[Congressional Record Volume 146, Number 41 (Wednesday, April 5, 2000)]
[House]
[Pages H1801-H1808]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




  WILDLIFE AND SPORT FISH RESTORATION PROGRAMS IMPROVEMENT ACT OF 2000

  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the 
Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 455 and ask for its 
immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 455

       Resolved, That at any time after the adoption of this 
     resolution the Speaker may, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule 
     XVIII, declare the House resolved into the Committee of the 
     Whole House on the state of the Union for consideration of 
     the bill (H.R. 3671) to amend the Acts popularly known as the 
     Pittman-Robertson Wildlife Restoration Act and the

[[Page H1802]]

     Dingell-Johnson Sport Fish Restoration Act to enhance the 
     funds available for grants to states for fish and wildlife 
     conservation projects and increase opportunities for 
     recreational hunting, bow hunting, trapping, archery, and 
     fishing, by eliminating opportunities for waste, fraud, 
     abuse, maladministration, and unauthorized expenditures for 
     administration and execution of those acts, and for other 
     purposes. The first reading of the bill shall be dispensed 
     with. Points of order against consideration of the bill for 
     failure to comply with clause 4(a) of rule XIII are waived. 
     General debate shall be confined to the bill and shall not 
     exceed one hour equally divided and controlled by the 
     chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on 
     Resources. After general debate the bill shall be considered 
     for amendment under the five-minute rule. It shall be in 
     order to consider as an original bill for the purpose of 
     amendment under the five-minute rule the amendment in the 
     nature of a substitute recommended by the Committee on 
     Resources now printed in the bill. The committee amendment in 
     the nature of a substitute shall be considered as read. 
     Points of order against the committee amendment in the nature 
     of a substitute for failure to comply with clause 4 of rule 
     XXI are waived. The amendment printed in the report of the 
     Committee on Rules accompanying this resolution shall be 
     considered as read, shall not be subject to amendment, and 
     shall not be subject to a demand for division of the question 
     in the House or in the Committee of the Whole. All points of 
     order against the amendment printed in the report are waived. 
     During consideration of the bill for amendment, the Chairman 
     of the Committee of the Whole may accord priority in 
     recognition on the basis of whether the Member offering an 
     amendment has caused it to be printed in the portion of the 
     Congressional Record designated for that purpose in clause 8 
     of rule XVIII. Amendments so printed shall be considered as 
     read. The Chairman of the Committee of the Whole may: (1) 
     postpone until a time during further consideration in the 
     Committee of the Whole a request for a recorded vote on any 
     amendment; and (2) reduce to five minutes the minimum time 
     for electronic voting on any postponed question that follows 
     another electronic vote without intervening business, 
     provided that the minimum time for electronic voting on the 
     first in any series of questions shall be 15 minutes. At the 
     conclusion of consideration of the bill for amendment the 
     Committee shall rise and report the bill to the House with 
     such amendments as may have been adopted. Any Member may 
     demand a separate vote in the House on any amendment adopted 
     in the Committee of the Whole to the bill or to the committee 
     amendment in the nature of a substitute. The previous 
     question shall be considered as ordered on the bill and 
     amendments thereto to final passage without intervening 
     motion except one motion to recommit with or without 
     instructions.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Washington (Mr. Hastings) 
is recognized for 1 hour.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, for purposes of debate only, 
I yield the customary 30 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from 
Ohio (Mr. Hall), pending which I yield myself such time as I may 
consume. During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is 
for purposes of debate only.
  (Mr. HASTINGS of Washington asked and was given permission to revise 
and extend his remarks.)
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 455 would 
grant H.R. 3671, the Wildlife and Sport Fish Restoration Programs 
Improvement Act of 2000, an open rule, and waives clause 4A of rule 13 
that requires the three-day layover of the committee report against 
consideration of the bill.
  Further, the rule provides 1 hour of general debate, divided equally 
between the chairman and ranking member of the Committee on Resources.
  House Resolution 455 makes in order the Committee on Resources' 
amendment in the nature of a substitute now printed in the bill as an 
original bill for the purpose of amendment, which shall be open for 
amendment at any point. The rule further waives clause 4 of rule XXI 
that prohibits appropriations in a legislative bill against the 
committee amendment in the nature of a substitute.
  House Resolution 455 provides that the amendment printed in the 
report of the Committee on Rules accompanying the resolution shall be 
considered as read, shall not be subject to amendment, and shall not be 
subject to a demand for a division of the question in the House or in 
the Committee of the Whole House.
  House Resolution 455 waives all points of order against the amendment 
printed in the report.
  The rule also allows the Chair to accord priority in recognition to 
Members who have preprinted their amendments in the Congressional 
Record. Further, it allows the chairman of the Committee of the Whole 
to postpone votes during consideration of the bill, and to reduce 
voting time to 5 minutes on a postponed question if the vote follows a 
15-minute vote.

