[Congressional Record Volume 146, Number 41 (Wednesday, April 5, 2000)]
[House]
[Pages H1808-H1821]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




  WILDLIFE AND SPORT FISH RESTORATION PROGRAMS IMPROVEMENT ACT OF 2000

  The Committee resumed its sitting.
  Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman 
from Texas (Mr. DeLay), the great leader in the House.
  Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Chairman, last year, congressional Republicans fought 
tooth-and-nail to cut waste, fraud and abuse out of a bloated Federal 
budget. We were successful, but we have only just begun.
  This year we remain vigilant in our crusade to return accountability 
to the Federal Government, and, today, thanks to the chairman of the 
Committee on Resources (Mr. Young), we are taking another important 
step by bringing this bill to the floor.
  This measure will eliminate waste, fraud and abuse at the Fish and 
Wildlife Service and restore integrity and accountability to our 
conservation programs.
  Last century, America's sportsmen agreed to excise taxes on sporting 
equipment so that others could enjoy hunting, fishing, and other 
outdoor activities. In doing so, they placed their trust in the Federal 
Government to administer these funds, their hard-earned dollars, for 
State conservation efforts.
  This system worked for decades, but this administration has shattered 
that trust. A yearlong committee investigation revealed that half the 
money set aside to administer these programs, over $15 million, was 
improperly used.
  But do not just take my word for it. The GAO report, and I quote, 
``to our knowledge, this is, if not the worst, one of the worst managed 
programs we have encountered.''
  Mr. Chairman, this bill ensures that the government manages the 
people's money wisely. I urge my colleagues to support this bill and 
restore trust between America's sportsmen and their government.
  Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to 
the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Udall).
  Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Chairman, I thank my colleague, the 
gentleman from California for yielding me the time.

[[Page H1809]]

