inspector General. These teams focused on financial reconciliation,
grants management, audit resolution and the Federal Aid Information
Management System (FAIMS). Recommendations from each team are being
implemented into the program.
Third, GAO's testimony identified a ``missed opportunity to earn
over $400,000 in interest income.'' GAO is referring to an advance
payment of $9.7 million the Service transferred to the Bureau of Census
for work on the National Survey of Hunting, Fishing and Wildlife
Associated Recreation. The advance payment represented the amount we
believed at the time was necessary for the Bureau of the Census to
ensure on-schedule completion of the survey. We recognize that interest
income was lost. To avoid similar future losses, we have, in
coordination with the Bureau of Census, developed a cash forecast of
the needs to support the survey work and instituted a policy to make
only those payments essential for incremental progress in carrying out
the survey. Thus, interest income will not be lost in the future.
Fourth, GAO's testimony noted travel discrepancies in the Office of
Federal Aid. Concurring that this problem warranted immediate
attention, the Service rescinded the open travel authorization for the
entire office, re-apprised all staff of Service travel rules and
regulations, and required all Office travel to be approved by the
Assistant Director for External Affairs until last month, when the new
Division Chief was in place.
We also reviewed all international travel between 1994 and 1999,
and found 6 trips which appeared related more to conservation in the
host nation than the administration of the Federal Aid program. Those
costs have been repaid to the Federal Aid accounts.
Fifth, GAO's testimony noted that the Service does not have a
routine audit program for the review of the use of administrative
funds. In 1998, the Service initiated efforts with the Defense Contract
Audit Agency (DCAA) to establish such an audit program, but DCAA
ultimately advised us they would be unable to develop this program. The
Service agrees that an audit program for administrative funds is
important and has contracted with an outside auditing firm to conduct
such an audit. We expect to receive an interim report on their audit of
FY 1999 administrative funds next month, and an audit of the current
fiscal year's funds will begin following completion of the FY 1999
audit.
Another issue discussed by GAO was a stated lack of uniformity or
guidance with respect to Service regional office uses of administrative
funds. Although direct administrative support services constitute a
legitimate use of administrative funds, the Service has sought to
provide a workable degree of consistency--recognizing that our State
clients and their needs vary dramatically from Region to Region. As
noted earlier, we issued guidance on this issue in 1997. Thus, contrary
to the GAO testimony, there was and is guidance on this subject.
We unfortunately must acknowledge that not all Regions followed
this guidance. I have had a direct and pointed discussion about this
with all of our Regional Directors following the House hearings, and
believe this issue is resolved.
Lastly, GAO's testimony refers to an accumulation of ``over
$100,000 in contract generated fees, the disposition of which is
unclear.'' The Service has thoroughly reviewed the contract in question
and finds no ambiguity whatever regarding the ``fees'' generated under
this contract. The contract specifically states that the Government
pays to the contractor the costs of providing services to cooperators.
The contractor is allowed to charge non-cooperators, primarily non-
government organizations and private researchers, costs for copying,
compiling, and mailing information they request. Thus, the ``generated
funds'' are not ``profits'' to the contractor, but are fees the
contractor collects to offset its costs.
Now, I would like to address the Service's use of administrative
funds to provide grants. This has been one of the most contentious
issues in the House Committee's review of the Federal Aid program. The
Federal Aid in Wildlife Restoration Act authorizes the Service to use
up to 8 percent of the funds in the program for administration and
execution of the program. The Federal Aid in Sport Fish Restoration
statute authorizes the Service to use up to 6 percent of funds (after
making certain deductions) for necessary investigations, administration
and execution of that program. Congress gave the Secretary and the
States considerable flexibility to determine within the parameters of
the law which programs or projects to fund. We acknowledge that our
management processes for overseeing these grant funds were deficient.
But we also believe that under current law the Service enjoys
considerable leeway in identifying and funding timely and important
conservation opportunities with these funds.
We would point out that the concept of awarding of grants utilizing
administrative funding from the Sport Fish and Wildlife Restoration
programs to provide information and assistance to the Service and the
State fish and wildlife agencies has been an ongoing process, over many
years, withstanding legal scrutiny from the Department of the Interior
Solicitor's Office, and has been supported by State agencies.
As far back as 1955, the Solicitor's Office issued an opinion
recognizing that administrative funds could be utilized to fund a
project aimed at surveying the expenditures of boaters and anglers. In
1986, the Assistant Solicitor for Fish and Wildlife affirmed the 1955
opinion, and endorsed the concept that the funding of administrative
grants was justified where the information developed from such projects
would be valuable in administering the Federal Aid Program, and would
be useful to States in determining the types of restoration projects
for which Federal assistance was being sought.
Acquiring such information serves the administration of the Federal
Aid program, and the authority for the Service to enter grant
agreements for this purpose is delegated from the Secretary's authority
under the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act (16 U.S.C. 661), which
authorizes the Secretary to provide assistance to and cooperate with
Federal, State and public or private agencies or organizations for a
broad range of fish and wildlife purposes.
While we recognized that corrective measures were needed to improve
management of the Administrative Grant program, and began to identify
better ways of managing the program prior to its cancellation, we
maintain that the Service's use of administrative grants to fund
special projects has served a valuable function to both the Service and
the States in administering the Federal Aid program. Nonetheless, as I
have already stated, we have terminated the Administrative Grants
Program.
Both H.R. 3671 and S. 2609 address this issue by providing a
statutory basis for the grants. We have no objection to this, and would
defer to the States as to the amount of funds which should be available
for these grants. The Fish and Wildlife Service took very seriously the
criticism of our management of the Federal Aid program by the General
Accounting Office, although as noted above we strongly disagreed with
certain elements of their statement. We have taken a number of actions
to improve the program since the GAO testimony, in response to their
concerns and the recommendations of the Federal-State Review Team.
In part due to the Team's recommendation and in part due to our own
on-going workload analysis, we have instituted re-alignments in both
the Washington and Regional Offices which will place Federal Aid,
Migratory Birds and other state-related programs under the same
management. Until recently, Federal Aid was under the Assistant
Director for External Affairs, who also supervises the Service's
Congressional and Public Affairs programs. The time needed for these
two activities makes it virtually impossible for this individual to
provide effective day-to-day management or oversight of the Federal Aid
program.
In addition, the chief of the Washington office of the Federal Aid
program was assigned to other duties earlier this year, and then
accepted a position at another agency. His replacement, an individual
both familiar with the program and with a strong financial background,
is now on board. Similarly, in the Regional Offices, the Federal Aid
offices now report to senior managers with strong mandates.
This last year we have initiated cost saving measures in every area
of the our administration of the program, returning $3 million of the
funding available to us to the States for their use this year, and are
actively pursuing ways to further economize in program expenditures. As
part of this effort, we are initiating an analysis of the program
operations nationally, with the assistance of an outside contractor, to
determine the number of staff and the expertise needed to properly
administer this program. We are also reviewing, and have met with the
States regarding, ways to streamline compliance with Federal
requirements relating laws such as the Endangered Species Act, National
Environmental Policy Act, Americans with Disabilities Act, and the
various civil rights statutes.
We believe that we have undertaken strong and effective action to
address the problems within our Federal Aid office. We are not yet
where we want to be, but we are getting there. We welcome the oversight
provided by this committee as an important element in ensuring that we
operate these programs in an effective and efficient manner.
I mentioned at the beginning of my statement that we had three
concerns over the pending bills. The first and most important is that
in their effort to downsize our administrative effort, the bills do not
provide sufficient funds to administer the program. Both bills provided
$14,180,000 for FY 2001, and declining amounts over the next two years,
after which time the funding level would increase with the cost of
living. Currently, we are authorized not to exceed 8 percent of the
Wildlife Restoration funds and not to exceed 6 percent of the Sport
Fish Restoration funds for administration, or about $32 million
annually.
We have proposed to reduce this to not to exceed 4 percent for each
program, or approximately $18.8 million, and a language change that
would provide for including the ``small grants'' programs statutorily
created within the Sport Fish program as part of base on which the 4
percent is calculated.
We are thus proposing a 50 percent reduction in administrative
funds under the Wildlife Restoration account, and a reduction of one-
third in available funds under the Sport Fish Restoration account.
However, we cannot go lower than this and properly run the program.
The House funding level, which is repeated in S. 2609, is
inadequate. The House Committee majority decided that there should be
63 employees administering the program nationwide, with a budget of
$10,000,000, and set forth in the committee report the numbers of
persons, titles and grade levels they felt were appropriate for each
Federal Aid office. In contrast, we currently have an authorized full
time employee (FTE) level for the program of 146, and due to our
efforts to economize, approximately 120 people actually on board.
In negotiations after we strongly objected to this funding level,
the majority staff offered to provide funding for the current staff,
with a phase-down to a lower staff number. Among the information we had
provided to the House Committee was that the total cost in salary and
all benefits for an average Federal Aid employee was $76,000. They
reached the $14,180,000 figure by on-the-spot multiplication of the
$76,000 figure by the 57 additional employees now on the payroll, and
adding that to the amounts they had previously calculated were needed
for the 63 FTE program. They subsequently provided us with corrections
to those calculations, and we have shared them with your committee's
staff.
However, in doing this, they provided no additional funds for
overhead for these additional 57 employees. The very existence of these
employees would result in additional costs to us for telephones,
computers, rent, utilities and other indirect costs. The funding levels
in these bills would realistically support approximately 85 employees,
and could result in a Reduction in Force (RIF) for the Federal Aid
program.
The most frustrating aspect of this for us is that there has been
no public suggestion from GAO, the States, or any organization
representing hunters, anglers or boaters--those who pay the taxes and
benefit from the programs--that the Federal Aid program is overstaffed.
We therefore strongly urge the committee to adopt the reduced
administrative funding levels for these programs that we have proposed,
rather than the unworkably lower amounts called for in the two bills.
We support the requirements in both bills that a budget justification
for use of these funds be submitted to the authorizing committees each
year, so you will have every opportunity to review how we propose to
spend these funds. Furthermore, if the review of the program staffing
and expertise needs now underway results in our finding ways to operate
the program at less cost, we will share that information with you and
reduce our spending accordingly. However, that review cannot be
completed in time to be reflected in this legislation. In addition to
this issue, the bills both set forth 12 categories of allowable
expenditures. While we have no problems with these, we are concerned
that there is no provision for unanticipated needs. We propose that we
be authorized to make an expenditure outside of these 12 categories if
the Secretary notifies this committee and the House Resources Committee
in writing in advance, and waits 30 days for any comments you may have.
This is the same process used with the Appropriations Committees for
reprogrammings, and has worked well for many years.
Our last concern is that Title III of both bills contains statutory
provisions for specific positions and management structures within the
program. This is unwarranted micromanagement. If the Director of the
Service is to be held directly accountable for the operation of this
program and it is quite clear that there will be significant
Congressional oversight for years to come then the Director should be
able to manage it in the manner he or she believes most effective. We
therefore urge the committee to delete sections 302 and 303.
The oldest Federal Aid program--the Pittman-Robertson Program--is
more than 60 years old. The Dingell-Johnson or Wallop-Breaux program
will celebrate its 50th year during the year 2000. Since their
inception, these programs have contributed over $7 billion to the
States and U.S. affiliated territories for their fish, wildlife,
wetlands, and boating projects. Without these programs, many states
would not have realized the fish and wildlife management successes that
they now enjoy. Successful administration of this program requires a
complex network of management systems. Over the past several years, the
Service has been working energetically to improve these systems so that
we can keep pace with the evolving needs of the States. These ongoing
improvements, and others which we will develop as a result of
recommendations from the Congress, the GAO, and the States, will enable
us to continue to keep our Federal Aid Programs at the forefront of
fish and wildlife conservation in the new millennium.
That concludes my formal statement. I will be pleased to respond to
any questions you may have.
__________
STATEMENT OF R. MAX PETERSON, EXECUTIVE VICE PRESIDENT, INTERNATIONAL
ASSOCIATION OF FISH AND WILDLIFE AGENCIES
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am Max Peterson, Executive Vice-
President of the International Association of Fish and Wildlife
Agencies, and I appreciate the opportunity to share with you the
perspectives of the Association on the administration of the Federal
Aid in Wildlife and Sportfish Restoration programs by the USFWS. As you
are aware, all 50 Sate fish and wildlife agencies are members of the
Association. These two programs, popularly known as the Pittman-
Robertson Act (wildlife) and Dingell-Johnson/Wallop-Breaux Act
(sportfish) have to be considered by any follower of fish and wildlife
conservation as two of the most important federal acts that served as
the foundation of State-based conservation efforts to ensure the
sustainability of the fish and wildlife resources of this Nation for
the appropriate use and enjoyment of our citizens.
Enacted early in the genesis and growth of the American
conservation movement (Pittman-Robertson in 1937; Dingell-Johnson in
1950) these two acts reflect the continuing support of the hunters,
anglers, boaters and shooters of this country to willingly pay the
excise tax on hunting and fishing equipment, and outboard motor fuel
taxes, in order to ensure the conservation of fish and wildlife
resources, and safe boating use of our Nation's waters. These programs
are also long-standing examples of good state-federal cooperation in
the management of fish and wildlife resources, which, as you are aware,
are principally under the jurisdiction of the States, or under shared
and concurrent jurisdiction with the USFWS for migratory birds, listed
threatened and endangered species and anadromous fish.
The Association is concerned about recent problems with
administration of these programs by the USFWS and agrees that
Congressional action and legislative clarification is needed. The
Association strongly supports action to ensure the integrity, viability
and continued effectiveness of these highly successful and popular
programs.