                              {time}  1515

  Finally, the rule provides one motion to recommit with or without 
instructions.
  Mr. Speaker, the Wildlife and Sports Fish Restoration Programs 
Improvement Act of 2000, H.R. 3671, is a bill to enhance the use of 
funds available for grants to States for fish and wildlife conservation 
projects and to increase opportunities for recreational hunting, bow 
hunting, trapping, archery and fishing. The legislation accomplishes 
this by eliminating opportunities for waste, fraud, abuse, 
mismanagement and unauthorized expenditures.
  The Committee on Resources held three oversight hearings examining 
the manner in which the Fish and Wildlife Service, through its division 
of Federal aid, administered and executed the Pittman-Robertson Act and 
the Dingell-Johnson Act. The hearings of the Committee on Resources 
made it clear that funds committed for the administration and execution 
of these programs had not been used for their stated purposes and that 
there was a general lack of fiscal accountability and management 
throughout the programs.
  H.R. 3671 stops wasteful spending and mismanagement of the wildlife 
and sports fish trust funds and allows more money to be distributed 
directly to the States for conservation programs.
  The legislation fixes what the GAO called, quote, ``one of the worst 
managed programs it had ever encountered by increasing accountability 
and restricting the administrative use of funds from the trust funds.''
  Specifically, H.R. 3671 restricts the use of administrative funds 
reserved from Federal excise taxes on hunting and fishing equipment to 
purposes directly related to the Pittman-Johnson Wildlife Restoration 
Act and the Dingell-Johnson Sport Fish Restoration Act.
  Further, the legislation established 12 categories of authorized 
costs for the Wildlife Restoration Act and Sports Fish Restoration Act 
and provides that administrative funds will be available for one fiscal 
year, after which all unobligated funds will be returned to the States 
through the apportionment formula.
  H.R. 3671 also requires the Secretary of Interior to certify in 
writing the amount apportioned to each State and the amount obligated 
for administering those programs.
  In addition, the Wildlife and Sport Fish Restoration Programs 
Improvement Act provides grants from the savings generated from the 
administrative changes in the bill to enhance firearm and bow hunter 
education and shooting range construction. The legislation also 
provides up to $2.5 million for the Secretary of Interior to make 
multistate conservation grants.
  Finally, the legislation requires increased accountability within the 
Fish and Wildlife Service, through certification of the use of funds 
and administrative restructuring.
  The Committee on Resources reported H.R. 3671 as amended by a 
unanimous vote of 36 to nothing last March.
  H. Res. 455 makes in order an amendment by the gentleman from Alaska 
(Chairman Young) to increase the amount authorized to administer the 
Pittman-Robertson Act and the Dingell-Johnson Act to $7.09 million for 
each act, an increase of $5 million for each act with the reduction of 
these funds in later years.
  The amendment also makes certain technical changes and changes to 
ensure that the bill language conforms to language in the existing 
statute, language that is not amended by the bill.
  Finally, the CBO has estimated that enacting H.R. 3671 would have no 
net effect on the Federal budget. The Committee on Rules was pleased to 
grant the request of the gentleman from Alaska (Mr. Young) for an open 
rule under H.R. 3671; and accordingly, I urge my colleagues to support 
H. Res. 455 and the underlying bill.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HALL of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from Washington (Mr. 
Hastings) for yielding me the time.

[[Page H1803]]

  Mr. Speaker, this is an open rule. It will allow for a debate on the 
Wildlife and Sport Fish Restoration Act. As my colleague has described, 
the debate will be equally divided and controlled by the chairman and 
ranking minority member from the Committee on Resources.
  The rule permits amendments under the 5-minute rule. This is the 
normal amending process in the House. All Members on both sides of the 
aisle will have the opportunity to offer amendments if they are germane 
and if they meet the requirements under House rules.
  Mr. Speaker, the Fish and Wildlife Service operates two programs that 
give States grants to help conserve and manage their fish and wildlife 
resources, and there is widespread agreement the financial management 
for these programs needs to be improved. However, there is disagreement 
over the solutions in this bill. Much in the bill is a step in the 
right direction, but the restrictions in the measure could reduce the 
ability of the Fish and Wildlife Service to manage these programs.
  This is an open rule, though, and Members will have an opportunity to 
improve the bill on the House floor, as long as their amendments meet 
the requirements of the House rules.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the 
gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Pryce), my colleague on the Committee on 
Rules.
  Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I thank my distinguished colleague, 
the gentleman from the State of Washington (Mr. Hastings), for yielding 
me this time.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this open rule. As a 
cosponsor of the underlying legislation, H.R. 3671 the Wildlife and 
Sport Fish Restoration Programs Improvement Act of the year 2000, I am 
pleased that this open rule will allow this body to fully debate this 
environmentally sound and fiscally responsible legislation.
  H.R. 3671 addresses recently uncovered waste, fraud and abuse in two 
very important funds established by two different acts of Congress 
which provide money to the States for wildlife and sport fishing 
conservation programs.
  Mr. Speaker, our Nation's sportsmen and women proudly contribute to 
wildlife and fish improvement projects every time they purchase fishing 
tackle, hunting gear, or any other sporting goods.
  However, recent oversight hearings held by the House Committee on 
Resources and an audit conducted by the General Accounting Office have 
revealed widespread abuses and misuses of millions of dollars of these 
funds, which are financed by the excise taxes on sporting goods, guns, 
ammunition, fishing tackle, and motor boat fuel. In fact, the General 
Accounting Office has characterized this program as one of the worst-
managed programs the investigator has ever encountered.
  H.R. 3671 addresses and rightfully corrects these abuses by 
increasing accountability and reeling in the administrative use of 
these funds so that this waste of taxpayer money will not occur in the 
future.
  Simply put, the money paid by our Nation's sportsmen and women will 
go toward wildlife and fish improvement projects, as the law specified, 
rather than on unauthorized expenditures, slush funds, alcoholic 
beverages, or overseas trips to exotic designations.
  Mr. Speaker, H.R. 3671 goes to the very heart of why our constituents 
elected us to office, to safeguard their money and to ensure that it is 
spent wisely. As a fiscal conservative, my constituents sent me to 
Washington to reduce the size of bureaucracy, increase the efficiency 
of Federal programs, and improve the accountability of our government.
  This bill represents the very checks and balances between the 
administration and the Congress which our Founding Fathers envisioned 
to control waste, fraud and abuse. Passage of this legislation will 
allow us to regain the trust of those who enjoy what our great outdoors 
has to offer and who seek to contribute to its conservation.
  I would like to commend the gentleman from Alaska (Mr. Young) and the 
House Committee on Resources for their bipartisan work in oversight in 
protecting the American taxpayer while at the same time increasing 
funds for true conservation. I urge adoption of this open rule and 
passage of the underlying bill.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the 
gentleman from Alaska (Mr. Young), the distinguished chairman of the 
Committee on Resources.
  Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Speaker, as has been stated before, we 
sought an open rule. The Committee on Rules decided to give us the open 
rule.
  The law says that a percentage of that money, up to 8 percent for 
Pittman-Robertson and up to 6 percent for Dingell-Johnson, can be used 
for administration expenses.
  We have found out, though, that the maximum percentage was used in 
1998. $31 million was used for administration purposes. Throughout the 
1990s, the percentage escalated from 2 percent or 3 percent all the way 
to the maximum, which is 14 percent.
  Our year-long oversight project examined exactly how the $31 million 
was supposedly used to administer the important conservation acts. We 
found out, through the oversight, some very alarming things.
  Mr. Speaker, I suggest respectfully, in fact, we found out that the 
money was spent not as the law said it shall be spent, not for 
administrative purposes.
  The bill I bring to the House today is designed to make sure that not 
one dime of wildlife or sport fishing conservation trust funds are 
misspent again. We have been as accommodating as possible to concerns 
about adequate levels of funding for program administration, and with 
the open rule we want to be receptive to other ideas about how to make 
the conservation funds run more effectively.
  The bill was developed during a 7-month process with 14 wildlife and 
fish sport groups representing each State. These groups conceptualized 
the solutions based on the oversight work of the Committee on 
Resources.
  We held three oversight investigative meetings, and we had 
suggestions from those findings; and this bill is a result of those.
  The law as exists today does not authorize those expenditures which 
occurred; but rather than argue over that point, we focused on 
solutions which are in the bill that I bring to the Committee on Rules 
today. My cosponsor and I decided to fix the loopholes that the Fish 
and Wildlife Service point to when they try to justify their 
expenditure of administration of trust funds. This bill caps the amount 
of administrative expenditures at $10 million. We spell out exactly 
what expenses are authorized to administer the program. We add 
reporting and auditing requirements. We create a transparent multiple-
State grant program where $5 million of the funds were improperly used 
for unauthorized costs. We use some of the savings to enhance hunter 
safety and education. We create an associate director of Fish and 
Wildlife, and sport fish trust funds to raise the profile of these 
important conservation activities and look out for the conservation 
trust funds. These are solutions of the Pittman-Robertson, Dingell-
Johnson acts, two acts that are vital to the conservation and 
restoration of wildlife and sport fishing in the country.
  I have asked for only one amendment today under the rule that 
increases the level of funding from $10 million to $14 million, with a 
total level of funding of $19 million. We did this to ensure a 
transition period for 3 years during which there would be a slight 
reduction in staffing levels that manage that trust fund.
  My amendment takes the authorized level down from 120 employees in 
2001 to 100 employees in 2003. That adjusts the level upward thereafter 
based on the Consumer Price Index.
  The amendment makes other technical changes to make sure that the 
bill conforms with other parts of the underlying Pittman-Robertson, 
Dingell-Johnson acts that are not amended. Other than that, we think we 
have a good bill. Overall, this is a good bill and should be passed and 
voted on by all my colleagues.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Blunt).
  Mr. BLUNT. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate my friend, the gentleman from 
Washington (Mr. Hastings), for yielding time on this important bill 
that really helps restore confidence with the