  Mr. Chairman, while I support this bill, I do have some concerns 
about it, and at the appropriate time, I will offer an amendment that I 
think can set the stage for addressing those concerns.
  As the gentleman from Alaska (Mr. Young) and others have noted, this 
bill was prompted by information developed by the Committee on 
Resources through the oversight process.
  As a result of that oversight, it became clear that it would be 
desirable to revisit the underlying statutes at issue here; although, I 
think it is also clear, as my colleague from California suggests, that 
some of the charges about the actions of the current administration 
have been exaggerated, and that those folks making those charges have 
failed to point out similar actions that occurred during prior 
administrations.
  The programs of assistance to state and wildlife agencies addressed 
by this bill are very valuable for my home State of Colorado and, of 
course, for all the other States that make up our union. This bill 
deals with a very important subject that deserves careful scrutiny by 
the Committee on Resources and by the whole House itself.
  I do think that Congress does need to reconsider the degree of 
discretion that current law allows the Interior Department with regard 
to the administration of these programs.
  However, in responding to the ways the Interior Department has used 
its discretion in the past, I fear that the bill may go too far in the 
other direction.
  Mr. Chairman, I certainly understand the purpose of limiting the 
amount of money that can be spent on administration, because obviously, 
what is spent that way will not be available for the substantive 
purposes of the programs, but at the same time, we need to recognize 
the administration is necessary and adequate administration is 
essential to avoid the risk of misuse of taxpayer funds, either by the 
Department of Interior or by other parties.
  That is why I am concerned when the Interior Department says that 
limits set by the bill would likely require reduction in the number of 
people who would administer these programs because adequate staffing is 
necessary to administer any program.
  I am also concerned that the bill's provisions are too inflexible and 
too detailed and that even more specific requirements are suggested in 
parts of the committee's report on the bill.
  Accountability is essential, but excessive paperwork for its own sake 
can eat up resources that could be put to more productive uses. And I 
do not think we should make it impossible for the Interior Department 
to respond to new developments, such as the very significant and very 
desirable increase in the scope of these programs that would come from 
the enactment of H.R. 701, the CARA legislation which the Committee on 
Resources has already approved, and which I hope will come to the floor 
of the full House in the near future.
  As I said, I support the bill. I will do so not because I think it is 
perfect, but because I think it is desirable to make some progress on 
this subject.
  It is my hope that we can further refine the bill as we proceed 
through the legislative process with the other body and, if necessary, 
in conference. However, should that not occur, our committee and the 
House may be better advised to return to this subject next year.
  Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I would just like to remind both of my speakers on that 
side of the aisle my amendment raises the fund from $10 million to $14 
million with a $5 million grant that is $19 million, and I had 
information from the Department that said that they could operate very 
well with $19 million.
  We expect a decrease of personnel probably of 23 members of the total 
aid program, and that is all. What we are trying to do here is not this 
administration is future administration, this administration is on its 
waning days, but future administration, regardless of parties, will not 
have the opportunity to use these dollars that are paid in good faith 
by the sportsmen of America and then misspent.
  Even those within the agency today have told me privately, yes, they 
made a mistake, and they really would suggest that we are doing the 
correct thing. We will review this. We will have a very simplistic 
audit system. I have agreed to that. We will work with those people 
involved and make sure that in the future time, we will be able to see 
where they have been able to reach those goals.
  In closing, may I suggest, I have asked them time and time and time 
again give me the figures where they need it and how they want to spend 
it, and the agency itself has been reluctant. In fact, they have 
stonewalled us. I am trying to get those figures. I am working very 
hard.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Kansas (Mr. 
Ryun).
  Mr. RYUN of Kansas. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the 
accountability and responsibility to stop wasteful spending and 
mismanagement of wildlife and sport fishing funds. The impropriety of 
the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service in spending taxpayer dollars for 
slush funds and unauthorized programs and projects is an abuse that 
must come to a stop.
  The Service has failed to return leftover funds to the States for 
conservation purposes, funds paid by sportsmen and sportswomen. Even 
worse, the General Accounting Office has acknowledged that in its 106 
years of experience, this is what it said, it said ``this is, if not 
the worst, one of the worst managed programs.'' That is a quote that 
they have given, and that is the way they feel. And I believe that that 
is accurate.
  We have an opportunity to provide oversight to a program in desperate 
need of reform. The Wildlife and Sport Fish Restoration Programs 
Improvement Act would return honesty and responsibility to the 
administration of the programs under the Pittman-Robertson and Dingell-
Johnson Acts.
  Mr. Chairman, I encourage my colleagues to support this measure that 
not only reduces bureaucracies but prevents waste, fraud, and abuse.
  Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as 
he may assume to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell) who has been 
obviously a very strong supporter of this program and a strong voice 
for reform.
  (Mr. Dingell asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Chairman, I thank my good friend from California 
(Mr. George Miller) for his kindness to me in this matter.
  Mr. Chairman, I ask the attention of the gentleman from Alaska (Mr. 
Young), my good friend, the chairman of the committee, but before I do 
so, I want to pay tribute to the gentleman from Alaska (Mr. Young), the 
chairman of the committee, and the gentleman from California (Mr. 
George Miller), my good friend, for the fine leadership they have given 
in working this bill to this point on the House floor.
  It is an important piece of legislation. It enhances and protects a 
great national treasure which are the different Federal aid to fish and 
wildlife programs which have existed for a long time.
  I am particularly proud that one of these was the Pittman-Robertson 
bill, which takes care of grants to the States for aid for wildlife 
conservation and, of course, Dingell-Johnson which was sponsored by my 
old dad some 50 years ago, which protects fish and fishery resources.
  This is the kind of bipartisanship that has always been shown during 
this legislation. It does both of these gentlemen and the committee 
great credit, and I want to commend them and thank them for what it is 
they have done and for working with me on this matter.
  Mr. Chairman, one matter not addressed in the bill, I believe, would 
be very important in the entire question of administration of Federal 
aid program, is an independent outside top-to-bottom review to 
determine how many people are needed to administer it and what mixture 
of skills they should have. Your able staff has undertaken to develop a 
staffing model, and Fish and Wildlife has offered what they believe is 
an appropriate level of funding.
  I do believe that an outside review by experts without any stake in 
the outcome would be beneficial.
  Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

[[Page H1810]]