As you would expect, Mr. Chairman, the Association has had a long
history of involvement with these programs at every stage of their
legislative and administrative growth dating back to the early decades
of the last century. With respect to the use of the up to 6 percent
(Dingell-Johnson/Wallop-Breaux) and 8 percent (Pittman-Robertson) that
the statutes make available to the Secretary for ``administration and
execution'' of the programs, we have raised concerns at various times
since 1988 with some USFWS expenditures that we considered would not
fall within either statutory language or a generally accepted
understanding of what constitutes administration of the program by the
FWS in their role of delivering the apportioned funds to the States. We
did this while also recognizing that the statutory language with
respect to this function of the Secretary lacks explicitness and
specificity in detail. At a minimum, we believed that, absent explicit
statutory guidance, the use of the administrative funds should be for
activities for which both the USFWS and the State fish and wildlife
agencies concurred. We took our belief in this from the statutes which
identify the USFWS and the State fish and wildlife agencies as the
statutory partners responsible for implementing these Acts. And,
secondly, although it is not explicitly provided for in the statutes,
the State fish and wildlife agencies and the USFWS have historically
agreed to use some of these 6 percent and 8 percent administrative
funds to conduct a National Survey of Fishing, Hunting and Wildlife
Associated Recreation (since 1955) which has been of immense value to
the USFWS and the State fish and wildlife agencies in each state.
Further, for the last 20+ years, the States and the USFWS have agreed
to use some of these funds to administer a program of grants (the
National Administrative Grants program) to complete high priority
projects for national fish and wildlife conservation which have
benefited all the States collectively. In addition to their on-the-
ground benefits for fish and wildlife resources and our citizens who
appropriately use and enjoy them, the cost of developing and
implementing these projects of national benefit to the States is
significantly less when done ``nationally'' than if each state
undertook the project on its own. I attach some examples of these
projects to this testimony for the committee's information.
The law provides that the funds (up to 6 percent and 8 percent)
that are not expended by the Secretary for administration of the
programs are apportioned to the States. Since about 1992, the USFWS has
used the full 6 percent and 8 percent, including since about 1994,
funds for the so-called Director's Conservation Fund (which Director
Clark eliminated in 1999). No provision for State concurrence with
grants made under this fund was ever employed. Further, in February
1995 the Service proposed to use $2 million of Sportfish administrative
funds to support fish hatchery transfers to the States because
operational funds for this purpose had not been requested in the
Administration's fiscal year 1996 budget. The Association opposed that
use of funds, but the Assistant Solicitor for Fish and Wildlife
concluded that the Director enjoys great discretion to fund activities
using administrative funds and there was no legal impediment to using
these administrative funds for hatchery transfers to the States.
Two years ago, the Director asked the States to undertake an effort
to improve the efficiency of the administration of the National
Administrative Grants program, explaining that the cost to the USFWS
Office of Federal Aid was excessive and constrained their ability to
effectively administer these funds. After a year of work by our
Association, including due public notice and review, on a revised
procedure under which the States would assume a greater administrative
burden, the Director in July 1999 announced the cancellation of the
National Administrative Grants. In April of 1999, the Director had
advised the Association of the discovery of a projected deficit in
fiscal year 1999 administrative funds, which was attributed to: 1)
costs of state audits by Defense Contract Audit Agency; 2) cost of
automating the grants delivery system (FAIMS); and 3) costs of
administering the small grants programs under Wallop-Breaux. The result
was cancellation of the NAG program. Enclosed for the committee's
information is a chronology of these events as contained in a
resolution adopted by the Association at our Annual Meeting in
September 1999 in Killington, VT.
The Association believes also that the use of the GAS overhead
formula with respect to overhead costs, as opposed to an assignment of
actual costs, resulted in significantly higher assessment to the trust
fund programs than to other USFWS programs to which was applied actual
cost assessment. This practice, since about 1993, also contributed
greatly to escalating costs in the administration of the Federal Aid
programs.
About a year ago, at the Association's request, the Director of the
USFWS agreed to appoint a joint state-federal review team, co-chaired
by (now retired) Deputy Director John Rogers and Jerry Conley, Director
of the Missouri Department of Conservation and Chair of the
Association's Grants-in-Aid Committee. The agreed to purpose of the
team was to make recommendations for improvements to the administration
of the Federal Aid program by the USFWS that would make it more
efficient, effective, and responsive. While the work of the review team
proceeded, the Association adopted action at the business meeting
during its 1999 Annual meeting directing that the Association staff
work towards the following legislative changes to the administration of
the Wildlife and Sportfish Restoration Acts:
1). Clearly define within the Acts the phrase ``for administration
of this Act'' to indicate only funds necessary for the USFWS to perform
its function including delivery of apportioned funds to the state fish
and wildlife agencies by the Secretary;
2). Specifically authorize in the Acts a program for funding
projects of national benefit to the States collectively and authorize a
process for states to approve such projects with a provision to
apportion funds (to the States) if all are not used; and
3). Recommend appropriate levels of funding for each of these (1 &
2) ``subaccounts'', and legislatively protect these subaccounts from
co-mingling.
The state-federal review team submitted its final report to all of
the State Fish and Wildlife Directors and the Director, USFWS, on
November 17, 1999 with extensive recommendations to improve the
administration of the Federal Aid programs to make them more efficient,
more effective and more responsive. In December 1999, the Association's
Executive Committee met to consider comments from the State Fish and
Wildlife Agencies on the review team report, and amplified the review
team report with the following recommendations relative to suggested
legislative reform of administration of the Federal Aid program:
1). The Executive Committee reaffirmed the action taken by the
Association at its September 1999 business meeting.
2). The Executive Committee reaffirmed that a clearer definition of
``administration'' needs to be legislatively defined to correct the
ambiguity that currently exists.
3). The Executive Committee reaffirmed that the Acts should be
legislatively amended to specifically authorize a program for funding
projects of national benefit to the states collectively and to
authorize a process for states to approve such projects.
4). The Executive Committee recommended that 3 percent (Dingell-
Johnson/Wallop-Breaux) and 4 percent (Pittman-Robertson) be made
available under the Act to the Secretary to administer the programs,
with a phase-in to permit orderly change.
5). The Executive Committee recommended that 2 percent from each
Act be made available for projects of national benefit in order to
fully realize the benefits of projects like the National Fishing,
Hunting, and Wildlife Associated Recreation Survey and for projects of
multi-state benefit. A copy of the Executive Committee recommendations
and the state-federal review team report is appended to this testimony
for the committee's use.
Although I realize that this is not a bill hearing Mr. Chairman,
let me quickly share with you the Association's perspectives on H.R.
3671 and S. 2609. As you know, H.R. 3671 passed the House on April 5,
2000 by a vote of 423-2. S. 2609 is similar to H.R. 3671.
The Association strongly supports legislative reform to the
administration of the Federal Aid programs in the context of the
recommendations in the actions taken by the Association which I just
chronicled for the committee. The Association supports H.R. 3671
because, in concept, it embraces the Association's position. However,
we would urge the committee when it turns to marking-up legislation, to
give serious consideration to the following improvements to H.R. 3671
which would make it consistent with the details of the Association's
recommendations and we believe better meet the objective of improving
the efficiency, effectiveness and responsiveness of the program.
The recommendations include the following:
1. H.R. 3671 would provide $5 (or $7 million under S. 2609)
annually for projects of national benefit. At least four existing
programs funded at about $4 million from each Act per year (the
National Fishing, Hunting, and Wildlife-Associated Recreation Survey,
the Management Assistance Team, the Administrative Grants Program, and
the Library Reference Service), at the recommendation of and
concurrence with the States, have been funded for several years by
administrative funds. The $5 million provided by H.R. 3671 is not
sufficient to fund these four programs and to include other projects of
multi-state or national benefit that the States might want to fund
collectively at much less expense than if each state conducted them
individually. Examples include coordination in developing an automated
fishing and hunting licensing project; Hooked on Fishing Not on Drugs;
an international framework to benefit migratory songbirds across
Mexico, the U.S. and Canada called Partners in Flight; and other
examples as appended to this testimony. For the last several years,
about $2 million for each of the two funds have been used for projects
of national benefit. IAFWA's position is that 2 percent of each fund
(approximately $4.5 million each) should be available annually for
projects of national benefit.
2. As you know, under existing law, the USFWS can currently utilize
up to 6 percent of Wallop-Breaux and 8 percent of Pittman-Robertson
funds to administer the two programs. H.R. 3671 (and S. 2609) would
reduce this to a straight dollar amount of $14,180,000 the first year,
and to a further gradual reduction over the next two years. IAFWA's
position is that 3 percent of Wallop-Breaux and 4 percent of Pittman-
Robertson ($16 million total) funds should be available annually to the
USFWS for delivery of apportioned funds to the States. The funding
level of $14,178,000 is not believed to adequately and effectively
deliver apportioned funds to the States. Failure to adequately fund
this program does not benefit the states because it impacts timely
review of projects necessary for prompt reimbursement to States of
apportioned funds.
3. Over the years, several grant programs have been added to the
Sport Fish Restoration Program. These include the Clean Vessel Act
Pumpout Program ($10 million/year), the Boating Infrastructure Grant
Program ($8 million/year), and the National Outreach and Communication
Program ($5-10 million/year). Although these program funds are
withdrawn before the calculation of administrative funds is made, no
specific provision is made for funds to the FWS to administer these
small grant programs. The FWS is now considering using sport fish
restoration administrative funds to administer these programs. IAFWA
recommends that the attached language be included in H.R. 3671,
specifying that administrative costs for each small grant program
should be made available from the fund specified for each program and
not from Sport Fish Restoration administrative funds. This would save
approximately $1.5 million SFRA administrative funds.
Finally, Mr. Chairman, let me share some observations with you
about the provision in H.R. 3671 and S. 2609 which would earmark an
additional amount of Pittman-Robertson dollars to the States for hunter
education and bow safety programs. I understand that this reflects the
concern from some in the hunting and shooting sports community that the
States aren't spending all of the funds available to them under
Pittman-Robertson for these activities. Our concern is that using only
the expenditure of Pittman-Robertson funds as a measure of the States
responsiveness in providing these programs is inappropriate and not an
accurate reflection of State programs. Further, we believe strongly
that the State fish and wildlife directors are in the best position to
determine in their states, through working with their hunting
constituency what the priority needs for Pittman-Robertson funds are,
and that these decisions should not be directed from Washington.
We would thus appeal for contained allowance of the discretion of
expenditure of these funds by each Director.
Let me quickly share with you the record of success of the States
with respect to these programs. A recent survey of state hunter
education programs revealed that 43 responding states spent $26 million
on hunter education in fiscal year 1999. This was $3 million more than
the $23 million of Pittman-Robertson hunter education funds available
to them for that year. The additional funds come from state hunting
license and other state appropriated funds. This did not include the
value of over $7 million of in-kind contribution by their volunteer
instructors, which number approximately 55,000. Since 1949, more than
25 million students have received hunter education training.
The state fish and wildlife agencies have developed and are
implementing very successful hunter education programs. These programs
provide mandatory hunter education certification to all first time
hunters. As a result, hunting related accidents have been reduced
dramatically. These programs are funded with a mixture of Pittman-
Robertson federal aid funds, state license funds, general
appropriations and the in-kind contribution of thousands of program
volunteers. The states are committed to continue and expand hunter
education and safety programs, a well as archery and firearm range
construction and enhancement. As long as this commitment exists, the
Association strongly believes that it is preferable to give the state
as much flexibility as possible in how they spend their funds so they
can address state specific needs and use their federal dollars for
maximum benefits.
As another reflection of the States responsiveness to the bow
hunting constituency in particular, over the past three decades, the
success of state fish and wildlife programs have greatly increased bow-
hunting opportunities. In conjunction with expanding wildlife
populations, the establishment of longer bow hunting seasons, liberal
bag limits, and special bow hunting seasons, the number of bow hunters
has increased significantly. This has occurred at a time when the
number of gun hunters has been relatively stable.
From 1991 to 1996, the number of bow hunters in our country
increased by 22 percent from 2.7 million to 3.3 million (National
Survey of Fishing, Hunting and Wildlife-Associated Recreation). All
indicators are that this increased participation is continuing. The
opportunities are not just happenstance, but proactive and responsive
measures taken by the State fish and wildlife agencies to provide more
opportunities to this constituency.
In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, the Association is committed to
working with you, Chairman Smith, Senator Baucus and Senator Boxer to
bring appropriate legislative reform to the administration of the
Pittman-Robertson and Dingell-Johnson/Wallop-Breaux programs this year.
The problems surfaced in administering the program by the USFWS are
serious and require legislative clarity in the statute in order to
remedy them. The Association believes that the recommendations that we
have made to the committee will contribute to the passage of a
legislative proposal, and, when enacted, will greatly improve the
integrity, efficiency, effectiveness and responsiveness in delivering
to the States the apportioned funds of this hugely successful program.
Since their enactment, these Acts have provided over $7.1 billion to
the States for fish and wildlife conservation, hunter safety and
education programs, and boating safety programs for the millions of our
citizens who appropriately use and enjoy the bountiful natural
resources of our great Nation. Let's make sure we continue this success
story for future generations of Americans.
Thank you Mr. Chairman, and I would be pleased to answer any
questions.
______
ATTACHMENTS TO MR. PETERSON'S TESTIMONY
The National Administrative Grants Program
These programs have, for more than 20 years provided a way for the
states to pool resources and solve common problems effectively and
efficiently. These multi-state grant projects optimize the several
states' ability to meet their responsibilities in the field of fish and
wildlife management.
Often misunderstood or taken for granted, multi-state projects have
played a crucial role in state fish and wildlife agency response to
challenge for more than 20 years. In addition to pooling resources to
solve common problems economically, this program has been a source of
venture capital to search for new and innovative techniques.
A few examples of some recent multi-state projects resulting from
this program include:
Economics of Hunting, Fishing and Bowhunting in the United States
The data generated have provided the only information available on
the economic Anew is of hunting and sling on a state-by-state basis.
The states have used these data extensively and they have been
important to the agencies in calling attention to the benefits of
agency programs both to the resources and to the people who use them.
Virginia's use of these data to secure additional funding for resource
programs has set an example here that other stases are considering.
Becoming An Outdoors Woman
This project has helped the states implement programs to meet
changing demographics and increase our ability to respond positively to
the changing needs of our constituents. The project has provided
training and instructional materials for the states to use in
developing and implementing programs for women interested in hunting,
fishing and outdoor wildlife-related activities.