[[Page H1804]]

people who worked to get this legislation enacted to start with. Both 
Pittman-Robertson and Dingell-Johnson have had the support of virtually 
every outdoor sports organization. They have had the support of people 
who sell the very things that are taxed under this legislation. Seldom 
do we have people who are selling a product come and say we would like 
that product to be taxed because it enhances the cause that we believe 
is important to enhance.
  Of course, this current law levies excise taxes on guns, on 
ammunition, on archery equipment, on fishing equipment; and that is 
used to fund wildlife programs. What we have seen happen is that the 
percentages that the chairman just mentioned, the maximum percentages 
for administration have been far exceeded in expenditures that were 
beyond the scope of this legislation.
  The House Committee on Resources had hearings where it appeared that 
as much as one-third of the money was being used in areas that were 
originally thought to be capped at 6 or 8 percent. That is not 
acceptable.
  This bill establishes a cap on administrative costs. It creates 12 
specific categories of costs so that we know for sure what is going in 
can count as administration. It prohibits funds from being used for 
functions where Congress has already appropriated money. That is what 
this process is about. It is not up to the Fish and Wildlife Commission 
to decide that the Congress did not appropriate enough, and so they 
will supplement that out of funds intended for other purposes. They 
need to come back to the Congress and ask for more money and justify 
that money in the regular way.
  This then returns unused money to the States. It eliminates a $1 
million directors' conservation fund. Some have suggested that that was 
a slush fund, and there is plenty of evidence to say that that is what 
it very well could be called.
  I hope that we restore the confidence of the people who asked for 
this excise tax, who collect the tax, who see how the tax is spent, by 
approving the rule and approving the bill today.
  Mr. HALL of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman 
from Alabama (Mr. Callahan), chairman of the Subcommittee on Foreign 
Operations, Export Financing and Related Programs.
  Mr. CALLAHAN. Mr. Speaker, I suppose I rise to ask some questions 
possibly of the Committee on Rules members here today, and I wanted 
also to have the opportunity to address this question to the chairman 
of the full committee. I know that many have had thousands of phone 
calls, like I have, of people concerned with the fact that the Congress 
of the United States gave the Fish and Wildlife such excessive 
authority over the fining of people hunting for sport all over this 
country.
  Specifically, it is my understanding that under current law there can 
be assessed to someone who owns a baited field, even whether or not he 
had anything to do with the baiting, if anyone is caught hunting, dove 
hunting over a baited field, the owner of the property can be assessed 
a fine of some $200,000; and the hunter can be fined $100,000.
  I do not think anyone in this House and certainly no hunter that I 
know of would advocate the hunting over a baited field, but this type 
of excessive control that the Federal Government has in assessing these 
types of obnoxious fines to our hunters and to property owners should 
be addressed.
  So I guess my question, Mr. Speaker, is can this be addressed in this 
issue? I know it is an open rule, but I know there are some limitations 
on what can be offered as an amendment. Would this bill today be the 
vehicle that we could use to begin addressing and reducing this 
situation that is causing such misery to hunters all over America?
  Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. CALLAHAN. I yield to the gentleman from Alaska.