  Mr. DINGELL. I am happy to yield to the gentleman from Alaska.
  Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, I agree it is my understanding 
that the Fish and Wildlife Service has authority to undertake this 
review in a fairly rapid manner. My only concern that any review is 
truly independent of undue influence. For that reason, I agree with you 
provided the service and the reviewer consult with the House Committee 
on Resources prior to and during the review.
  The committee must agree with the parameters of the review and we 
must be advised of the process of the review.
  Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Chairman, I agree with my good friend that the 
Service should, in fact, start such a review. It is my hope that that 
will take place and that they should make every effort to have it 
completed within 120 days and to be without any taint of outside 
influence.
  Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield further?
  Mr. DINGELL. I yield to the gentleman from Alaska.
  Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, I strongly agree with that but 
with the understanding the review does not stand in the way of getting 
this bill enacted into law. I want to make sure we go forth with the 
law, the review can come after the law, because I am looking at the 
next administration, we do not want the abuse that occurred in the past 
administration.
  Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I do want to thank my 
good friend, I want to continue my comments, and I am going to try and 
watch my time very closely, I say to my good friend, the ranking 
member. These are important programs. They are great national treasures 
and they are a curious example of legislation which is protected by 
people who pay taxes, and the taxpayers and the sportsmen who pay the 
taxes are those who are the strongest supporters of this legislation.
  Mr. Chairman, I want to commend the gentleman for having this GAO 
accounting and I want to commend him for the work which he has done to 
present this legislation to the House. I would like to observe that the 
situation has gotten into a bad state, and I would like to make an 
observation that this is regrettably something which does continuously 
require the attention and the oversight of the Congress.
  I would like to observe that the situation that has been brought to 
light is not a good one, and it is one which desperately needs 
correction for the protection of the fish and wildlife resources to 
which these monies will be put.
  I would like to observe, however, that a lot of time that programs of 
this kind become the subject of abuse simply because the appropriators 
and the Committee on the Budget are often times responsible for seeing 
to it that these monies become the go to fund for initiatives and 
expenses that were never authorized by Congress or programs that 
Committee on Appropriations sort of deals with a wink and a nod or the 
Committee on the Budget does to see to it that these monies are spent 
in a way that the legislative committee never intended.
  Mr. Chairman, certainly, that is a bad situation and hopefully, this 
legislation will help to bring that kind of situation under control. 
The basic program is, however, a sound one and a good one. I believe 
that the limitation on expenditures for administrative purposes and 
others is a good one.
  It may, perhaps, need to be increased, but at least at this time it 
is a useful device, not only to curb abuses within the agency, but also 
to curb abuses by the Congress and by the appropriators and by the 
Committee on the Budget enforcing the use of these kinds of monies for 
purposes that the legislative committees have never intended should be 
the expenditure.
  Having said that, I would observe that I believe that as the process 
goes forward that this Congress will work together to achieve a 
resolution of any differences and difficulties that exist across the 
aisle or between different Members. I am satisfied that as we work this 
legislation out, it will come to be something which will be the 
protection of a great national treasure.
  I thank my good friend, the gentleman from Alaska (Mr. Young) and I 
thank my good friend, the ranking minority member, the gentleman from 
California (Mr. George Miller) for making this time available. I look 
forward to working together with them and with others to see that this 
is the legislation we want it to be.

                              {time}  1615

  Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman 
from New Hampshire (Mr. Sununu).
  Mr. SUNUNU. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the legislation 
brought before us by the distinguished chairman of the Committee on 
Resources. The facts that led to this legislation really do speak for 
themselves: skyrocketing overhead costs in an important Federal 
program, payment for foreign travel completely unrelated to the nature 
of the work of the Federal Aid Program, and the use of funds to pay 
employees that were not even working within the program itself.
  Clearly this is necessary legislation to protect the financial 
interests and restore financial accountability to a very important 
Federal program. Contrary to the suggestion that we might be injecting 
too much oversight or too much financial accountability into this 
program, I think it understands the need for more such oversight, and 
the gentleman has done us a service in beginning this process. 
Identifying waste and mismanagement in government is not just a good 
idea, but it is in the best interests of the taxpayers and really the 
future of this country because every time we find opportunities to save 
taxpayers not millions, but in the aggregate it adds up to billions, 
that is additional resources that we can invest in programs that really 
do work for the American taxpayer, or it is money that we can actually 
let the taxpayer keep and never even have to send to Washington, 
investing in what they care about.
  I applaud the work of the gentleman from Alaska; I applaud the 
Speaker and Members on both sides of the leadership that have called 
for greater oversight of waste and mismanagement in government in the 
hope that it will lead to a much better investment of those taxes that 
we do collect here in Washington.
  Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman 
from Pennsylvania (Mr. Sherwood).
  Mr. SHERWOOD. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong support of the 
Wildlife and Sport Fish Restoration Programs Improvement Act authored 
by the gentleman from Alaska, the chairman of the Committee on 
Resources. As a member of that committee and of the Congressional 
Sportsmen's Caucus, I commend the gentleman from Alaska for crafting 
this truly ``good government'' bill.
  I was born, raised, and have lived most of my adult life in rural 
Pennsylvania. I was taught to hunt and fish at a young age. With that 
knowledge came a great amount of respect for the game that we hunted, a 
love of the outdoors, and a desire to ensure that our wildlife 
resources are managed and preserved for future generations to 
experience. All those sportsmen over the years who have paid in their 
excise taxes to the Pittman-Robertson and Dingell-Johnson funds think 
of those funds the same way that Social Security recipients think of 
the funds they have paid in.
  I am appalled that we seem in this Chamber to think that it is all 
right that there is some mismanagement of those funds. It is not all 
right. It is our job to do something about it. I do not think we should 
take any comfort in the fact that maybe the States have not done their 
job as well as they should. This is the right thing to do. Mr. Dingell, 
Sr., would be appalled if he knew that these funds would be used as 
slush funds or unnecessary foreign travel or unreasonable overhead 
costs. Like the Social Security fund, this needs to be very well 
managed. The bottom line is that this bill will increase the amount of 
money currently available for conservation by eliminating waste, fraud 
and abuse. This is good environmental policy, and it is good fiscal 
policy. I again commend the gentleman from Alaska for the leadership in 
bringing this to the floor. I ask for its passage.
  Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as 
he may consume to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Kind).