Automated Wildlife Data Systems
A project that enables states to assess cutting-edge technology
that very few states could have afforded individuals. The use of
automated data system enables the states to provide up-to-date full
service programs to constituents. This has saved both time and expense
for state agencies.
Partners in Flight
This project has provided a national neotropical migratory bird
conservation program. Under a national framework, bird conservation
plans are under development for each state and/or physiographic region.
This is a partnership program between state agencies, Federal agencies,
universities and non-government agencies. The project provides land
managers with information on 400 species of neotropical migrants for
incorporation into land management plans.
Shooting Range Symposia
These symposia, held triennially, have been instrumental in
facilitating increases in state range development and shooting sports
activities by pooling expertise for presentation en masse to state
managers. These symposia hare also provided a forum for emerging data
for technology transfer on newly developed range safety techniques and
emerging environmental issues.
Harvest Information Program
This project tackled the myriad of problems faced by Federal and
State waterfowl managers associated with insufficient harvest data. The
information gleaned is subsequently used for surveys conducted by the
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to collect improved information
necessary for the proper management of migratory game birds. This
Program, well on the way to addressing this need, could face
termination short of accomplishing its goal if there were no multi-
state grants program.
Hooked on Fishing Not on Drugs
This partnership project with the Future Fisherman Foundation has
assisted states in establishing programs to encourage and provide
opportunity for children to participate in recreational fishing and not
become involved in drug use.
Furbearer Management Outreach
There is probably no more controversial and contentious issue
facing most state managers than dealing with over-abundant furbearers.
This project is paired with a multi-state testing project and is
nationally coordinated but regionally developed. Developed best
management practices will be critical to the maintenance of state
furbearer management, which utilizes trapping as a successful wildlife
management tool.
Wildlife Disease Handbook
This project pooled existing information in one convenient location
for reference by state wildlife managers.
National Shorebird Conservation Plan
This project developed a National Shorebird Conservation Plan to
protect, enhance and restore migratory shorebirds in all of the states.
1-800-Ask Fish
A project to assist the states in establishing a program to provide
public information on fishing opportunities and to sell hunting and
fishing licenses via a toll-free telephone number.
______
RESOLUTION NUMBER 3
REFORM OF SPORT FISH AND WILDLIFE RESTORATION ADMINISTRATIVE FUNDS USE
WHEREAS, for more than half of this century the Federal Aid in
Wildlife and Sport Fish Restoration Programs (Pittman-Robertson and
Dingell-Johnson/Wallop-Breaux) have delivered to the Nation a broad
array of fish and wildlife benefits. A legacy of sound administration
and oversight by the Fish and Wildlife Service, care by the States in
selecting and implementing projects, and the continuing support of
hunters, anglers, shooters, boaters and manufacturers have made these
programs successful and durable; and
WHEREAS, the Association has had occasion in recent years to
protest decisions by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) to
use administrative funds for purposes related only tangentially to
``administration and execution'' of these programs. Congress authorized
the Secretary of the Interior to expend up to 8 percent on the wildlife
side (6 percent on the sport fish side) for purposes of administration
and execution with the remainder, after deduction for specific purposes
established by Congress, followed by mandatory apportionment to the
States. By degrees, the Service arrived at the position that unused
amounts within the 6 and 8 percent ceilings may be expended at the
discretion of the Director for fish and wildlife purposes bearing some
relation to State programs, whether or not the States themselves
consented\1\; and
WHEREAS, related to the use of funds for purposes not clearly
within the ``administration and execution'' authority, for the past 2
years the Association teas listened attentively on behalf of the
States, developed proposals, studied alternatives, and sent delegations
of Association officers to Washington in an effort to address the
Service's concern that its efforts in carrying out the administrative
grant program (a $4 million program) are too time-consuming in relation
to the much larger state grant program ($450 million); and
WHEREAS, these Association efforts were nullified when the Service
made the sudden discovery of a projected deficit in fiscal year 1999
administrative funds, leading the Acting Director on July 26, 1999, to
announce the cancellation of sport fish and wildlife restoration
administrative project funding\2\; and
WHEREAS, following cancellation of the administrative grant
program, the Association was invited by the Service ``to join in a
comprehensive review of the Federal aid process with the goal of making
the entire program more responsive and efficient, and it promptly
accepted the Service invitation because of the critical importance to
state government members of fish and wildlife restoration funds; and
WHEREAS, certain uses of administrative funds by the Service, as
well as the methodology by which the Department of the Interior
assesses charges against sport fish and wildlife restoration
administrative funds for Service overhead, are now being questioned in
investigations underway by tire General Accounting Office and the House
Committee on Resources.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the International Association
of Fish and Wildlife Agencies hereby
1. Reaffirms its longstanding commitment to the principle that, in
the final analysis, excise taxes are available under these programs
because of the willingness of hunters, anglers, other recreationists
and manufacturers to be taxed in order to support State programs to
restore fish and wildlife resources and associated recreation;
2. Stresses that, in pursuance of that trust, unused administrative
funds ought either to be apportioned to the States or expended to
undertake projects, to which the States give their consent through the
Association, that provide fish and wildlife conservation benefits to a
majority of the States and which no single State, or even several
States, could undertake on its own;
3. Expresses deep dissatisfaction that the administrative grant
program, an adjunct of the sport fish and wildlife restoration programs
of unique value to the States, has been canceled, in part because funds
have been diverted to questionable uses including projects for which
State consent was not given;
4. Urges the Congress to remove any ambiguity in the statutes
relating to program administration that has served as a hinge for
attempts to enlarge the discretion of the Director or the Secretary
with respect to amounts within the statutory ceilings, including a
tightening of what it means to administer and execute these programs,
and to establish on a firmer footing the multi-state projects that
benefit a majority of States; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the International Association of Fish
and Wildlife Agencies supports oversight by the Fish and Wildlife
Service and the states as safeguards essential to the continued success
of these programs, including periodic audits of the States, Federal-
state policy clarification, and conduct of a comprehensive review of
ways to streamline the administration of the wildlife and sportfish
restoration programs.
END NOTES
\1\(a) In 1988 the Director proposed to use administrative funds to
support joint venture projects under the North American Waterfowl Plan
without observing established procedures for securing state
concurrence. On further review, the Director assured Association
President Doig that ``No administrative funds will be used to
substitute for regular appropriations.''
(b) In 1993 a GAO report recommended that, in expending funds for
special investigations (administrative grants), established policies
and procedures be followed by the Service in considering priority needs
of States.
(c) In 1994, without notice or request for comment, the Director's
Conservation Fund was established, drawing up to $500,000 each year
from P-R administrative funds and a like amount from D-J/W-B
administrative funds. From its inception, 35 grants totaling $3.8
million have been made under the Director's discretionary fund.
Established procedures for identifying State concurrence were not
employed.
(d) In February 1995 the Service proposed to use $2 million of
sport fish administrative funds to support fish hatchery transfers to
the States because operational funds for the purpose had not been
requested in the administration's fiscal year 1996 budget.
(e) In March 1995 the Office of the Solicitor, post hac, confirmed
the Director's proposed use of administrative funds to support hatchery
transfers. In a draft memorandum notably short on analysis, the
Assistant Solicitor-Fish and Wildlife concluded that the Director
enjoys discretion to fund activities using administrative funds and, if
expenditures do not exceed the 6 percent statutory ceiling, no legal
impediment exists to funding hatchery transfers to the States.
(f) March 1999, after questions were raised by GAO, the Service
terminated the Director's Conservation Fund.
\2\In April 1998 the Service identified focus areas in soliciting
proposals for administrative grants and restated established procedures
for selecting projects. 63 Fed. Reg. 17882 (April 10, 1998). in July
1999 the Service canceled the administrative grant program. 64 Fed Reg.
40386 (July 26, 1999). In between those dates:
(a) On May 26,1998, the Service gave notice of intent to reconsider
procedures for funding national administrative grants, advising that
the Service would develop a full range of options for funding future
national conservation priorities. 63 Fed. Reg. 28514 (May 26, 1998).
(b) On September 16, 1998, the Service invited comment on five
alternatives to the administrative grant process then in existence on
grounds the program is too time consuming and is inefficient for the
Service to administer given the size of the administrative fund program
($4 million) in relation to the much larger state grant program ($425
million). 63 Fed. Reg. 49606 (September 16, 19998).
(c) At the Association's September 1998 meeting in Savannah, the
Grants-in-Aid Committee recommended and the Association approved
Alternative 3, under which the Association would take over
solicitation, ranking and approval of projects, with final approval by
the Director and administration of grants by the Division of Federal
Aid.
(d) On December 14,1998, the Association was notified that the
Service had selected Alternative 5, a single annual grant proposal by
the Association listing specific fish and wildlife conservation action
needs which, if approved by the Director, would be administered by the
Association.
(e) Following the Service's selection of Alternative 5, the
Association assembled a team to work with the Office of Federal Aid to
modify Alternatives 3 and 5 to address the desire of the Service to
reduce its time-consuming involvement in the administrative grant
program.
(f) On January 25, 1999, the Executive Committee agreed that the
Association would administer the national administrative grant program
under a modified Alternative 5.
(9) By letter dated February 17,1999, Association technical
committee chairs and regional association presidents were advised that
the Association had been working for 10 months to resolve
administration of the national administrative grant program. The
Association solicited committee and regional association
recommendations for priority conservation needs, on an expedited
schedule, by March 15, 1999.
(h) At the Executive Committee meeting of March 27,1999, the
Director agreed to meet with State representatives in early April to
set administrative program funding priorities.
(i) During the meeting of April 6,1999, the Director advised that
the sudden discovery of a projected deficit in fiscal year 1999
administrative funds would require prompt action to reduce
expenditures, and the Director agreed to consult with State
representatives before taking final decisions. A report to State fish
and wildlife directors advised them to ignore rumors about the future
of the administrative grant program. The projected deficit was
attributed to:
Costs of administering small grant programs. Sometime in
early 1999 the Service concluded that the costs of administering small
grant programs created by amendments to the Sport Fish Restoration Act
(Clean Vessel Act Pumpout Program, the Boating Infrastructure Program,
and the Coastal Wetlands Planning, Protection and Restoration Program)
could not be assessed against the grant amounts authorized by statute
but must instead be absorbed out of Sport Fish Restoration Act
administrative funds. Additional cost: $1 million per annum.
Costs of state audits by Defense Contract Audit Agency. A
substantial amount not present prior to fiscal year 1997. Additional
cost per annum not revealed in the public notice of cancellation.
Costs of automating the grants delivery system (Federal
Aid Information Management System). Costs are said to be much greater
than 2 years ago when the Service began this process. Additional cost
per annum not revealed in the public notice of cancellation.
(g) By letter dated May 12, 1999, the Director advised that the
Service would be unable to offer a national administrative grant
program for fiscal year 2000.
(k) By letter dated May 25,1999, Association President Holmes
expressed appreciation to Director Clark for her agreement To back up
and take another look'' at the reductions in administrative funds
spelled out in the Director's letter dated May 12,1999.
(l) By letter dated May 28,1999, Director Clark advised President
Holmes that no good options exist in the short term and further review
of administrative funding decisions taken by the Service would be a
futile exercise.
(m) By notice of July 26, 1999, the Service announced the
cancellation of Federal Aid in Sport Fish and Wildlife Restoration
Administrative Project Funding. 64 Fed. Reg. 40386 (July 26, 1999).
______
International Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies
memorandum
TO: State Fish and Wildlife Directors
FROM: David Walla, President
DATE: December 30, 1999
SUBJECT: Executive Committee Action on Review Team Report
As you know, the Executive Committee met in Washington, DC on
December 12-13, 1999. A major part of the meeting was devoted to
developing an Association position on the joint Fish and Wildlife
Service/State review of the Sportfish and Wildlife Restoration
Programs. I had previously sent each of you a copy of the Review Team's
report and requested your review and comments. Although the time for
review was short, we received and compiled responses from 29 states
prior to the Executive Committee meeting.
As you would expect, we received a wide variety of responses. Due
to this range of opinions, the Executive Committee used the responses
as a general guide to help arrive at positions on specific
recommendations committee also had the benefit of a brief presentation
on the report by Fish and Wildlife Service Deputy Director John Rogers
and Lob Miles, a member of the review team. We then spent more than 2
hours discussing the responses arch the states as well as our
experiences in our own states in working with the Sport Fish and
Wildlife Restoration Programs.
There was general agreement that it was timely to take a look at
how to improve these programs to make them ``more effective and more
responsive''--which was the basic charge to the Review Team. Retaining
the confidence of hunters and anglers, as well as Members of Congress,
and the public were recognized as important considerations.
We also recognized that changes of any kind arc seen as threatening
to some even though there has been great changes in the capability of
states and their ability to manage programs in the more than 60 years
since the Wildlife Restoration Program was begun. This was reflected
both in the Review Team Report and in the comments of most states.
It was obvious that in most cases, the State Federal Aid
Coordinators had played a significant role in the report review and the
compilation of their state's comments. In many cases the report hat
been discussed with Fish and Wildlife Service Regional Federal Aid
personnel.
Our Executive Committee, and our state members, expressed strong
recognition of the value of the Sport Fish and Wildlife Restoration
Programs and the role they have played in advancing fish and wildlife
management in our country. They acknowledge the partnership
relationship that exists between the Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS)
the states and that our combined efforts have been responsible for the
success of these two programs. They expressed their desire that this
partnership continues and that the Service retain an administrative and
oversight role to help insure program integrity and public confidence.
Executive Committee members were concerned about the recent
accusations and the negative publicity that the various program reviews
and investigations have generated. They recognize the need to act
promptly to address and remedy the problems. Even though change can be
disturbing and even threatening to some, they support the need to
streamline the administrative processes that guide the Acts
implementation. They want this to be done in a cooperative manner that
assures continued public confidence in these two remarkably successful
programs.
Our Executive Committee was generally in agreement with the
recommendations of the review team, even though they did not agree
completely with some of the findings. They adopted the following
positions on certain issues or recommendations contained in the report.
1) The action by the Association's business meeting was reaffirmed
(see Item 4).