                              {time}  1530

  Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman bringing 
this to the attention of the floor. We cannot address it in 
legislation. It would not be germane.
  But I can assure the gentleman from Alabama that the bill that he 
voted on and I voted on and which I was a sponsor last year concerning 
this issue was not in the House bill. In fact, it was a clean bill that 
would really relieve the ``don't know,'' and have, as Fish and Wildlife 
was, issuing fines against those people. It was trying to take that 
away from the Fish and Wildlife.
  The Fish and Wildlife Enforcement Group have interpreted the bill on 
behalf of Senator Chafee, who is no longer with us, may his soul rest 
in peace, but he put this in the bill in the waning hours, which none 
of us knew about. We have been made aware of this by the gentleman's 
hunters and my hunters and the people involved in Fish and Wildlife 
Conservation.
  I have also suggested to the Fish and Wildlife not to interpret the 
law as the gentleman from Alabama mentioned. But we are going to try to 
address this issue in the very near future to make sure that the untold 
fines which are now being suggested be imposed upon individuals will 
not take place.
  I am one that does not believe in the baited field, but many times 
this could occur unbeknownst to the knowledge of the farmer or, in 
fact, the hunter itself, and it is unfair to put this type of burden 
upon those people.
  So I will do everything in my power to make sure that we address the 
fact that we never supported it.
  Mr. CALLAHAN. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time just for a second, when 
can I go back and tell the people in Alabama that are so interested in 
this when some relief is going to be forthcoming? If this is not the 
vehicle, where is the vehicle to address this?
  Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Speaker, we hope that we will have a vehicle 
that the gentleman can do it, in fact the bill itself in the near 
future. I can assure the gentleman that we are well aware of this 
issue. I will suggest one other thing. It will be taken ahead of the 
next dove season. I can assure the gentleman from Alabama of that.
  Mr. CALLAHAN. Mr. Speaker, I should hope so. I know the hunters of 
south Alabama will, too.
  I hope that we can address this as expeditiously as we can, because 
it is wrong of us to give this authority. Whether or not it was done in 
the middle of the night in the Senate or wherever, the law is the law.
  The people of Alabama do not violate the law. So we are not baiting 
fields anyway. But if he finds one kernel of corn of Fish and Wildlife, 
the game warden, then that property owner can be assessed a $200,000 
fine under existing law. So I hope we can address it.
  Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman will yield, I have 
already informed the Fish and Wildlife of this issue; and, to my 
knowledge, there has been no fines of that amount, but they could 
occur. We have to change it so it could not occur. If there has been 
any fines placed after the passage of the law last year, they have been 
in the $100, $200, $300 range, and we expect to keep it that way.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 
minutes to the gentleman from Montana (Mr. Hill).
  (Mr. HILL of Montana asked and was given permission to revise and 
extend his remarks.)
  Mr. HILL of Montana. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from 
Washington for yielding me the time, and I want to thank the leadership 
for allowing this issue to come to the floor.
  Mr. Speaker, we are living in a time when I think the cynicism about 
government is probably at an all-time high. It of course is because we 
have probably an all-time high in the number of scandals here in 
Washington.
  The scandal that has given rise to this particular bill is that there 
has been a raid on the sportsmen and women's trust funds. The sportsmen 
and women in this country have supported an excise tax on guns and 
ammunition and fishing equipment and archery equipment, which it goes 
into a fund, the purpose of which is to support conservation efforts 
and promote hunting and fishing.
  Now, what we have discovered is that, in recent years, these funds 
have been raided using what the General Accounting Office has described 
as a shell game. The Fish and Wildlife Service created slush funds to 
circumvent the intent of Congress.
  The General Accounting Office described the management of these 
funds, and I quote, ``one of the worst managed programs that it had 
ever encountered. In some instances, even the General

[[Page H1805]]