[[Page H1811]]

  (Mr. Kind asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. KIND. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from California for 
yielding me this time. As a member of the Committee on Resources, I 
rise in support of H.R. 3671, legislation to improve the financial 
management and accountability of the Office of Federal Aid within the 
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Under current law, the Office of 
Federal Aid reallocates funds collected through Federal excise taxes on 
guns, ammunition, and archery equipment to individual States for fish 
and wildlife restoration projects. Hunters and outdoorsmen as well as 
recreation and conservation groups in my district in western Wisconsin 
and throughout America rely on these restoration projects to improve 
habitat and fishable waters.
  Unfortunately, recent evidence documented by the GAO indicates that 
the administration and financial oversight of the Federal aid in the 
wildlife and sport fish restoration program may be a little lax. This 
has resulted in the unfair public perception that misallocation and 
abuse has occurred throughout the Fish and Wildlife Service. To correct 
this problem, H.R. 3671 caps the amount of administrative dollars 
available for administration use to implement wildlife and sport fish 
restoration programs.
  While I support this legislation, I do share the concern of the 
gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller) that this bill as 
currently written may go too far and end up restricting the overall 
effectiveness of the fish and wildlife restoration programs. In fact, 
there may be some truth in the fact that the rigid budgetary framework 
that this legislation proposes may ultimately erode the capabilities of 
the Fish and Wildlife Service to effectively administer the restoration 
programs. To that end, it is my hope and desire that the Senate can 
correct some of the flaws that I believe currently exist with this 
legislation so that the President may ultimately sign it into law.
  Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the 
gentlewoman from Wyoming (Mrs. Cubin).
  Mrs. CUBIN. Mr. Chairman, like most Americans I was disappointed and 
angry to hear of the administrative abuses taking place under the 
Pittman-Robertson and Dingell-Johnson Acts. These are very popular 
programs that I support, which permit collection of funds through the 
Federal excise taxes on hunting and fishing equipment, a worthy cause, 
and two activities that my family holds dear, that my entire family 
enjoys as do the vast majority of the people in my State of Wyoming. 
These funds are tremendously beneficial to the State and to other 
States that use them for on-the-ground fish and wildlife conservation 
projects.
  The House Committee on Resources learned of the mismanagement of the 
6 percent and the 8 percent administrative funds over a year ago. Since 
that time, the GAO and the Committee on Resources' own review of the 
mismanagement indicates that widespread abuses have continued to be 
discovered. It is my understanding that part of these funds were even 
used to introduce the wolf into Yellowstone which was something the 
States of Wyoming, Idaho, and Montana; the governors; and the 
legislatures strongly opposed, as did most of the people that lived 
there. The plain truth is that the Fish and Wildlife Service has 
misused millions of taxpayer dollars.
  I have to say that I find it a little less than amusing that in this 
Chamber the misuse of these funds has been characterized as 
``exaggerated'' and the previous speaker saying the administration 
``may have been a little lax'' when in fact the GAO report says that 
this program, quote, ``if not the worst managed, is one of the worst 
managed programs we have ever seen.''
  Now, excuse me. Hello? That is worse than ``maybe a little lax'' or 
that the other side is exaggerating this problem. When money is misused 
that taxpayers pay in under certain circumstances, it should be 
distributed according to the law. Sportsmen and women have every right 
to expect that their hard-earned money will be returned to them in the 
form of the services for which they pay it. Clearly this kind of abuse 
cannot be justified, and it cannot be tolerated.
  As an original cosponsor of the legislation of the gentleman from 
Alaska, I am committed to bringing an end not only to this particular 