2) The proposed new mission statement does not adequately reflect
the nature of the legal partnership that exists between the FWS and the
states. The Service's role is important but limited, with roost of the
funding by law being apportioned to the states. The FWS oversight
responsibilities, such as eligibility, audits, training, fiscal
management, etc. should be acted to the new mission statement. We win
provide the FWS with the suggested new language.
3) A clearer definition of administration and execution needs to be
legislatively defined to correct the ambiguity that currently exists
and to more clearly define the greater responsibilities that the states
will assume. Much has changed since the 1937 and 1950 responsibilities
were defined and it is timely to reflect those changes.
4) The Sport Fish and Wildlife Restoration Acts should be amended
to specifically authorize a program for funding project of national
benefit to the states collectively and to authorize a process for
states to approve such projects, with a provision to apportion funds if
all are not used (items three and four above were addressed by a motion
adopted at our business meeting in Killington (copy attached).
5) The amount the two acts specify that the Secretary may use for
administration should be reduced from its current level of six and 8
percent, respectively, to three and 4 percent, with a phase in time to
permit orderly change. It was noted in the discussion that 3 and 4
percent is close to the amount actually spent prior to 1998 for FWS
administration. Additional administrative funds were spent for such
items as the National Fishing and Hunting Survey, Management Assistance
Team, the Library Reference Service and Administrative Grants Program,
which the review team recommended placing in a separate category of
national projects. In addition, such things as the Director's
Conservation Fund and the transfer of fish hatcheries have in the past
come from administrative funds. So the initial reaction of some states
and some FWS people that the report essentially cut in half the amount
the Service would have for administration is clearly not correct. To
administer these two programs effectively and responsively will require
both the Service and the states to cooperate in the streamlining
effort.
6) The 1-percent that the report recommends for projects of
national benefit should be increased to 2-percent of each fund. The 1-
percent would only fund currently committed activities such as the
National Fishing and Hunting Survey, MAT and the Library Reference
Service, leaving no funds for any other projects of national benefit.
Although it might be possible to reduce the cost of the Survey, MAT and
the Reference Service, adoption of the report's one-percent
recommendation would effectively terminate the previous competitive
administrative grants program for the foreseeable future. Projects of
substantial benefit have and should continue to be funded from
administrative funds, with a clear process for unused funds to be
apportioned to the states.
7) The tam ``Federal aid'' should be replaced with Sport Fish and
Wildlife Restoration Trust Fund. These are clearly trust funds financed
by hunters, anglers and boaters and not a Federal handout.
8) There have occasionally been problems with the Regional
Directors making decisions with which a state director disagreed.
Currently it is unclear what recourse a state has in such a situation
and to whom the state can appeal. An informal appeal or review process
should be established to address questions in a timely manner.
I want to thank each of you for the time you took to review this
important document and for providing me with your thoughtful responses.
From your efforts, it is obvious that state members are greatly
concerned for the future of the Sport Fish and Wildlife Restoration
Programs, and are willing to work with the Fish and Wildlife Service
and with Congress to assure their continued surpass.
______
Sport Fish and Wildlife Program Review and Recommendations for
Improvement
November 17, 1999
INTRODUCTION
Since their passage in 1937 and 1951, the Wildlife Restoration and
Sport Fish Restoration Acts, respectively, have been the centerpiece of
wildlife resource conservation in the United States. These highly
successful Acts have set the benchmark for fish and wildlife management
worldwide. In total, these Acts, and their administration, have been
very successful. As time has passed, evolution in the role of the
partners requires a reexamination of the traditional administration of
this program. This review addresses that need and culminates in
recommendations that represent fundamental changes in the
administration of the Wildlife and Sport Fish Restoration Acts.
Realizing numerous desired and needed changes to the administration of
these landmark programs, this review lays the foundation for a new
mission and a new program. Recommended changes to program
administration occur in the following areas:
Mission
Leadership and Management of the Federal Aid Program
Basic Program Administration and Execution
Projects of National Benefit
Implementation
Background
The last joint FWS/state review of the federal aid programs was
conducted in 1988. That review focused primarily on how the states and
the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) administered the apportioned
funds. States and the FWS believe that a comprehensive review of how
the FWS uses the 6 and 8 percent authorized by the Sport Fish and
Wildlife Restoration Acts, respectively, for administration of the
programs is needed to guide management activities for the next 5-10
years. In addition, events during 1998 and 1999, such as a significant
shortfall in the amount of funds available for proposed administrative
activities, a Government Accounting Office Audit of the FWS use of
administrative funds, and Oversight Hearings by the House of
Representatives Committee on Resources contributed to the need for a
review of FWS administration of the programs.
Charge
The purpose of this review is to identify ways to make the programs
more efficient, more effective and more responsive.
The review and evaluation were conducted by a team of
representatives designated by the FWS and the state fish and wildlife
agencies through the International Association of Fish and Wildlife
Agencies (IAFWA). The FWS and the state fish and wildlife agencies are
the two statutory partners specified in the Wildlife and Sport Fish
Restoration Acts. Recommendations for action by the Director of the FWS
are provided in this report. The team also provides recommendations
applicable to the states.
This review team considered the following broad areas in preparing
this report:
a.The current administration processes and costs for both programs
relative to the statutory requirements; b.The commitment of financial
and human resources to administer each of the programs; c.The budgetary
and planning processes used in administering the programs. This
included a review of the current budget processes and recommendations
to ensure the future costs and commitments are given adequate
management attention; and d.The operational portion of the programs
involving the approval of projects, commitment of funds and
reimbursement/transfer of funds to the states.
Review Process
Representatives from the FWS, state fish and wildlife agencies and
IAFWA met on four different occasions for a total of nine days to
review the use of administrative funds and develop this report. In
addition, review team members visited each FWS Regional Office (staff
from Region 7 joined the Region 1 meeting in Portland) and the
Washington, DC Office to meet separately with state federal aid
coordinators and their FWS counterparts. They discussed the following
questions related to FWS use of administrative funds (with an emphasis
on FWS administration of the funds apportioned to the states):
1) what is working well;
2) what is not working as well as it could;
3) what could be done to address deficiencies identified above;
4) if we were starting from scratch, what suggestions can be
offered for designing/delivering the federal aid programs to gain
efficiencies and effectiveness.
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
I. MISSION
Finding: The existing mission statement for the Division of Federal
Aid does not adequately reflect the growth in state capabilities and
expertise since Program inception and the corresponding reduced need
for some facets of Program management at the Federal level.
Additionally, the services needed by the states during the next 5-10
years will evolve to include more streamlined delivery of Program
funds. The existing mission statement reads: ``Strengthen the ability
of State and Territorial fish and wildlife agencies to restore and
manage fish and wildlife resources to meet effectively the consumptive
and non-consumptive needs of the public for fish and wildlife
resources.''
Recommendation: Adopt a new mission statement as follows:
``Effectively collect, manage and deliver sport fish and wildlife
restoration funds and other partnership funds to support state and
territorial agencies in carrying out their fish, wildlife and boating
program missions'' (see addendum).
II. LEADERSHIP AND MANAGEMENT OF THE FEDERAL AID PROGRAM
A. Finding
The administration of the Fish and Wildlife Restoration Programs
has not received adequate attention and priority by the FWS. The
current program apportions $500 million annually to the states. A
program of such importance does not receive sufficient representation
at the Directorate level of the FWS. The general belief among FWS
Federal Aid staff is that they have no support from a Directorate that
places little importance on their Program.
Years of inadequate and weak leadership have lead to a general
deterioration of program function and output. The Division Chief has to
spend a large amount of time on important external matters. This left a
critical void in internal staff management within the Washington
Office. Additionally, staffing in the Program has not, at times,
reflected the need for personnel with direct knowledge of the Program
and with the skills and abilities to administer the Program
effectively. Development of staff in terms of career potential,
personal growth, recognition, and mobility has not been a focus for
management.
The FWS's current organizational structure makes it extremely
difficult to administer a national program that is consistent and
clearly defined. As a result of the leadership and management issues
cited above, the Regions do not look to Washington for leadership. The
role of the Washington Office has become unclear to staff in Washington
and the Regions. Due in part to this lack of clarity it is difficult to
get agreement among the Regions on issues involving more than one
Region or State and there is often duplication of efforts between the
Regions and the Washington Office. Serious attention must be given to
establishing and implementing clearly understood roles and
responsibilities for the Washington Office and Regions.
Recommendations:
1. Elevate the status of Fish and Wildlife Restoration Programs
within the FWS by establishing an Assistant Director for Sport Fish and
Wildlife Restoration and other Partnership Funds.
2. Strengthen the Division Chief's responsibilities to include
internal staff leadership and management of the Washington Office. One
of the primary responsibilities of this position should be to ensure
job responsibilities are delineated, operational procedures are
defined, and the organizational structure and staffing is adequate to
support the demands of the organization. It is necessary that the
Division Chief position provide the necessary management for the office
to include the challenging decisions on staffing and policy issues that
are internal to the office.
3. Ensure that personnel brought into the Program in both the
Washington and Regions have the necessary knowledge, skills and
abilities to administer the Program effectively. Ensure that Program
staff receive appropriate career development, recognition, growth, and
mobility opportunities commensurate with other FWS programs and in
accordance with FWS policies.
4. Develop and implement clearly understood roles and
responsibilities for the Washington Office Division of Federal Aid and
its Regional counterparts. Issues such as: budget development,
financial management, audit coordination, policy development, policy
interpretation, national consistency, program evaluation, staffing,
operational support to the Director and Regional Directors,
Congressional liaison, and outreach, among others, should be addressed.
B. Finding:
In recognition of the need for a unified, integrated system for
tracking apportioned fund obligations and accomplishments, in 1995, the
FWS undertook development of the Federal Aid Information Management
System (FAIMS). This system was intended to replace existing fiscal
(FAPALS) and information (FAIRS) systems that could not be made Y2K
compliant and to facilitate electronic apportioned funds management.
Neither of the older systems were compatible with the Department of
Interior's Federal Financial System (FFS) used for Interior wide
accounting.
FAIMS is scheduled to be developed in three phases: 1) FWS tracking
of apportioned funds and accomplishments; 2) state tracking of
apportioned funds and electronic submission of new proposals; 3) and a
geographic information system.
To date in excess of $8 million has been spent on system
development. There has been limited involvement by appropriate state
personnel to determine the states' needs for delivery of apportioned
funds and an additional $11 million is projected to be spent over the
next three years for further development, implementation and
maintenance. There has been no cost/benefit analysis of this system and
no effort to contain development and implementation costs. The
excessive cost of this system has placed a burden on administrative
funds available to the FWS to administer the Acts.
Recommendations:
1. The FWS should immediately contract for a thorough, independent
system analysis of the FAIMS program. This independent analysis should
include: needs, system requirements and design, cost, benefits and
alternate ways of delivering an appropriate system. The independent
analysis should be completed within 90 days of acceptance of this
report. Implementation, in consultation with the Steering Committee
recommended in part V of this report, should be completed by October 1,
2000.
2. The analysis should involve appropriate state and federal aid
personnel in identification of needs and system requirements.
3. Until this analysis of FAIMS is completed, all new development
work should cease. Efforts should be limited to those necessary to
ensure that Phase I is fully operational and maintained and that
appropriate training, technical support, user manuals and operational
and maintenance costs are provided.
C. Finding:
In 1996, the FWS's Federal Aid program implemented a nationwide
audit program providing audits of the states, territories and the
District of Columbia every five years. The audit program was
implemented in response to deficiencies noted in the 1994 Office of the
Inspector General audit findings of the FWS's Federal Aid program. The
audit program has been viewed as a mechanism to improve the financial
integrity in the administration of the federal aid program. The purpose
of the audit program, therefore, is to assure state monies received
through the federal aid program meet the intended project purposes and
benefits for which the monies were granted and that programs are
conducted in compliance with applicable federal requirements.
Audits have been conducted by a single governmental organization
under contract with the FWS. Audit findings are reported to the
Department of Interior's Office of the Inspector General for
resolution. As of September 30, 1999, 28 audits have been completed, 3
are completed in draft and 21 are in progress. To conduct the audit
program to date has cost $4.4 million. It is projected to cost an
additional $4.6 million to finish auditing the 66 entities in the
Federal Aid program, for a total of $9.0 million.
During the first audit cycle, audits were conducted by multiple
audit offices and teams of the contract agency. As a result, there was
no consistent approach or application by the contract auditors in
conducting their audit activities. Furthermore they had limited
knowledge or expertise in the area of natural resource programs either
at the state or federal levels.
An audit of a state fish and wildlife program is should review
state records within the context of the existing state financial and
program performance reporting systems. The audit contractors' charge is
not to mandate specific accounting and reporting systems, as long as
the state system meets legal reporting requirements. However, there has
been evidence that the audit contractors have demanded changes to state
systems to conform to the contractors view of ``appropriate financial
accountability''.
To have an effective audit resolution system, resolutions must be
acted on promptly, decisively and consistently. Significant problems
exist with the timely resolution of audit findings and secondarily with
the provision of audit reports, either in draft or final form, to the
respective State. Delays in the resolution of audit findings have been
attributed to internal communication issues in the FWS and with the
contract auditors.
Approximately 25 percent of audit costs relate to the FWS's on-site
orientation, program briefings of contract auditors on basic federal
aid activities, and general communications between the regional federal
aid staffs and the contract auditors. Because it has been the practice
by the contract audit agency to rotate their audit teams across FWS
regions, many of the efficiencies gained by those teams in learning
regional/geographic specific issues is lost by the frequency of the
rotation. Furthermore, this rotation process places a greater burden on
the open communications that are encouraged by the FWS by necessitating
a re-training of audit staffs. This extraordinary amount of time
consumed in communications and retraining has inflated audit costs. No
effort was made, that we are aware of, to develop a comprehensive and
less disruptive training and orientation program for the auditors.
The current cost of a single audit by the contract agency is
approximately $157,000 per state. In the course of this review, it came
to our attention that one state completed an independent audit of its
federal accounts for $11,000. It may be incorrect to assume that the
two audits are comparable; however, it does suggest that there is some
reason to question the gross disparity in costs of the audit programs.