Accounting Office could not determine where the money went or how it 
got spent.''
  In another instance, the General Accounting Office reported that the 
Fish and Wildlife Service had placed these dollars into a fund that was 
not even authorized to circumvent their own criteria for the approval 
of the spending of the projects.
  In another instance, they created an unauthorized administrative 
grant program to fund programs that were not supported by Congress.
  There is an instance, for example, where the director tried to get an 
employee to fund an anti-hunting project using the funds that came from 
hunters' supported excise tax.
  It is important for us at this point to rebuild public confidence and 
support for hunting and fishing. This bill is important because it will 
restore confidence in these programs. But it is also important that 
taxpayers know that, when they pay taxes, the money is going to be 
spent for the purpose that it was intended.
  It has been commonplace in the Clinton-Gore administration to raid 
trust funds. They have raided the highway trust fund. They have raided 
the aviation trust fund. They have raided the Social Security trust 
fund. They have raided the Medicare trust fund. They have even raided 
the Wildlife trust fund.
  I support this bill. I am proud to be a cosponsor. I urge my 
colleagues to support the rule and support the bill.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Cunningham).
  Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Speaker, I laud the gentleman from Alaska 
(Chairman Young) for this legislation.
  Mr. Speaker, I grew up in a little city called Fresno, California. I 
had 11 uncles that taught me how to hunt and fish. As a matter of fact, 
one time I threw a gum wrapper down in the woods, and my grandfather 
picked me up and threw me in a stream. I did not do it again.
  The opportunity to enjoy the woods, to enjoy the fish and game that 
our forefathers have is very, very important. We have had legislation 
on this floor like the tuna-dolphin that allowed us, not only to save 
dolphin, but to preserve our fish species and not destroy our bycatch.
  We have had bills on shark finning to preserve, even things that I do 
not like because I am a diver, sharks. But it is science based in its 
nature. People that most use the resource are the ones that are going 
to pay for it.
  The Sportsmen's Caucus, made up of Republicans and Democrats and 
conservationists and environmentalists, support this legislation. We 
have a vision, not just for right now, but 100 years from now so that 
my children and my grandchildren will be able to use these resources.
  Organizations like Ducks Unlimited that have put billions of dollars 
into habitat to bring about the restoration of ducks and geese across 
this country. Accountability, effectiveness, responsibility, and 
science based are some of the things that go into this particular bill.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 
minutes to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Gilchrest).
  Mr. GILCHREST. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Washington for 
yielding me this time.
  Mr. Speaker, I would like to make two points here today. The first 
point is about Fish and Wildlife as an organization has done some 
magnificent things around the country. In my district in particular, 
they have helped enhance the marine ecosystem for the fisheries in the 
Chesapeake Bay. They have helped enhance wildlife habitat corridors to 
protect wildlife and keep the Eastern Shore of Maryland and much of 
Maryland in a beautiful state, in an environmental condition that we 
can be proud of.
  The Fish and Wildlife has also worked in my district to help preserve 
agriculture and make it profitable by a collaborative effort with a 
number of Federal, State agencies, and the private sector. So the Fish 
and Wildlife is out there, and they can do a magnificent job that is 
worthy of all of us.
  But what we do not want to have happen is those few dollars that are 
available for when official Fish and Wildlife can do a substantial job 
to be taken away and spent in an unwise fashion where there is no 
criteria.
  The bill of the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young) addresses two 
specific problems that we have come across through a series of 
hearings. One, and this is, in essence, a misdirection of dollars that 
are badly needed at all of our congressional level districts.
  Number one, the Director's Conservation Fund. The Director's 
Conservation Fund was used solely at the discretion of the director. No 
criteria existed for making grants under this unauthorized fund.
  So what is the solution? The bill provides a solution. This bill will 
restore the good faith of sportsmen and women in this successful 
program by eliminating unauthorized expenditures through the Director's 
Conservation Fund, reducing disproportionately the high amount for 
overhead. So that is the Director's Conservation Fund.
  The other problem has been there were several instances in which Fish 
and Wildlife Service use conservation trust funds for wildlife and 
sport fish to pay for other service needs. These were salaries, these 
were a whole range of things, travel and so on.
  So what is the solution? The solution to spending these Federal aid 
program dollars in areas where they should not be spent is that this 
legislation eliminates extra funds for the Fish and Wildlife Service to 
use for inappropriate expenditures. We fix the amount available and 
limit what it can be spent on. That means that we fix the amount that 
can be spent on administrative services and ensure that a majority of 
those dollars, if not 99 percent of those dollars, that people pay 
excise taxes for will be given to the Fish and Wildlife.
  With the cooperation of Members of Congress, other Federal agencies, 
the Fish and Wildlife Service can do the job that we all want them to 
do throughout this country, and that is preserve the natural heritage 
of Fish and Wildlife that our forefathers experienced in the past, we 
experience now in the present, and unseen generations to come will be 
able to enjoy that pristine natural environment.
  Mr. HALL of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman 
from Michigan (Mr. Barcia).
  Mr. BARCIA. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 3671, 
the Wildlife and Sport Fish Restoration Programs Improvement Act. I 
want to commend the gentleman from Alaska (Mr. Young) and the members 
of his committee for his diligence in uncovering the abuses that this 
legislation seeks to rectify and for introducing this bill which will 
ensure the conservation funds will be spent where they are most needed 
and where they were originally intended to be spent.
  I would also like to thank the chairman for his dedication to 
protecting the rights and interest of sportsmen and women across the 
country who have contributed to this fund for well over 60 years.
  As a member of the Congressional Sportsmen's Caucus and cochair of 
the Congressional Task Force on Bowhunting, I have been carefully 
monitoring the issue and criticism over the misuse of funds by the Fish 
and Wildlife Service. I was very concerned when I heard that the money 
was being spent, not on the administration of the act, but on unrelated 
trips, unauthorized bonuses, and the funding of other departments 
within the Fish and Wildlife Service.
  This legislation addresses these administrative abuses and ensures 
that sportsmen's dollars will be used to benefit fish and wildlife 
conservation efforts. It also provides firearm and bow hunter education 
and safety training and establishes an assistant director for the 
Wildlife and Sport Fish Restoration Program whose sole responsibility 
will be the management and administration of the Wildlife and Sport 
Fish Restoration Program.
  Overall, the bill will prevent conservation dollars from being spent 
in ways that do not help conservation. It will send more money to the 
States for them to use for conservation projects.
  I wholeheartedly support this legislation and urge its immediate 
passage.
  Mr. HALL of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman 
from California (Mr. George Miller), former chairman of the committee.
  Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman 
from Ohio for yielding me this time.