kind of Federal abuse of dollars but other abuses that are prevalent in 
our Federal Government. I do not care who is in office, I do not care 
who is in the seat of the presidency, I do not care who is in the 
majority of the Congress. To say that just because they did it means it 
is not so bad that we did it is ludicrous. I am offended by that as 
every American should be.
  Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such 
time as I may consume. Let me just say, this is not about whether or 
not we support or agree with the waste of money, because obviously 
nobody in this Chamber does and nobody in the Congress does; and the 
hearings that we had in the Committee on Resources were for the 
purposes of stopping those practices that were unacceptable. But the 
fact of the matter is the numbers that the GAO threw around have never 
been substantiated.
  The suggestion that somehow these individuals were engaged in illegal 
or criminal behavior has never been substantiated, was never found to 
be true; and we ought to set the record straight. The fact that that 
did not happen does not mean this was the best-run program, but it also 
certainly means this was not the worst-run program. We can show you 
many unfortunately tragically that are far worse than this that do not 
deal with several million dollars, but deal to the tune of billions of 
dollars of waste. That is a tragic fact. But the point is the record 
ought to be straight on this one so that the remedy fits the problem, 
and the concern about this legislation at this moment is that this 
legislation overreaches and in fact will keep the agency from doing 
what all of us in this Chamber want them to do.
  Speaker after speaker has gotten up here and made the point that this 
is a highly successful program; they have had great results in States 
building local programs for hunters and for fishers, and it is working. 
We have all had testimony to it in our States and in many of our 
districts where these programs have been utilized in conjunction with 
many local organizations. This is a successful program. We ought not in 
terms of being a little overzealous here then cripple the agency from 
doing what it is doing very well apparently.
  We ought to address ourselves to those problems that are in fact real 
and ought not to be allowed to continue, but we ought not to overreach 
and do as many who are strong supporters of both this legislation and 
this program suggest may very well happen if some of these numbers are 
not moved up so the agency has the money necessary to properly 
administer the program which brought us to this point originally.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume. I appreciate the gentleman's comments; but I would suggest 
again with my amendment, the administration and the agency itself had 
said that they will reach the $19 million and we will only lose, if 
anything, none this time, all existing programs continue, and next year 
10 people are lost, 10 after that, 20 in total; but we will have an 
accounting, and they will not have this fund which they can use. 
Remember, this is for the next administration. If there is a problem 
they cannot implement it because of this legislation, we always can 
address that. But I do not want anybody to be able to get into that 
cookie jar. As we remember in 1992, only 2 percent was used for 
administrative costs; and beginning in 1993 and on, it went up to the 
full 14 percent. So I do not want that to occur, because there is no 
justification for that.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from South Dakota 
(Mr. Thune).
  Mr. THUNE. Mr. Chairman, first of all I want to thank the gentleman 
from Alaska and his staff for their hard work and vigilance in pursuing 
this issue and in drafting legislation to fix what GAO has 
characterized, there is no way around this, as one of the worst-managed 
programs that they have ever encountered. Unfortunately for sportsmen 
and women across South Dakota and around this country, the

[[Page H1812]]

Fish and Wildlife Service has misused at least $45 million of these 
funds by directing portions of the excise tax dollars toward such 
things as a slush fund for the director and foreign junkets entirely 
unrelated to the administration of the program.
  As a result of these abuses, States have not been able to conduct 
wildlife and sport fish projects because the funds were spent in ways 
in which the Congress did not authorize.