Recommendation:
The Service should contract for an independent review of the audit
program. This independent review should be undertaken within three
months of acceptance of this report and be completed within 90 days of
its initiation. The review of the audit program should address:
a.Redefine the scope and criteria of the revised audit activity.
b.A review of similar federal grant audit programs either at the
state or federal level. The intention of this review would be to
identify those ``best practices and models'' for possible adoption by
the Fish and Wildlife Service in streamlining the Sport Fish and
Wildlife Restoration grants audit program.
c.Better definition of the criteria for selection of an auditor.
d.Completion of the audit program in a way that will bring the
highest quality at the least cost.
e.Development of a comprehensive orientation program for the audit
agency; maintenance of a cohesive and consistent regional audit
program--keeping audit teams in place once trained.
f. Development of an audit resolution process that assures timely
and consistent disposition of audit findings.
D. Finding:
The FWS has established a system of periodic audits of state Fish
and Wildlife Restoration Programs to ensure compliance with Program
procedures and regulations. There is no comparable audit program within
the FWS directed at its own administrative use of federal aid funds.
Recommendation:
The FWS should establish an independent audit program for its
administration of federal aid funds to ensure program integrity and
compliance with established business practices.
E. Finding
The Sport Fish and Wildlife Restoration Program is funded by
manufacturers' excise taxes and import duties that are collected by
several Federal Agencies. Past experience has shown that funds are
often not fully collected, credited or distributed to the FWS. This
frequently results in a loss of interest income to the program. Recent
experience has shown that active involvement and tracking by the FWS
dramatically increases receipts into the Program.
Recommendation:
The FWS should strengthen and institutionalize its capability to
monitor and collect funds. This capability should be part of a fund
management program that includes proper investments for maximum
returns. This fund management program should be given a high priority
by the FWS as a vital part of the administration of the Sport Fish and
Wildlife Restoration Programs.
III. BASIC PROGRAM ADMINISTRATION AND EXECUTION
Finding:
The relationship between the FWS and the states relative to
resource management expertise and staff training has evolved into a
relationship of co-equals. The implications of this changed
relationship have not been fully reflected in the day to day
administration and execution of the program. Because of changes in the
level of biological and management expertise in the states, it is only
necessary for the FWS to review state grant applications for
eligibility. As currently administered, pre-award compliance issues
represent a major component of Federal Aid oversight responsibilities.
Transfer of compliance to states and realignment of the functions of
the Federal Aid program with a new focus on delivery of trust funds to
the states for eligible activities will result in a substantial
reduction in administrative cost while ensuring program integrity is
maintained. Training in program administration to ensure integrity is a
necessary basic component of efficient administration, as are audits,
apportioning funds and financial management.
There is no definition for ``administration and execution'' of the
Acts provided within the Acts. This causes confusion about what costs
may be charged to administration and funded by the six and eight
percent authorized by the Acts. Recent uncertainty, has arisen
concerning the proposed funding to be used to administer specific grant
programs established by the Sport Fish Restoration Act, such as the
Clean Vessel Act, Coastal Wetland Grants, Fishery Outreach and Boating
Infrastructure program. Administrative funds from the Sport Fish
Restoration Act have been proposed by the FWS to fund the
administration of these specific grant programs. This will be an
additional administrative cost to the program.
Recommendations:
1. Expenditures by the FWS for administration and execution should
be capped at 3 percent (Sport Fish Restoration) and 4 percent (Wildlife
Restoration). This reduction should be phased in over a period not to
exceed two years, subject to a schedule developed, in consultation with
the Federal/State Steering Committee recommended in part V of this
report.
2. Define the term ``administration and execution'' to mean those
actual administrative expenses of the Washington and Regional offices
necessary only to deliver apportioned trust funds to the states,
including, but not limited to, eligibility determinations, audits of
state and federal programs, financial management and necessary training
of state and federal personnel.
3. The actions required to deliver apportioned funds to the states
should be altered to address the new mission.
4. FWS reviews of state grant applications should focus on
eligibility, while activity related to biological and substantiality
reviews should be minimized.
5. To the extent practical and consistent with law, grant
compliance requirements should be delegated to the states.
6. Training of both state and federal staff in program
administration is needed to ensure consistency and effectiveness.
7. Unless otherwise directed by Congress, administrative costs for
each small grant program should be made available from the fund
specified for each program and not from Sport Fish Restoration Act
administrative monies.
IV. PROJECTS OF NATIONAL BENEFIT
Finding:
For over 20 years a portion of administrative funds provided by the
Sport Fish and Wildlife Restoration Acts have been used to fund
projects of national benefit to a majority of the states. These
projects have been selected through a screening and ranking process by
the IAFWA representing the interest of the states and forwarded to the
Director of the FWS with a recommendation for funding. This process has
funded many valuable projects benefiting the hunter and angler, state
agencies and industry partners.
Within the last two years the FWS announced the termination of this
process, but then agreed with the states to cooperatively improve the
process. The improved process was never implemented because the FWS
again terminated the process due to projected costs in excess of the
administrative funds available. The states, through the IAFWA and the
FWS, have consistently supported the funding of such projects and
continue to believe these projects can serve a valuable benefit to
wildlife resources and the states charged with their stewardship. There
have been situations in recent years when the FWS has funded projects
rejected by the IAFWA. Also in 1994, the FWS established a ``Director's
Conservation Fund'' of approximately $1 million annually for funding
other projects independent of the states' process. In March 1999, the
``Director's Conservation Fund'' was terminated.
Recommendations:
1. That within the six and eight percent for administrative funds
provided to the Secretary within the Sport Fish and Wildlife
Restoration Acts, no more than one percent of each Act's apportionments
to the states be made available to fund Projects of National Benefit.
This shall be a separate fund from all other administrative funds.
2. The Joint Federal/State Steering Committee (recommended in part
V of this report) prescribe a process to identify Projects of National
Benefit and by which project proposals will be submitted, reviewed and
selected by the states. Such projects as the National Survey of
Fishing, Hunting, and Wildlife Associated Recreation would be eligible
for funding through this process. There should be no funds expended for
Projects of National Benefit by the FWS outside of this process.
3. That up to three percent of the funds provided to support
Projects of National Benefit may be used for administrative expenses
for either the FWS or the IAFWA, depending on which administers the
project. This does not include the cost of staffing to coordinate or
implement a project. Such costs are considered direct project costs.
V. IMPLEMENTATION
Finding:
The FWS has been party to, and the subject of several past internal
and external reviews of the Federal Aid Program. These reviews have
provided numerous recommendations for improvement. Unfortunately, the
FWS has not implemented all recommendations. Additionally, development
of program administrative policy, operational plans and annual
operating budgets has been carried out solely by the FWS with no
participation by its statutory partner--the States. This in-house
process has not allowed for sufficient input and oversight, and as a
result confidence in the FWS's commitment to program efficiency is low.
The name ``Federal Aid'' does not correctly describe or portray the
Wildlife and Sport Fish Restoration Acts and the use of dollars
collected under these Act and administered by the FWS and applied by
the states.
Recommendation:
The Director of the FWS and the President of the IAFWA should each
designate three representatives to serve on a joint Federal/State
Steering Committee. Initially, this group will be responsible for
providing recommendations to the Director on:
a.Development of the annual operating budget of the FWS for
administration of the Federal Aid Program.
b.Progress towards meeting the phase-in schedule for adjusting to a
lower budget (see III-1 above).
c.Progress made on implementation of the recommendations presented
in this report.
d.The Steering Committee should discuss and recommend to the IAFWA
and the FWS a name to replace ``Federal Aid.''
CONCLUSION
Implementation of these recommendations will lay the foundation for
a new mission and new administration of the Wildlife and Sport Fish
Restoration programs. It addresses the needs of states and the FWS by
making the program more effective, more efficient and more responsive.
Overall the sportsmen and women of the nation who contribute their tax
dollars to these programs, along with the natural resources they
address will be the true beneficiaries. Implementation of the
recommendations will result in a true partnership between the FWS and
the state fish and wildlife agencies in administering and carrying out
the provisions of these historic Acts that form the backbone of modern
fish and wildlife management in our Nation. This review and its
recommendations were the work of the following state and federal
employees appointed by the President of the International Association
of Fish and Wildlife Agencies and the Director of the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service. The review team extends its thanks to all the state
and federal employees who participated in this effort.
Jerry Conley, Cochair, Missouri Department of Conservation.
John Rogers, Cochair, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
Jack Buckley, Massachusetts Division of Fisheries and Wildlife.
Walt Gasson, Wyoming Game and Fish Department.
Mary Gessner, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
Tom Jeffrey, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
Rick Lemon, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
Bob Miles, International Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies.
Marvin Moriarty, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
Tom Melius, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
Tom Niebauer, Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources.
Gordon Robertson, West Virginia Division of Natural Resources.
Kathy Tynan, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
ADDENDUM
REVISED DICTION STATEMENT FOR THE FEDERAL AID IN SPORT FISH AND
WILDLIFE RESTORATION PROGRAM
PREPARED BY THE FEDERAL AID REVIEW TEAM--1999
Effectively collect, manage, and deliver sport fish and wildlife
restoration funds and other partnership funds to support state and
territorial agencies in carrying out their fish, wildlife and boating
programs.
Intent
Effectively collect--Washington, DC Office of Federal Aid
aggressively pursue all legally mandated program revenues and credits
them to the appropriate sport fish or wildlife restoration account.
Manage--Financial management (including investment of program
revenue), periodic audits, both performance and financial of state/
territorial apportioned funds projects and Federal oversight of both
performance and financial programs.
And deliver:--Get the money to the states/territories as quickly
and with as few ``strings'' as possible, eligibility remains a Federal
responsibility, substantiality is delegated to state/territorial fish
and wildlife agencies, compliance requirements relegated to the maximum
extent permissible by Federal statute.
Sport fish and wildlife restoration funds--The Federal Aid in Sport
Fish Restoration and Federal Aid in Wildlife Restoration Acts.
To Suggest--to facilitate, to assist the states and territories, to
be an advocate for the states and territories.
State and territorial agencies--the statutory partners with the FWS
for implementing the Acts.
In carrying out their fish wildlife and boating programs--project
selection, design and implementation is at the discretion of the states
and territories; intent of the program is to meet state/territorial
priorities.
SPORT FISH RESTORATION
COSTS TO ADMINISTER SMALL GRANTS PROGRAMS
Add the underscored material to 16 U.S.C. 777c(?d):
The Secretary may use not more than 4 percent of the amounts
available each fiscal year under subsections (a), (b), and (c),
respectively, to pay the costs of investigations, personnel and
activities related to administering those programs. Of the balance of
each such annual appropriation remaining after the distribution and use
under subsections (a), (b), and (c) of this section, respectively, so
much, not to exceed percentum of such balance, as the Secretary of the
Interior may estimate to be necessary for his or her expenses in the
conduct of necessary investigations, administration, and the execution
of this act, for an outreach and communications program and for aiding
in the formulation, adoption, or administration of any compact between
two or more States for the conservation and management of migratory
fishes in marine or freshwaters shall be deducted for that purpose, and
such sum is authorized to be made available until the expiration of the
next succeeding fiscal year. Of the sum available to the Secretary of
the Interior under this subsection for any fiscal year, up to
$2,500,000 may be used for the National Outreach and Communication
Program under section 777g(d) of this title in addition to the amount
available for that program under subsection (c) of this section. No
funds available to He secretary under this subjection may be used to
replace funding traditionally provided through general appropriations,
nor for any purposes except those purposes specifically authorized by
this act. The Secretary shall publish a detailed accounting of Oh.
projects, programs, and activities founded under this subsection
annually in ``he Federal Register.
[A definition of ``administration and execution,'' mutatis
mutandis, would be added as would a statutory footing for conservation
projects of national benefit.]
__________
STATEMENT OF SUSAN R. LAMSON, DIRECTOR, CONSERVATION, WILDLIFE AND
NATURAL RESOURCES INSTITUTE FOR LEGISLATIVE ACTION, NATIONAL RIFLE
ASSOCIATION
Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee: I appreciate the
invitation extended to the National Rifle Association to testify before
you today. The subject of this hearing, which is the performance of the
Fish and Wildlife Service in the management of the Federal Aid Program,
is of extreme importance to each and every one of our 3.8 million
members. Even though the Federal Aid Program is responsible for
managing both the Federal Aid in Wildlife Restoration Act and the
Federal Aid in Sport Fish Restoration Act, my remarks are directed to
the Wildlife Restoration Act also known as Pittman-Robertson since the
products taxed under that law are products bought by our members.
Because the purchase price of every rifle, every shotgun, every
handgun and every box of ammunition includes the excise tax passed
along to the consumer by the manufacturer, it makes every firearm
owner, hunter and recreational shooter a stakeholder in how the
Pittman-Robertson trust fund is managed. However, it has only been in
the last year when Congressional investigations were conducted,
hearings were held, and legislation was developed that these
stakeholders have ever had a seat at the table to discuss the
management of the trust fund that they have willingly financed for over
sixty years.
Much has been said and will be said here today about the visionary
concept that was launched in the 1930's to raise funds for fledgling
state agencies to manage wildlife within their borders. And that
dedicated stream of funding came none too soon. At the time, only a
handful of people recognized the progressive loss of wildlife and
habitat that was occurring as a result of unregulated hunting and poor
land management and utilization practices. Those who sounded the alarm
were hunters and it was hunters who looked to themselves and not to the
federal government in search of a solution.
Given citizens' general disdain of taxes, it is nothing short of
remarkable that in an era of great economic upheaval and misery,
legislation was introduced to impose an excise tax on the common man's
products for the needs of wildlife, not humans. The Pittman-Robertson
legislation as it came to be called was carried through Congress on the
shoulders of those who would be paying the tax, the sportsmen of this
country. While a number of landmark laws were passed prior to the
Pittman-Robertson Act, such as the Lacey Act and the Migratory Bird
Treaty Act, the trust fund legislation was unique because it provided
dollars, rather than imposed penalties, in an effort to save wildlife.