[[Page H1806]]

  Mr. Speaker, several Members have come to the floor to tout the 
findings of the General Accounting Office as necessary proof of the 
proposed reforms in this legislation. In most instances, I believe that 
GAO provides an important and impartial perspective to enable the 
Congress to assess the circumstances underlying any policy issue. I 
believe we all share this view.
  But I have had time to reassess the information provided last year by 
the GAO. Frankly, Mr. Speaker, the more I have read and learned, the 
more concerned I have become about GAO's performance during the conduct 
of this investigation.
  Contrary to the assertions made by the majority, I am sure that many 
Members of this House would be surprised to learn that GAO never filed 
a final report for their investigation. In fact, all of the assertions 
attributed to GAO were based upon preliminary findings, findings that 
in many instances were partial and failed to include important 
information.
  Rarely have I seen such an example of cut and run analysis. I want to 
take just a few minutes to share some examples for the benefit of 
Members unfamiliar with this investigation.
  For example, the Committee on Resources heard from GAO that the Fish 
and Wildlife Service had lost roughly $85 million in Federal aid funds. 
But upon closer inspection of the Fish and Wildlife Service's own 
internal account reconciliation process, it was revealed that only 
about $7 million was unreconciled at the time that GAO made that claim. 
GAO did not provide any reason for this oversight in their analysis.
  To clarify this matter further, I am pleased to report to my 
colleagues that it is my understanding that the Service's 
reconciliation process has now reduced the outstanding total to around 
$700,000. A full accounting for all funds is expected soon.
  More importantly, it appears that these funds were never lost in the 
first place. Had GAO's investigators gone to the Service's own Division 
of Finance, they would have found corresponding account information to 
fill in the gaps between the incomplete financial records kept in the 
Federal Aid Office. But GAO investigators never bothered to make a trip 
to Denver to look into this matter.
  We also heard from GAO that the Fish and Wildlife Service was 
negligent in implementing GAO's recommendations after GAO's 1993 
investigation into the Sports Fish Restoration Program. But in fact, 
the Fish and Wildlife Service has implemented almost all of GAO's 
previous recommendations. However, again, GAO failed to include in its 
preliminary findings any recognition that the Service had, in fact, 
implemented its recommendations.

                              {time}  1545

  Normally, these types of errors are corrected during the close-out 
review of the Federal agency under scrutiny. But because the GAO 
declined to file a final report, these errors were allowed to stand 
uncontested.
  Mr. Speaker, I would like to submit for the Record this table of 
reforms that have been initiated by the Fish and Wildlife Service to 
address concerns raised by the GAO and by other critics of the 
financial management practices of the Office of Federal Aid. They speak 
for themselves.
  These are just a few of the glaring examples of the flaws in the 
GAO's analysis; and I am left to wonder whether GAO really has, in 
fact, provided an objective analysis has in fact provided an objective 
analysis or has been more motivated to justify the preconceptions 
raised by the majority or the GAO itself.
  The gentleman from Alaska has repeatedly referred to the statement 
made by the GAO asserting that the Office of Federal Aid was one of the 
worst-managed programs GAO has ever investigated. While I make 
absolutely no apologies for the shoddy past financial management at the 
Office of Federal Aid, I find GAO's performance lacking and 
disappointing.
  The Congress relies on GAO to make these kinds of objective analyses, 
and they should be beyond reproach. In this case, I do not think that 
is the case. I will get into more detail in general debate about some 
of the corrective actions that the committee has taken, some of which 
are justified and others that I think are going to keep this agency 
from doing the type of proper job it should do in administering these 
programs.
  Mr. Speaker, I submit for the Record the table of reforms I referred 
to earlier.

     Corrective Actions Taken by the Service on Federal Aid Issues


                                  1993

       Initiated a new budget review process to ensure that all 
     requests for Federal Aid funds are adequately justified.
       Began maintaining files of all direct charges to the Sport 
     Fish program.
       Transferred Take Pride position out of Federal Aid Office.
       Required Management Assistance Team (MAT) and others in 
     Federal Aid to charge for their services.


                                  1994

       Reduced amount of Federal Aid Administrative funds used for 
     General Administrative Service account. Required that 
     calculations be reviewed annually.
       Ended the practice of charging overhead costs to the state 
     grants portion of the account.
       Implemented the practice of describing cross program 
     initiatives involving Federal Aid in the FWS Budget 
     submission.
       Instituted a new cost recovery policy which established a 
     minimum standard rate to be charged for administrative costs.
       Published in the Federal Register the policy and procedures 
     for funding Administrative Grants projects. Published 
     annually from 1994-1998.


                                  1996

       Initiated a new program to audit the State's use of funds 
     apportioned under Wallop-Breaux/Dingell-Johnson and Pittman-
     Robertson Programs.
       Began to design a new grant management information and 
     tracking system.


                                  1997

       Issued guidance to Regional Directors stating that all 
     charges against Federal Aid must be approved by 
     Appropriations Committee. Issued during September of 1997 and 
     again on August 16, 1998.


                                  1998

       Began the process of reconciling differences between 
     Federal Aid Office grant records and the Service's Division 
     of Finance's records.
       Requested Defense Contract Audit Agency (DCAA) to develop 
     an audit program for administrative funds; DCAA advised that 
     they were unable to do so.
       Developed National Training program for Federal & State 
     employees involved in grant activities.
       Began working with Customs, IRS, BATF, IAFWA, Wildlife 
     Management Institute, industry and staff from Sen. Breaux and 
     Rep. Tanner to review excise tax collections in Treasury. 
     Eventually recovered more than $20 million in excise taxes 
     not credited to the Federal Aid programs, and another $20 
     million for the Migratory Bird Conservation Fund.
       Published Notice in the Federal Register soliciting public 
     input on alternative methods to fund administrative grants 
     program. Also stated in that Notice that the present program 
     needs to be eliminated or improved. (9/16/98)


                                  1999

       Implemented FAIMS (Federal Aid Information Management 
     System), the grant management and tracking system. (1/99)
       Announced decision to terminate the Director's Conservation 
     Fund. (3/99)
       Established a State/Federal Review Team to evaluate 
     Washington and Regional office administration of Federal Aid 
     program. (3/99) Team met formally during July and August.
       Announced in a letter to the IAFWA (International 
     Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies) plans to terminate 
     Administrative Grants Program. (5/12/99)
       Announced in the Federal Register the termination of the 
     Administrative Grants Program. (7/26/99)
       Reviewed contract under which GAO says it is unclear 
     whether the Service or contractor should receive over 
     $100,000 collected. Determined that money was reimbursement 
     of contractor copying costs, not profits. (7/99)
       Established an inter-office Financial Management Team to 
     address financial management weaknesses in the Federal Aid 
     Program.

