Congressional Record, Volume 146 Issue 41 (Wednesday, April 5, 2000)

[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.

____________________