The law gave the state fish and wildlife agencies the boost they needed
to launch the science of wildlife conservation.
Because of the incredible achievements of the states in restoring
wildlife and habitat coupled with the faith and trust in the government
to manage the trust fund wisely, sportsmen were willing to accept an
extension of the tax to handguns and archery equipment in the 1970's.
Mr. Chairman, I don't think it would be farfetched to suggest that if
the tax proposal were suggested today, the response would be a
resounding ``No.'' The faith and trust of our members and millions of
other gun owners across the country has been eroded by the findings of
the investigations conducted by the General Accounting Office and the
House Committee on Resources into the Fish and Wildlife Service's
management of the Federal Aid Program.
For decades, the Fish and Wildlife Service had enjoyed a reputation
for its frugal use of the funds provided by Pittman-Robertson to cover
administrative costs of managing the trust fund. However, in recent
years, certain events drew the NRA's attention to how these funds were
being used. The first event was the creation of an Administrative Grant
Program. The Program used administrative funds, in excess of that
needed to cover management costs, to fund projects that benefitted
multiple states. Although the NRA had no argument with the concept, we
saw no authority for it in law and at no time were the stakeholders who
pay the tax consulted about the creation of such a program.
In 1998, the Service attempted to restructure how the
Administrative Grant Program would be managed, but it chose to address
the issue only with the states. The states are the recipients of the
funds; they do not generate the funds and neither does the Service.
Those who should have been invited to the table, the taxpayers, were
absent from the discussions. Even though the management options were
published for public comment, the review was informal. It was not
conducted as a formal rulemaking. Either the agency did not see the
importance of public review or did not believe there was concrete
authority in law to provide the foundation for formal rulemaking.
Regardless of the reason, it became increasingly clear that the Service
had lost sight of who serves as the backbone of the trust fund.
The second alarm was set off when a Director's Conservation Fund
was created. The fund was designed for the personal use of the
Director. It funded projects that did not have to receive the approval
of the Federal Aid Program office nor approval through the
Administrative Grant process that had been created by the Service and
the states. In this case, the NRA did take issue with the concept of a
Director's pet-project account and decidedly saw no authority in law
for its creation.
Following the creation of the Administrative Grant Program and the
Conservation Fund was information coming out of the Service that
Pittman-Robertson funds were being used to pay for foreign travel of
Federal Aid Program employees. The NRA had concerns with the appearance
of ``mission creep'' on the part of the Service since the funds are to
benefit state fish and wildlife agencies, not foreign governments. Then
came information about the creative use of the funds for covering the
costs of opening regional offices, funding personal positions external
to the Federal Aid Program office and other expenses that left the
impression that the administrative funds were being ``raided'' for
Service-related purposes, not for the trust fund's established
purposes.
The final shock wave came over a proposal submitted by an animal
rights group for use of Administrative Grant funds to pay for anti-
hunting propaganda. Even though the proposal was rejected because it
did not meet the Pittman-Robertson criteria, word came out that the
Federal Aid Program employee who made the decision was being pressured
to reverse it and that because of what may have been perceived as
insubordination, the Service attempted to transfer that employee from
the Federal Aid Program office. The NRA will not delve into that
incident in this testimony because the issue is addressed in the House
Resources Committee hearing record. Suffice it to say, the NRA had
reason to believe the Service was progressively distancing itself from
its core constituency in executing its management responsibilities for
the Pittman-Robertsons trust fund.
What brought all of NRA's concerns to the surface was the
introduction of the Conservation and Reinvestment Act (CARA). Title III
of that Act amends the Pittman-Robertson Act to provide a conduit to
the state fish and wildlife agencies for a portion of the
outercontinental shelf (OCS) oil and gas lease revenue. The original
bill allowed (as does the Pittman-Robertson Act) a percentage of the
total revenue to be used by the Fish and Wildlife Service to cover
administrative costs. First, to be clear, the NRA supports CARA because
Title III is in the bill. However, in light of our concerns over the
Service's increasingly creative use of administrative funds, we
questioned the wisdom of providing millions more dollars to the Service
absent a performance evaluation over its use of the administrative
funds already being provided. The NRA owes a debt of gratitude to House
Resources Committee Chairman Don Young, who introduced the CARA bill on
the House side, for responding to the sportsmen's concerns by launching
the first audit of the Pittman-Robertson fund in its sixty year
history.
It is not necessary in this testimony to address the findings of
the audit conducted by the General Accounting Office and the
information provided by the witnesses called to testify at the House
oversight hearings last year. All of that is public record. What I do
want to focus on today is not the problems that were uncovered, but the
solutions to those problems.
The NRA participated alongside a number of organizations last year
in discussions on what those solutions should be. All of the taxpayers
were represented--the industry, the hunters, the recreational shooters,
the archers, the anglers and the boaters. What emerged from those
discussions was H.R. 3671.
There were those in the wildlife conservation community who feared
that the revelations from the GAO audit and other investigations would
create a groundswell of dissidents who would call for the dismantling
of the trust fund and the removal of the excise tax. Mr. Chairman, not
a single NRA member that I am aware of has contacted the Association
asking that we call for an abolishment of the Act. All of our members
support sound wildlife conservation and firearm safety programs and are
willing to put their money on the line to ensure the future of these
programs. What they want are the problems to be fixed so that everyone
can go about their individual pursuits in the knowledge that their
funds are being well managed for the benefit of wildlife conservation,
hunting and the shooting sports.
Mr. Chairman, from the time issues over trust fund management
emerged, the NRA has fully supported the continuation of the Pittman-
Robertson trust fund and its excise taxes. Our concerns have centered
on the use of the administrative funds, not on the fundamental purposes
of the Act. Even though we have publicly chastised the agency for its
mismanagement and abuses of the administrative funds, we have supported
keeping the management of the trust fund within the Service so long as
the identified problems are solved and solved quickly.
Though this hearing is an oversight hearing, my remaining comments
are directed to the House and Senate reform bills, H.R. 3671 and S.
2609 respectively, titled Pittman-Robertson Wildlife Restoration Act
and the Dingell-Johnson Sport Fish Restoration Act. The following is a
brief discussion of the legislative provisions of importance to the
NRA.
Administrative Funds
Both bills have as their core provision a list of administrative
costs that are authorized for coverage by the administrative funds.
This provision is crucial as it has been made clear by the
investigative hearings and testimony before the House Resources
Committee that the Service engaged in permissive spending and extremely
liberal interpretations of the law for its own benefit. This provision
makes clear what are and are not allowable costs. It is crucial that
any bill adopted by Congress contain a list of allowable costs as well
as language specifically prohibiting the coverage of any cost not
specifically authorized by the bill.
Audit Requirements
Both bills contain a requirement for periodic audits and a detailed
reporting system for submitting those findings to the Congress and to
the states. This is a critical aspect of any reform legislation. Once
the initial problems have been solved, a mechanism is needed to ensure
the taxpayer-sportsman that his dollars are truly being held by the
Service ``in trust.'' The audit process should be transparent; that is,
have reporting requirements so all stakeholders (like shareholders) are
informed about the financial management of their trust fund. It is also
a way to make small course corrections when needed which will prevent a
crisis situation from developing that requires reform legislation to
resolve.
Authorized Administrative Costs
The NRA has not weighed in on the debate between the Fish and
Wildlife Service and authors of the House and Senate bills over how
much administrative funds the Service should be allowed and whether
that amount should be a flat figure or a reduced percentage of what is
allowed in current law. It is clear, however, that the percentage of
funds that Pittman-Robertson provides is generous, too generous. The
Federal Aid Program can effectively and efficiently manage the trust
fund on less. The Service should be able to document to the Congress,
to the states, and to the taxpayer-sportsman its needs for the program.
The NRA could support a change to the bills regarding the annual set-
aside for administration as long as the alternative approach can be
justified.
Firearm and Bow Hunter Education and Safety Program Grants
The NRA fully supports provisions in both bills that reserve a
specified amount of excise tax revenue to be apportioned among the
states for hunter education and shooting range programs. This money
would be in addition to what is made available by the Pittman-Robertson
Act for use by the states at their discretion for those programs. The
discretionary amount is one-half of the annual excise tax revenue
collected from the sale of handguns and archery equipment. In the
1970's when the Pittman-Robertson Act was extended to handguns and
archery equipment, sportsmen asked that some of the revenue be
``earmarked'' as most handgunners and archers utilize shooting ranges,
not open land for hunting. However, they backed down from an earmarked
amount after receiving assurances from the states that those funds
would be used to benefit recreational shooting. Unfortunately, that has
not played out as promised. While many states have used some of that
discretionary revenue for range development, many other states have a
dismal track record in the eyes of the taxpayer-shooter.
Based upon information developed by the International Association
of Fish and Wildlife Agencies, over half the states reported that they
do not use Pittman-Robertson funds for shooting range development. One
of the major reasons given for range closures is financial. Only half
the states have developed an inventory of shooting ranges and just 14
states have developed a strategic plan for shooting range development.
Yet, forty-five states reported that they feel there is still a
significant need for additional shooting ranges in their state.
The NRA has not in the past advocated an earmarking of funds, but
instead has relied upon the good faith effort of the states to live up
to the agreement made in the 1970's with the taxpayer-shooters.
However, H.R. 3671 and S. 2609 are perfect vehicles for providing a
modest amount of dedicated funds to the states who have said financial
resources are a stumbling block to range development. Dedicating such
funds acts to fulfill a commitment made long ago.
Multi-State Conservation Grant Program
The NRA supports the creation, in law, of such a program. As noted
above, the NRA supported the concept of an Administrative Grant Program
created by the Fish and Wildlife Service and the states, but expressed
concern that there was no legal authority to do it. The NRA supports
the states' desire to have some amount of the dollars that would
otherwise be apportioned to the states individually, instead pooled at
the federal level to conduct conservation projects of mutual benefit to
multiple states. The NRA supports the funding level in S. 2609 that is
over and above the amount provided in H.R. 3671. However, we are not
wedded to the dollar figure and could accept a higher amount so long as
the states concur.
What is important to the NRA is that the funds not be used by any
organization or for any project that promotes or encourages opposition
to hunting or trapping. Second, the projects must benefit a majority of
the states nationwide or by region. Third, organizations representing
sportsmen, conservationists and industry must have a seat at the table.
Both the House and Senate bills require that the International
Association of Fish and Wildlife agencies consult with these
organizations in preparing a priority list of projects to be funded.
Forth, the International should not be precluded from being a grant
recipient.
Assistant Director for Wildlife and Sport Fish Restoration Programs
The NRA supports establishing a position of Assistant Director for
Wildlife and Sport Fish Restoration Programs who will report directly
to the Fish and Wildlife Service Director. We recognize that the
arguments against placing such a provision in law is that it would have
Congress micromanaging the Service. From our perspective, however, such
a position is needed. Many of the problems uncovered about the Federal
Aid Program can be attributed to the fact that it was relegated to a
lowly position within the Service, a backwater program. A lot of that,
I am sure, is due to the fact that the states, not the Service, are the
beneficiaries of the trust funds. It gave the Service leadership little
incentive to make management of the Federal Aid Program a top priority
among other programs and issues requiring the Director's personal
attention. Elevating the Federal Aid Program to the level of an
Assistant Director will change that.
Furthermore, if Congress passes CARA, hundreds of millions of
dollars will flow through the Pittman-Robertson trust fund annually.
Presently, the Pittman-Robertson Act and the Federal Aid in Sport Fish
Restoration Act bring in nearly $400 million annually in excise tax
revenue for the Service to administer. CARA will greatly increase the
Service's trust fund responsibilities. That ought to be reflected in
the Service's management matrix.
In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, the NRA is most anxious for this
Congress to pass reform legislation. We know what the problems are and
we have the solutions. Even though there may be disagreements over some
of the provisions of H.R. 3671 and S. 2609, I am confident that
resolution is achievable if all are committed to passing a reform bill
before the end of the 106th Congress.
The Pittman-Robertson Act and its counterpart are unprecedented in
the world and while the conservation dollars raised can be counted in
the billions, the conservation benefits are inestimable. It is
important for all of us who cherish our fish and wildlife resources to
see that the sportsmen and women of this country are accorded the
respect they deserve by having their trust restored in the Service's
management of the Federal Aid Program. The NRA respectively requests
that the members of this subcommittee and the full committee act
expeditiously on a reform bill.
__________
STATEMENT OF MIKE NUSSMAN FOR THE AMERICAN SPORTFISHING ASSOCIATION
Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the opportunity to testify before the
subcommittee on behalf of the recreational fishing industry. My
testimony today addresses the administration of the Federal Aid in
Sport Fish Restoration Program (the Program). My comments specifically
deal with the history of the program, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service's management of the program, and our recommendations for any
legislation considered by the committee. This testimony is given on
behalf of the 400 members of the American Sportfishing Association
(ASA).
ASA is a non-profit trade organization whose members include
fishing tackle manufacturers, boat builders, retailers, state fish and
game agencies, angler organizations, and the outdoor media. For more
than fifty years, ASA and its predecessor organizations have promoted
the conservation of fisheries resources and supported measures that
improve the aquatic environment.
BACKGROUND
As vice president of the association whose members contribute
approximately $100 million to the Program each year, I am pleased to
provide the committee with some thoughts on the administration of the
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's Federal Aid in Sport Fish Restoration
Program. As you know, this program is of extreme importance to the
recreational fishing industry. Despite being among the most popular
outdoor activities, sport fishing is also big business. The most recent
estimates have nearly 50 million Americans fishing for recreation. In
pursuing their sport, these citizens spend nearly $40 billion annually
and support 1.2 million jobs.
The Federal Aid in Sport Fish Restoration Program is an excellent
example of a user pays-user benefits program. Anglers and boaters pay a
little more for their equipment and fuel and in return enjoy increased
fishing and boating opportunities. These monies are deposited into the
U.S. Treasury and then disbursed to state fish and game agencies for
sport fish restoration, wetlands conservation, aquatic education,
outreach, boat safety, and boating access and facilities projects. The
cycle is completed with a return of benefits to the users through
improved sport fishing and boating opportunities.