  Mr. HALL of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, the rule is a good rule. It is open. 
We have no problem with it. We urge a ``yes'' vote on the rule.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I too urge my colleagues to 
support the rule and the underlying bill.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the 
previous question on the resolution.
  The previous question was ordered.
  The resolution was agreed to.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Hastings of Washington). Pursuant to 
House Resolution 455 and rule XVIII,

[[Page H1807]]

the Chair declares the House in the Committee of the Whole House on the 
State of the Union for the consideration of the bill H.R. 3671.

                              {time}  1547


                     In the Committee of the Whole

  Accordingly, the House resolved itself into the Committee of the 
Whole House on the State of the Union for the consideration of the bill 
(H.R. 3671) to amend the Acts popularly known as the Pittman-Robertson 
Wildlife Restoration Act and the Dingell-Johnson Sport Fish Restoration 
Act to enhance the funds available for grants to States for fish and 
wildlife conservation projects and increase opportunities for 
recreational hunting, bow hunting, trapping, archery, and fishing, by 
eliminating opportunities for waste, fraud, abuse, maladministration, 
and unauthorized expenditures for administration and execution of those 
Acts, and for other purposes, with Mr. Burr of North Carolina in the 
chair.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the rule, the bill is considered as having 
been read the first time.
  Under the rule, the gentleman from Alaska (Mr. Young) and the 
gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller) each will control 30 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Alaska (Mr. Young).
  Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  (Mr. YOUNG of Alaska asked and was given permission to revise and 
extend his remarks.)
  Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, listen to these words. They tell 
us why this legislation is urgently needed.
  ``We don't want legislation to put us in a tighter box. If another 
need for this money comes up in the future, we want to be able to 
direct money to do it,'' says the deputy director of the United States 
Fish and Wildlife Service about this bill in the March 2000 issue of 
Outdoor Life.
  The deputy director's words were a plea for help and this bill 
answers that plea. Those who oversee this program still want to use 
wildlife and sport fish money, paid by sportsmen, to create slush 
accounts and fund other unauthorized needs.
  This bill assists the Fish and Wildlife Service in their 
administration of the programs by providing clear direction on what 
they can do when administering these wildlife and sport fish trust 
accounts. The bill eliminates the broad discretionary authority that 
supposedly gave them the permission to spend wildlife and sport fish 
trust accounts on things like slush funds and other unnecessary foreign 
travel. This bill prevents abuses and protects the trust funds. This 
bill does not choke the administration of the wildlife and fish trust 
accounts. It makes them lean, and it makes them manage the money 
accountably.
  This bill maintains the integrity of the two acts by ensuring the 
funds will be used for true administration by authorizing exactly what 
the administration funds may be spent on. This includes things like 
personnel, direct support costs, costs to make grants, and actual 
overhead costs.
  It will ensure that millions of excise tax dollars paid by sportsmen 
and women on guns, ammo, archery equipment, and fishing equipment will 
go to the States to improve opportunities to enjoy hunting and fishing, 
enhance hunting safety, providing conservation projects to improve 
habitat, and a variety of other wildlife and sport fishery restoration 
projects that benefit all Americans.
  The bill caps the amount of administration dollars at $10 million for 
both programs for true program administrative needs, plus $5 million 
for the multistate grant program that the Service improperly funded 
from administrative money. These program reforms deliver more wildlife 
and sport fishing restoration dollars to the States.
  Because of past abuses, several certification, auditing and 
accounting requirements are added. These requirements will ensure that 
the committees in the House and Senate and the public will get what we 
need to confirm that the wildlife and sport fish trust funds are 
administered cleanly and effectively.
  We authorize a multiple-state conservation grant program to fund 
wildlife and sport fish restoration properties or programs that will 
benefit both groups of the States. Often States wish to cooperate with 
conservation projects, and this program will allow them to do so; $5 
million, split between wildlife and sport fish, are authorized for this 
purpose.
  With some of the savings we achieve in the bill, we authorize a 
firearm and bow hunter safety grant program to assist States to enhance 
firearm, hunting and archery education programs, and ranges and safety 
programs.
  We found a lack of accountability within the current Federal Aid 
program that administers the accounts. We found that Federal Aid 
managers lacked control over their own resources. As a result, we 
elevated the chief of the Federal Aid program to the level of assistant 
secretary.
  The new position is the assistant director for Wildlife and Sport 
Fish Restoration Programs, who, organizationally, reports to the 
director. This structure elevates one-third of the total fish and 
wildlife service budget and places it squarely in the director's 
office. The sole responsibility of the new assistant director will be 
the management, administration, and oversight of the Wildlife and Sport 
Fish Restoration Programs.
  Every Member should support this legislation. I knew that we had to 
press on and make these reforms rigid when I read what the deputy 
director of the Service said about this bill in the March 2000 issue of 
Outdoor Life.
  I urge the House to support this important legislation and ensure 
that the taxes paid by sportsmen and women benefit wildlife and sport 
fish conservation and restoration in the States. By supporting this 
legislation, we will prevent excise taxes, paid by our constituents and 
earmarked for our game and fish departments, from being improperly used 
and squandered by the Federal Government.
  It is our job to protect the sportsmen and women who pay the tax in 
each of our districts. Vote for this bill. Do something we should have 
done more around here, and that is to provide solutions to eliminate 
waste and fraud and abuse by the Federal Government. It just so happens 
doing it this time means more wildlife and more sport activity for the 
people in our districts.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such 
time as I may consume.
  In just 3 weeks, we will be celebrating the 30th anniversary of the 
first Earth Day. And just like the return of spring, the coming Earth 
Day has spurred the majority to renew their annual migration to the 
House floor with legislation to supposedly demonstrate their concern 
and support for the environment.
  This is legislation that does both of those things, it tries to 
express their concern for the environment and also to clean up some 
problems within the sport fish restoration program. But I am afraid 
this legislation goes too far.
  In its desire to seek out waste, fraud, and abuse, I believe that 
this legislation, in fact, will end up, if kept in its current form, 
undermining the ability of the Fish and Wildlife Service to administer 
an account for roughly $450 million to support wildlife and sport fish 
conservation activities in the States.
  As we sat through the hearings, I must say that I share some of the 
concerns that the gentleman from Alaska (Mr. Young) has outlined in his 
desire to improve the performance of this program within the agency. 
But unfortunately, the legislation, as it stands before the House 
today, I think makes cuts that are far too severe and imperil the 
ability of this agency to administer the programs to the States or, in 
fact, even put additional burdens on the States for which they will not 
have resources to do; and I will elaborate on that point later in the 
debate in this legislation.
  I think it is important to remind our colleagues that the Fish and 
Wildlife Service is recognized and admitted substantial errors that 
have been made. Serious reforms have been initiated by Fish and 
Wildlife Service Director Jamie Clark to improve the enforcement of 
financial policies and procedures, including the termination of 
discretionary grant programs, the hiring of a new Federal Aid expert to 
closely oversee the Federal Aid Office, the establishment of strict new 
policies for