                              {time}  1630

  As an avid sportsman, I am outraged by the abuses that have been 
uncovered by the gentleman from Alaska (Mr. Young), and the Committee 
on Resources, and I am not alone. What is going on here is 
unconscionable. I have received a lot of letters and e-mails and phone 
calls from sportsmen and women across South Dakota asking me to take 
action to stop the Fish and Wildlife Service's abuse of administrative 
funds by the Division of Federal Aid. This bill does just that.
  Mr. Chairman, this was a successful program because sportsmen and 
women were generous in their willingness to pay the excise taxes which 
they paid, believing that those taxes were going to be used to invest 
in wildlife and sports fish. Had they known that the money they were 
paying in excise taxes was going to be used by Fish and Wildlife 
Service at its disposal for a lot of these inappropriate expenditures, 
I doubt they would have been willing to pay those taxes. This bill 
prevents the director from using administrative funds for purposes 
other than legitimate costs to administer the law.
  Mr. Chairman, this is no way to administer a program. The sportsmen 
and women whose tax dollars fund this program expect and deserve more 
from their government. It is the job of each and every one of us in 
this Chamber to ensure that the taxes paid by the American people are 
not squandered. Whether they be sportsmen excise tax dollars or any 
other tax dollars, we have a responsibility to the American people to 
do the right thing, and the right thing is to pass this bill.


                             Point of Order

  Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, what is wrong with this 
microphone? I am getting a little tired of it. Whoever is running this 
thing had better be on the ball, because this thing never goes on on 
time and some of the time we cannot hear anybody, and maybe that is on 
purpose. But we have spent an awful lot of money on this project, 
brand-new, and I have been here and listening to this and it is not 
properly run and it deeply disturbs me.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman's concerns are duly noted by the Chair.
  Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman 
from Minnesota (Mr. Peterson).
  Mr. PETERSON of Minnesota. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for 
yielding me this time.
  I rise today in support of H.R. 3671. As cochairman of the 
Congressional Sportsmen's Caucus, I can tell my colleagues few issues 
are as important to the caucus as safeguarding the integrity of the 
Pittman-Robertson and Dingell-Johnson funds. So important that this is 
one of the primary missions of the Sportsmen's Caucus which now 
includes 280 Members of Congress.
  I was happy to support the gentleman from Alaska when he introduced 
this bill, and I am happy to support his effort today to move this 
needed legislation forward. His bipartisan approach is appreciated in 
the Congressional Sportsmen's Caucus.
  The Chairman's committee has built an excellent case for making the 
reforms he offers in the House today. For years, there has not been 
enough oversight over this program and these conservation trust funds. 
The chairman took a hard look at this issue, and what he found 
surprised all of us who, for decades, have happily contributed the 
funds for this valuable program.
  This oversight found lose language within the law regarding 
administration and execution of the wildlife and sport fish trust 
funds. The proposal today tightens it. Where his oversight found waste, 
this bill eliminates it.
  The gentleman's bill also directs resources to hunter education and 
safety, something that the Congressional Sportsmen's Caucus cares about 
deeply. It is important that funding is provided to both educate 
hunters and to ensure their safety in the field.
  This will also maintain the vitality of the Pittman-Robertson fund by 
continuing to bring in new generations of hunters, something that we 
are all trying to make happen.
  So, Mr. Chairman, this is a good bill, and I urge my colleagues to 
adopt it.
  Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman 
from Georgia (Mr. Chambliss), cochairman of the Sportsmen Foundation, 
280 members now, and a great leader for the sportsmen's movement in the 
Congress.
  Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Alaska for 
bringing this bill forward.
  Mr. Chairman, since coming to Congress, I have been committed to 
reducing Federal spending and balancing the Federal budget. As 
cochairman of the Congressional Sportsmen's Caucus along with my good 
friend from Minnesota (Mr. Peterson), I have worked in a bipartisan 
fashion to promote hunting, fishing, and other outdoor recreational 
activities. But we could not be nearly as successful in the Sportsmen's 
Caucus were it not for the Pittman-Robertson and Dingell-Johnson Trust 
Funds. These funds have given millions of sportsmen and women the 
opportunity to continue to enjoy their hobbies of hunting and fishing 
and provide steady streams of revenues to fund hunter education and 
safety programs.
  When sportsmen and women buy fishing equipment, guns, ammunition or 
archery equipment, a portion of their proceeds go to the States to help 
wildlife restoration or conservation projects and hunter education. 
This is not complicated. This is not rocket science. This is no secret. 
This is a win-win for everyone who cares about wildlife, who cares 
about hunting and fishing, who cares about education, about hunter 
safety, and about other education regarding outdoor activities.
  That is, until some Washington bureaucrat thought they could take 
some of that money and use it for different purposes, purposes like 
travel to Japan, and creating a huge unauthorized slush fund. We are 
talking about at least $45 million in misspent, unauthorized costs of 
this program.
  I say to my colleagues, this program is not going to be a slush fund 
for Washington bureaucrats, and I hope that bureaucrat is listening 
today, because with passage of this bill, we will ensure the integrity 
of Pittman-Robertson and Dingell-Johnson Trust Funds. We will ensure 
that they are protected for the American outdoorsman and the American 
taxpayer.
  This Congress is committed to cutting out fraud, eliminating waste, 
and ending abuse of the American tax dollar. This is exactly what this 
bill intends to do. It protects the integrity of these quality trust 
funds in a way that makes common sense.
  Instead of depending on a bureaucrat at the U.S. Fish and Wildlife 
Service to audit its own administrative costs of the program, we cap 
the administrative costs. We put the auditing in the hands of an 
independent inspector general, and we will require regular reporting to 
Congress of those audits.
  Mr. Chairman, the Wildlife and Sports Fish Restoration Programs 
Improvement Act of 2000 will prevent dollars paid by sportsmen and 
sportswomen from being spent in ways that do not benefit wildlife, 
sport fishing, and related restoration efforts and will send more money 
to States for them to use for conservation projects and hunter 
education.
  I applaud my friend, the gentleman from Alaska (Mr. Young) for 
bringing this issue to the forefront. I applaud him for authoring this 
very common sense, good government piece of legislation, and I urge its 
passage.
  Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman 
from Pennsylvania (Mr. Peterson). It seems like great Americans have 
the name ``Peterson.''
  Mr. PETERSON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the 
gentleman from Alaska (Mr. Young) for the time, and I want to commend 
him and the committee for their oversight.
  We do not do enough of that here. I think the American public would 
be a lot more comfortable with their Federal Government if we did more 
oversight. I am a little taken aback though by some of the comments 
that I have heard in this debate that this might go too far, this is 
too tough. Let us just