The Program was launched in 1950 when Representative John Dingell
(MI) and Senator Edwin Johnson (CO) pushed for and passed the Federal
Aid in Sport Fish Restoration Act. Based on a similar bill (the 1937
Pittman-Robertson Act) that placed an excise tax on specific hunting
equipment, the Sport Fish Restoration Act was aimed at dealing with the
expanding number of anglers and the declining quality of the resource.
Utilizing the same user pays-user benefits model as Pittman-Robertson,
the Dingell-Johnson Act as it became known, was an immediate boon to
state fish and game agencies that previously could not provide adequate
attention to fisheries due to strapped budgets. Instead of having to
fund 100 percent of a fisheries improvement project, now under Dingell-
Johnson, for every one dollar invested by the state, the Federal
Government could contribute three dollars. During the years immediately
following passage, monies form the collection of excise taxes vastly
improved the quality of America's sport fishery resources.
However, in 1984, in response to a growing list of needs, a new set
of amendments to the Program were passed spurred on by Senator Malcolm
Wallop (WY) and John Breaux (LA). These 1984 Wallop-Breaux amendments
expanded the list of taxable sport fishing articles to include nearly
all sportfishing equipment. In addition, a 3 percent tax on electric
trolling motors and fish finders was added along with a redirection of
the tax on motorboat fuel. The Wallop-Breaux amendments expanded the
pool of money made available to the states by six fold, from an average
of $40 million before 1984, to $241 million in 2000.
Since the 1984 Wallop-Breaux Amendments, the Federal Aid in Sport
Fish Restoration Act has undergone changes resulting from other
amendments. Many of the changes increased funding for programs such as
boating safety and created new programs such as the coastal wetlands
and clean vessel (pumpout) programs. In 1998, the Transportation Equity
Act for the 21st Century reauthorized the Federal Aid in Sport Fish
Restoration Act simultaneously increasing monies received from motor
boat and small engine fuels taxes (beginning in fiscal year 2002),
creating a boating infrastructure program, and an outreach and
communications program.
Additionally, other changes to the Act in 1998 increased the
minimum percentage of state allocations to be invested in boating
access and facility projects from 12.5 percent to 15 percent, and
raised the maximum percentage of state allocations to be used for
aquatic education and outreach and communications from 12.5 percent to
15 percent. Boating Safety programs administered by the U.S. Coast
Guard also realized increased funding.
The impact of the Dingell-Johnson/Wallop-Breaux excise tax has been
substantial. According to the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service, over one
billion dollars has been reimbursed to the states since the original
act passed fifty years ago. These funds have helped develop more than
1,500 new fishing access sites, improved 9,700 public boat ramps, and
supported creation or restoration of 400 lakes covering 60,000 acres
and fish habitat enhancements on more than 3,900 miles of streams and
rivers. In addition, the funds have supported state fish hatchery and
stocking programs, education efforts, weed control and habitat
improvement projects, and fishery research.
ADMINISTRATION OF THE PROGRAM
Mr. Chairman, the Sport Fish Restoration Program has a huge impact
on the sportfishing industry. It affects pricing decisions, marketing
decisions, even production decisions made by the industry. However,
through its investments in the fishery resource, the program enabled
the sportfishing industry to grow substantially throughout the 1960s,
70s and 80s.
The General Accounting Office (GAO) has raised a number of serious
problems regarding the administration of the program. The U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service has indicated that they have responded, or are
responding to the majority of problems raised by GAO. The sportfishing
industry is deeply concerned by the charges made by GAO. No industry
can pay ten percent of every dollar they collect, in addition to income
taxes on their profits, and not be troubled by the GAO testimony.
The industry is strongly supportive of taking all necessary action
to establish greater accountability and transparency in administration
of the Federal Aid program. I would like to make clear that the sport
fishing industry's position is that it is absolutely essential to
resolve the administrative oversight questions in a most timely manner.
We think it is vital that America's anglers and boaters, along with the
industry that pays the tax, get their moneys' worth.
In addition, we believe the administration of the Sport Fish
Restoration Program has not received the attention and focus from the
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service that a half of a billion dollar annual
program deserves. We would not argue over the importance of the other
missions of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. They are all important!
But they are not more important than the successful administration of a
Sport Fish (or Wildlife) Restoration Program.
RECOMMENDATIONS
The recommendations I will make here today are supported by my
membership as well as the American League of Anglers and Boaters
(ALAB), a coalition of 25 angling and boating interest groups that
includes the International Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies as
well as a variety of nonprofit and for-profit organizations.
Our primary interest is in the Sport Fish Restoration Program.
However, since the Sport Fish and the Wildlife Restoration Programs are
implemented by a single state agency and are administered by a single
unit of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, both programs are closely
interrelated. Legislative changes to one of the programs can have
indirect impacts on the other. It is with this understanding that we
make the following comments on the administration of the Sport Fish and
Wildlife Restoration Programs
There is no doubt that the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service can and
should do a better and more effective job of administering the Sport
Fish and Wildlife Restoration Programs. Two bills have been introduced,
S. 2609, the ``Pittman-Robertson Wildlife Restoration Act'', sponsored
by Senators Craig and Crapo, and H.R. 3671, the ``Wildlife and Sport
Fish Restoration Programs Improvements Act of 2000'', sponsored by
Congressman Young and others, to address this need. Both S. 2609 and
H.R. 3671 redefine the responsibilities of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service in this regard and increase their accountability to Congress
and the states. We believe that such a legislative approach is needed
to clarify the administration of the program and the goals of the Act.
However, ASA has concerns in four key areas of S. 2609 and H.R.
3671. They include:
1. S. 2609 and H.R. 3671 would provide $7 and $5 million,
respectively for a Multi-State Conservation Grants Program ($3.5 and
$2.5 million, respectively, from each fund). At least four existing
programs (National Survey of Fishing, Hunting, and Wildlife-Associated
Recreation, Management Assistance Team, Administrative Grants Program,
and Library Reference Service), at the recommendation and concurrence
of the states, have been funded for several years and would fall under
this proposed program. The funds provided by S. 2609 and H.R. 3671 are
not sufficient to fund these four programs or to include other projects
of multi-state or national benefit that might need to be carried-out
collectively at much less expense than if each state conducted them
individually. It is ASA's recommendation that 2 percent of each fund
(approximately $4.5 million each) be available annually for the Multi-
State Conservation Grants Program.
2. The Sport Fishing and Boating Partnership Council (SFBPC) was
created to provide a mechanism to give advice to the Secretary of
Interior on sport fish restoration and other fishing and boating
issues. The SFBPC has been widely recognized for its collaborative
efforts and has undertaken major assignments by the Congress such as
that called for in TEA-21. Those that contribute to the sport fish
restoration fund believe that the SFBPC is an invaluable tool for
ensuring that those that pay the tax are heard when critical decisions
are made within the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. The activities of
the SFBPC have been funded by Sport Fish Restoration administrative
funds at approximately $400,000 per year. It is ASA's recommendation
that language be included in the bills specifying that funding be set
aside for the work of the SFBPC.
3. Under existing law, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service can
currently utilize up to 6 percent of Sport Fish Restoration and 8
percent of Wildlife Restoration Funds to administer the two programs.
The bills would significantly reduce this to a straight dollar amount
of $14,180,000 the first year, with gradual reductions over the next
two years to $12.6 million. This is a significant reduction in
administrative funding and we are concerned it would have a negative
impact on these two very successful programs. ASA recommends that 3
percent of Wallop-Breaux and 4 percent of Pittman-Robertson funds or
$16 million be available annually to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
for administration of the program and delivery of apportioned funds to
the states.
4. Over the years, several grant programs have been added to the
Sport Fish Restoration Program. These include the Clean Vessel Act
Pumpout Program ($10 million/year), the Boating Infrastructure Grant
Program ($8 million/year), and the National Outreach and Communications
Program ($5-10 million/year). Although funds for these programs are
withdrawn from the Sport Fish Restoration Account before the
calculation of administrative funds is made, no specific provision is
made in the bills for funds to administer these small grant programs.
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is now considering using Sport Fish
Restoration administrative funds to administer these programs. This
would further weaken the administration of the Sport Fish Restoration
Program. It is ASA's recommendation that language be included in the
legislation specifying that administrative costs for each small grant
program be made available from the funding specified for each program
and not from Sport Fish Restoration administrative funds.
Legislation providing focus and guidance to the Sport Fish and
Wildlife Restoration Acts would significantly improve the
administration of these programs. The recommendations that we have made
will enhance the legislation being considered and should ensure the
continued success of these vital programs. Your consideration of our
views is appreciated and we stand ready to work with the committee.
__________
STATEMENT OF DR. TERRY Z. RILEY, DIRECTOR OF CONSERVATION, WILDLIFE
MANAGEMENT INSTITUTE
Mr. Chairman: I would like to thank you and your committee for
inviting the Wildlife Management Institute (WMI) to provide testimony
on the administration of the Federal Aid Programs by the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service. The Wildlife Management Institute appreciates your
personal interest in resolving problems identified within the
``Pittman-Robertson Wildlife Restoration Act'' (P-R Act) and the
``Dingell-Johnson Sport Fish Restoration Act'' (D-J Act).
WMI has had a long-term interest in both the P-R Act and the
associated programs developed at the state level. We have been actively
involved with the P-R Act since it was passed by the U.S. Congress in
1937, and we are vitally concerned that the P-R Act remain an integral
part of wildlife conservation in the future. As you are aware, these
Acts have been the cornerstone of the most successful conservation
programs in North America. The on-the-ground success stories that can
be attributed to these Acts are too numerous to recount, however,
notable successes include the return of elk, white-tailed deer, wild
turkey, pronghorn antelope, bison, giant Canada geese, and wood ducks
to much of their historic range in America. Virtually none of these
successes would have happened without the funds provided by this unique
partnership among state and federal wildlife agencies, industry,
hunters, anglers and conservationists.
We concur with those concerned about mismanagement or inappropriate
use of funds available through the P-R Act, and generally we support
any needed reforms to the current Act that would correct existing
abuses. However, we are deeply concerned that changes in the current
funding level would result in a serious reduction of Federal Aid staff.
There is no evidence that large cuts in administrative funds are either
justified or warranted, but they would seriously impact the delivery of
program funds to the states. The proposed amount for program
administration in H.R. 3671, the ``Wildlife and Sport Fish Restoration
Programs Improvement Act of 2000,'' would result in a 50 percent
reduction in Fish and Wildlife Service staff currently delivering these
programs to the states. We believe this reduction would seriously
affect wildlife management, research and education programs across the
country.
WMI recommends that any legislative changes to the P-R Act should
direct 4 percent of the annual funding for Administration of the Act.
We believe a fixed percentage rather than a fixed amount provides for
adequate fiscal controls while allowing program growth and needed
flexibility. The 4 percent amount is based on the estimated
expenditures by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service for the actual
administration of the program, using the categories of Authorized
Administrative Costs defined in Section 9 of H.R. 3671.
While WMI strongly supports federal oversight of the P-R Act
program, we believe that oversight must be balanced against the goal of
the founding legislation to create and improve state-level wildlife
management, research and education programs. The legislative and
implementation history of the P-R Act clearly indicates that activities
undertaken as a result of this legislation and subsequent funding are
state actions and not federal actions. Any language that alters this
relationship should be avoided. We believe the appropriate role of the
Fish and Wildlife Service is to review project eligibility, and
determine if they are ``substantial in character and design.'' Also, we
believe the terms ``evaluate, approve, disapprove and advise'' found in
Sections 9(a)(4) and 9(a)(12) of H.R. 3671 provide greater federal
program oversight than currently exists. We recommend that these
sections be replaced with, ``Costs to review, evaluate and advise on
project eligibility, and determinations that comprehensive fish and
wildlife resource plans under section 6(a)(1) and wildlife restoration
projects under section 6(a)(2) are substantial in character and
design.''
One problem with attempting to legislatively authorized specific
program costs, is that new concepts and technologies needed to execute
the program might be omitted. WMI believes that a complete prohibition
of costs not specifically authorized in Section 9(b) ``Unauthorized
Costs'' of H.R. 3671 is shortsighted. We are not fully convinced that
the current list of authorized costs identified in Section 9 is
complete. We recommend that any legislative changes to the P-R Act
develop a process to allow unanticipated, legitimate costs, that
currently are not identified in H.R. 3671, be considered for future
inclusion. The simplest way to achieve this is to provide for
Congressional oversight in a manner similar to the way current re-
programming requests are handled. WMI recommends that ``unless approved
by the authorizing Congressional Committee'' be added to the end of
this section of H.R. 3671.
WMI believes that the creation of an Assistant Director for a
Wildlife and Sport Fish Restoration Program should not be created by
statute. The internal organization of an agency is a prerogative of the
Executive Branch subject to Congressional review. This relationship
should not be altered for this program. The head of the agency, in this
case the Director of the Fish and Wildlife Service, is and should be
responsible for implementing and executing the statutory requirements
of the P-R Act. WMI recommends that any legislative changes to the P-R
Act exclude any and all references to an Assistant Director for
Wildlife and Sport Fish Restoration Program.
WMI strongly supports providing funds to enhance hunter education
and shooting range development. State hunter education programs
continue to provide the necessary training and experience for our youth
in safe handling and use of firearms, and in the ethics of hunting,
land stewardship, and private property rights. Public shooting ranges
provide safe places to discharge firearms, improve firearm safety and
handling by the general public, and reduce conflicts between firearm
owners and those who are often alarmed by the sights and sounds of
firearms. The need for these important programs was identified in the
1971 and 1973 amendments to the P-R Act, however, we believe that a
fixed percentage of funds from the P-A Act available each year will
allow greater certainty for program development than having the program
depend on whatever remains after other program expenses are met. Past
program decisions clearly indicate that funding demands on agencies are
so great that many important programs do not get funded unless they are
prescribed in this manner. Unfortunately, as a result of these
competing demands, the current national aggregate funding for hunter
education programs only utilizes approximately 55 percent of the
funding that was made available in the 1973 modification to the P-R
Act. While the balance of these funds have been used for important
wildlife programs, the need for investing in hunter education and
shooting ranges has not been fulfilled. Societal changes dictate that
these investments be made now. WMI recommends that any legislative
changes to the P-R Act should direct 2 percent of the annual funds to
``Firearm and Bow Hunter Education and Safety Program Grants'' rather
than a fixed amount.