[[Page H1808]]

travel and expenses, and the initiation of new training programs for 
Federal and States employees.
  These moves indicate to me that the Service is aggressively taking 
action to clean up this mess. Has the Service acted quickly enough to 
address these problems? Certainly not. But is the Fish and Wildlife 
Service now making a serious effort to clean up the administration of 
these programs? I believe they are. It is unfortunate the majority has 
decided to ignore these internal reforms.
  Which brings us to where we are today. When the majority concluded 
its investigation, I hoped that we might be able to work to draft 
legislation sufficiently tailored to ensure long-term financial 
accountability of this program. But so far we have been unable to do 
that.
  I have several concerns about this legislation. Foremost is my 
concern that the bill would severely cut the amount of allowable 
funding for the Service to administer the program. As reported by the 
Committee on Resources, the bill would have established a $10 million 
per-year cap to fund administrative activities which the majority 
claims would track existing costs for legitimate administrative 
functions. However, the Fish and Wildlife Service indicates that the 
personnel costs alone amount to $9.5 million annually.
  Furthermore, when the service analyzed past spending, organized by 
the majority's own 12 expense categories, and when the Service backed 
out the illegitimate expenses, the costs for administration 
consistently ranged between $20 million to $25 million. Clearly, $10 
million is simply not sufficient to engage in the proper practices.
  It is my understanding that the funding levels imposed by this cap 
would force the Service to terminate anywhere between 40 to 60 Federal 
Aid employees. In addition, the caps would also force the Service to 
cut back on important administrative activities, including State grant 
audits, budget oversight, and procedural training for Federal and State 
personnel. How is the Service supposed to provide increased oversight, 
accountability, and services to the States under this scenario?
  I ask if my colleagues' offices would be able to provide the same 
level of services to their constituents if they were forced to cut 
their office staff and operating budgets by 30, 40 or 50 percent? Of 
course not. But that is what this legislation would impose on the 
Service.
  I am also concerned the bill does not provide any administrative 
flexibility for the Fish and Wildlife Service to respond to unknown 
future expenses that could be imposed on the Service. For example, if 
the CARA legislation should pass, it would allocate an additional $350 
million to the Pittman-Robinson programs, but it would not allow any 
additional funding for that program. I hope we can either address that 
problem in this legislation or in the follow-along CARA legislation.
  I find it remarkable that the majority insists that the workload of 
the program could virtually double overnight but would not provide 
additional administrative funds to the program.
  I am also concerned that the bill does nothing to ensure the States 
who receive Federal funds are held accountable on how they spend their 
grants. After all, the States receive 93 percent of all the Federal Aid 
funds, roughly $450 annually. Yet the audit of State programs has 
uncovered many troubling examples of financial abuse, very similar, if 
not identical, to the problems uncovered in the Federal investigation 
of the Federal agency.
  I find it interesting that the committee would focus its attention 
exclusively on how the Fish and Wildlife Service spends its funds, 
which total about $31 million, but fail to address the credible 
evidence of similar financial mismanagement among the States that spend 
more than 10 times that amount of money.
  Perhaps this indifference reveals the true nature about this 
legislation. It is less about the avoidance of spending money 
unlawfully than it is about punishing the Service.
  I am disappointed that we have been unable to resolve these 
substantial concerns and other problems that I have raised with this 
legislation. I would have preferred to resolve these matters before 
bringing the bill to the floor. Hopefully, they will be resolved before 
this legislation is reported from the Senate.
  I would hope that the majority would understand that to seek 
signature on this legislation some of these concerns, that are 
legitimately raised by the Fish and Wildlife Service, by some of the 
State agencies, and by supporters of this program, will have to be 
changed if the agency is, in fact, going to effectively administer the 
Office of Federal Aid; and if they are going to be able to administer 
the programs as we on the committee now agree they should be, which 
resulted from the hearings and the investigations that the majority led 
into this agency.
  I guess, in short, I would simply say this: I believe this 
legislation is on the right track, but I believe it is overkill.

                              {time}  1600

  I believe it is overkill, to the extent to which it can render the 
agency ineffective to do exactly the mission that is outlined in this 
reform legislation.
  I would hope that the principals of this legislation could work out 
so there could be sufficient funding that would allow the agency to do 
its job properly, there would be the reforms that the legislation 
speaks to to make sure that, in fact, monies are spent properly for the 
purposes for which people pay into this fund and for which those of us 
who make the policy on this matter expect them to be paid.
  The agency must be allowed to function, and I would hope that those 
needs could be addressed.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Committee will rise informally to receive a 
message.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Hastings of Washington) assumed the 
Chair.

                          ____________________