The now defunct Administrative Grants Program was similar to the
``Multi-state Conservation Grant Program'' described in Section 11 (a)
of H.R. 3671 and was an extremely valuable program that has assisted
states by developing a broad array of new information and management
tools. In many cases these tools paved the way for integrating
innovative management activities and projects into mainstream state
wildlife management programs. However, the funding level currently
contained in the H.R. 3671 is far below the actual need that exists for
innovative program and information development. These funds should not
be artificially capped, because the states have both direct and
indirect control over the potential expenditure of these funds. WMI
recommends that any legislative changes to the P-R Act should direct 2
percent of the annul funds to a ``Multi-state Conservation Grant
Program'' rather than a fixed amount.
In addition, many, if not most, of the projects funded by the now
defunct ``Administrative Grants Program'' technically could not be
described as ``wildlife restoration projects,'' as defined in Section
11 (b) (2) of H.R. 3671. Examples include the numerous ``human
dimensions'' and economic studies funded by these grants, as well as
grants to support various technical symposia and data collection
efforts. These projects did not directly ``restore'' any wildlife, but
they did provide important information that aided wildlife restoration
efforts.
WMI recommends that any legislative changes to the P-R Act should
authorize the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to consider a broad array
of projects for funding in support of wildlife restoration. Inserting
the term ``in support of'' before ``wildlife restoration projects'' in
Section 11 (b) (2) of H.R. 3671 would authorize a broad array of
projects to be considered for funding. A similar insertion should be
included in Title II, Section 201 (a) (2).
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the U.S. Geological Survey
Biological Resources Division both have obtained grants from the now
defunct ``Administrative Grants Program.'' The grants that were awarded
to these agencies have supported projects such as the ``National Survey
of Fishing, Hunting, and Wildlife-Associated Recreation'' and important
bird-banding and harvest surveys, which clearly have benefitted a
majority of states. WMI recommends that any legislative changes to the
P-R Act should expand the list of eligible grantees to include both the
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the U.S. Geological Survey
Biological Resources Division [Section 11 (c) of H.R. 3671.]
The ``Clarification'' language found in Title I, Section 101,
Section 11 (e) of H.R. 3671 and in Title II, Section 202, Section
14(3)(e) is inconsistent. WMI recommends that the language found in
Title I be adopted.
WMI believe that the P-R Act could be enhanced by the creation of a
``Sportsmen Trust Fund Advisory Council.'' The purpose of this proposed
Council would be to enhance the broad partnership aspect of the Federal
Aid Program; develop processes for stronger programmatic oversight and
reviews, conflict resolution, and development of administrative
budgets, policies and operational plans; and create a process for
administering and implementing the ``Multi-state Conservation Grant
Program.'' We suggest that the Council be composed of representatives
from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service; State wildlife and fisheries
management agencies; industries that manufacture goods that are taxed
under this Act, or trade groups representing those industries; and non-
governmental conservation/sportsmen organizations who have demonstrated
a long term interest in advancing the purposes of this Act. Council
members would be appointed by the Department of the Interior and would
report on the health of the Program to Congress every five years.
Mr. Chairman, thank you again for inviting WMI to provide testimony
on the administration of these important Federal Aid Programs. Please
contact me if you have any questions regarding our suggestions or if
you would like to further discuss this important legislation.
______
American Fisheries Society,
June 19, 2000.
The Honorable Robert C. Smith, Chairman,
Committee on Environment and Public Works
Senate Office Building,
Washington, DC 20510-6175.
Dear Chairman Smith: I am writing on behalf of the members of the
American Fisheries Society (AFS) to express their views regarding
changes to Pittman-Robertson Wildlife Restoration Act and Dingell-
Johnson Sportfish Restoration Act. The American Fisheries Society as
the Nation's largest association of fisheries and aquatic science
professionals, with 10,000 members representing all states,
commonwealths, and trust territories, we believe it is essential that
interests of our members and our profession be considered in the
development of legislation affecting agencies supporting fisheries and
aquatic science and conservation. We ask that this letter be included
in the official record.
The Society recognizes the need to restore public confidence in the
integrity of these programs, particularly their administration by the
U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). However, the Wildlife and
Sportfish Restoration Programs are the most successful user benefit-
user pay programs. These programs foster a unique partnership among
State and Federal fish and wildlife agencies, industry, and non
governmental conservation and professional organizations. For over 50
years these two programs have played a critical role in State fish and
wildlife agencies' efforts in restoring the Nation's fish and wildlife
resources. We caution you to take no action that would diminish the
effectiveness of these programs.
Whereas AFS agrees that appropriate action must be taken to address
identified deficiencies in the FWS' administration of the two programs,
care must be given to insure that sufficient resources are provided for
effective and efficient oversight and management of Federal funds The
Society agrees with the Federal Aid Review Team Report to establish an
Assistant Director for Federal Aid. This seems all the more acute with
the recent decision to abolish all the Assistant Regional Director-
Federal Aid positions. If the Federal Aid program is to be highlighted
as a first rate element of the USFWS, it needs to have a much higher
profile than is currently being considered in agency's reorganization.
We believe that imposing dollar caps on administrative cost similar to
those developed in the House will severely hamper the FWS ability to
properly administer these programs. The Society believes the programs
could be reduced with no significant harm from their present levels of
6 percent and 8 percent to 4 percent for each program. If a fixed
dollar cap must be imposed we believe that with reductions in overhead
and adoption of substantial streamlining at least $18 million, with
annual adjustments to reflect changes in the cost of doing business,
are needed to properly administer these programs.
For many years the FWS has used administrative funds to support a
multi-state conservation grant program. These funds support projects
selected by the states including such ongoing efforts as the National
Survey of Hunting, Fishing, and Wildlife Associated Recreation, the
Fish and Wildlife Reference Service, the Management Assessment Team
(MAT) and the National Administrative Grants Program (NAGP). The
Society recommends that 2 percent of Wildlife Restoration and Sport
fish Restoration funds be made available for a multi-state conservation
grant program. This would amount to approximately $9 million at current
funding levels.
We are in general agreement with the action taken by the House on
these programs, especially with regard to the identification of
activities for which administrative funds may be used, the audit
requirements, and the certification and reporting requirements. The
Society appreciates the effort made in addressing the problems in
administrating these programs. We are ready to work with you and your
staff in any way possible.
Sincerely,
Ghassan N. Rassam, Executive Director.
______
National Wildlife Federation,
Office of International Affairs,
July 28, 2000.
The Honorable Michael D. Crapo, Chairman,
Fisheries, Wildlife and Drinking Water Subcommittee,
Environment and Public Works Committee,
U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC 20510.
Dear Chairman Crapo: I am writing to you regarding the July 19, 2000,
oversight hearing on the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's (Service)
administration of the Federal Aid Program held by the Senate
Environment and Public Works Subcommittee on Fisheries, Wildlife and
Drinking Water. The National Wildlife Federation (NWF) and our
constituents have long supported both the Federal Aid in Wildlife
Restoration Act (Pit/man-Robertson Wildlife Restoration Act) and the
Federal Aid in Fish Restoration Act (Dingell-Johnson-Wallop-Breaux
Sport Fish Restoration Act). I respectfully request that these comments
be accepted for the hearing record.
The Pittman-Robertson and Dingell-Johnson programs are models of
success. Strong support from hunters and anglers, secure and automatic
appropriation of the funds provided by sportsmen and sportswomen,
professionalism of the state fish and wildlife agencies, and oversight
provided by the Service have all contributed to the success of these
programs. These programs have contributed to the remarkable recovery of
many species of fish and wildlife including wild turkey, pronghorn,
deer and striped bass. With these outstanding accomplishments and
continuing strong support from hunters and anglers, they hold great
promise for the future, but only as long as they are held essentially
intact.
As a result of some questions over the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service's administration of the Pittman-Robertson and Dingell-Johnson
programs, Congress has held several oversight hearings. NWF has shared
some of the same concerns over accountability issues related to the
Service's administration of the programs. Therefore, we are gratified
that the Service has accounted for the funds that were originally in
question, modified and improved their accounting process, and made
other administrative adjustments as well.
Our interest in writing to you now is to ensure that these programs
continue as strong components of the nation's conservation agenda. We
generally believe that the Service's recent actions will keep these
programs on track as two of the most successful cooperative state/
Federal conservation programs in our nation's history. NWF believes it
is imperative that these programs remain intact and that no changes be
made which would cripple the ability of the state fish and wildlife
agencies or the Service to deliver these programs.
I would like to take this opportunity to outline some of the
concerns NWF has with the Wildlife and Sport Fish Restoration Programs
Improvement Act of 2000 in the House (H.R. 3671) and the Senate (S.
2609). Specifically, both H.R. 3671 and S. 2609 authorize insufficient
appropriations for the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to administer the
programs. The authorizations must be increased to meet the Service's
identified needs to fully administer the programs. Furthermore, the
authorizations should be expressed as a percentage basis rather than a
fixed amount. By providing an authorization expressed as a percentage,
the administrative resources can correspondingly shrink or expand as
the funding contracts or expands, based upon revenues.
We are also concerned that definitions within the H.R. 3671 and S.
2609 could exclude important studies such as the National Hunting and
Fishing Survey; this study is conducted approximately every 5 years and
provides critical information regarding many forms of wildlife-
associated recreation. Further, the restrictions placed on allowable
expenditures by the Service may be so restrictive as to exclude some
appropriate administrative activities in the future that are not yet
identifiable.
Finally, we are aware that there has been some consideration given
to providing a sunset clause for the Pittman-Robertson and Dingell-
Johnson programs. NWF opposes such a suggestion. The long term
reliability and security of funding has furthered conservation by
allowing state agencies and others to focus their energy and efforts on
actual conservation activities, rather than being distracted by
periodic efforts to reauthorize the legislation. A sunset clause is
entirely unnecessary if its purpose, as has been suggested, is to allow
Congress to periodically review the programs. The fact that both the
House and Senate have recently completed oversight hearings in the
absence of a sunset provision, is perfect testimony to the fact that
such a sunset clause is unnecessary.
Thank you for your consideration of these comments on the Pittman-
Robertson and Dingell-Johnson programs. We welcome the opportunity to
further discuss these comments and any other aspects of these programs
or pending legislation.
Sincerely,
James S. Lyon, Senior Director, Legislative Affairs.
______
STATEMENT OF THE SAFARI CLUB INTERNATIONAL
Safari Club International appreciates the opportunity to submit for
the record, our testimony in support of S. 2609, the Craig/Crapo
Wildlife and Sport Fish Restoration Programs and Improvement Act of
2000.
Thousands of Safari Club International members believe that if it
is passed this bill will be one of the most important additions to
wildlife conservation programs since the original Pittman-Robertson
legislation was enacted in 1957.
S. 2609 will correct past misuses of the Pittman-Robertson funds by
the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS). It will ensure that
sportsmen's excise tax dollars are being used for the purposes that
original Pittman-Robertson/Dingell-Johnson statutes intended.
Safari Club International testified on the House side during the
Resources Committee investigations into misuse of the Pittman-Robertson
funds. We agree with Chairman Young's concerns, but are supportive of
the Senate's attempts to reach consensus on some of the more
controversial aspects of the legislation.
Specifically, we are in favor of administrative funding levels that
are reflective of a fact-based need outlined by FWS. To date, we have
not seen information that supports the Services desire for funding
levels significantly higher than what the House and Senate propose.
However, if FWS can supply such information, and increased
administrative funding levels do not detract from funding levels
already in place for other programs in S. 2609, Safari Club is not
likely to oppose such increases.
We also support the ``Authorized Administrative Costs''
specifically outlined in Sec. 9(a) of S. 2609. Based on the past track
record of the FWS with regard to spending sportsmen's dollars on
programs and policies not intended by the original Pittman-Robertson
legislation, such guidelines are both warranted and necessary.
However, we also understand the Service's concerns that there may
come a time in the future when the need arises to spend money in an
area not specifically delineated in the legislation, but that the FWS
feels falls under the purview of Pit's intents. FWS has requested that
they be allowed to ``petition'' Congress so that they may, in effect,
``reprogram'' money outside the realm of Sec. 9(a). This concept
deserves further investigation and Safari Club is interested in the
theoretical process, but we would reserve final judgment until after
we've seen the details of such a proposal.
Safari Club International strongly supports Sec. 10, the Firearm
and Bow Hunter Education and Safety Program Grants at the $16 million
funding level proposed in the Senate bill, S. 2609. As you may know,
the International Hunter Education Association (IHEA), an arm of the
International Fish and Wildlife Association (IAFWA), has stressed that
there is a potential for Federal funding for hunter education programs
in every state under the current Pittman-Robertson statute, but to date
there has not been a priority for these funds.
Finally, Safari Club is aware of an inquiry by Senate Environment
and Public Works Committee Chairman Bob Smith regarding the possible
proposal of a plan to reauthorize the Pittman-Robertson program every
few years. While we would certainly be willing to discuss such a plan
with the Chairman, our initial reaction to such a plan would be to
oppose it. It is our experience that reauthorizations, while clearly
necessary for some Federal programs, tend to bring with them changes
that may not be based on scientific fact and past experience. Pittman-
Robertson is arguably the most successful mass conservation program
ever in the United States if not the world. It has a demonstrated track
record based on a plan and program that works well.
We agree that the upcoming changes proposed in S. 2609 are both
necessary and welcome and we fully support the bill, however we do not,
at this time, support suggestions for regularly scheduled
reauthorizations of the legislation.
Thank you again for giving us the opportunity to submit this
testimony in strong support of S. 2609. We look forward to any further
questions or discussions you may have.