[[Page H1813]]

look for a moment at what the GAO report says.
  It says, controls over expenditures, revenues, and grants were 
inadequate. Millions of dollars in program funds could not be tracked, 
millions. Basic principles and procedures for managing travel funds 
were not followed. Basic internal control standards or Office of 
Management and Budget guidance for maintaining complete and active 
grants files were not followed. Regional offices used administrative 
funds inconsistently and for purposes that were not justified. Charges 
for service-wide overhead may be very inaccurate. Routine audits to 
determine whether administrative funds were being used for authorized 
purposes were not conducted, and the process for resolving audit 
findings involving States' use of program funds was very questionable.
  This is no way for programs to be administered. I am sure this is not 
the only one, but I want to commend the committee for tracking it down 
and changing it. Sportsmen and women who fund this program with their 
tax dollars expect more from their government. It is our job to ensure 
that their tax dollars are not squandered, and they go to wildlife and 
sports fish restoration projects. This bill will make sure that the 
taxes paid by our sportsmen and women are used efficiently and 
according to the law, and that the majority of the funds go to the 
States to fund the appropriate programs.
  Mr. Chairman, I want to thank this committee for a job well done.
  Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman 
from North Carolina (Mr. Hayes), who visited Alaska to make his fortune 
and returned home.
  (Mr. HAYES asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. HAYES. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate this opportunity to address the 
Members of the House regarding a very fiscally responsible bill, and I 
want to express my appreciation to the gentleman from Alaska (Mr. 
Young). As he said, I did spend a year in Alaska; and it was a 
wonderful time.
  But as a part of spending that year in Alaska, Mr. Chairman, I 
learned a lot about fish and wildlife and misappropriations of funds. 
It appalls me the way that fishermen and hunters pay willingly, in fact 
eagerly, excise taxes on hunting and fishing equipment in order to 
preserve and to provide conservation programs for fish and game, 
nongame species, for badly needed habitat.
  But having said all this, I find, after being in Washington for a 
short time, that the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service takes sometimes, it 
seems to me, pride in misusing these funds; using them on projects that 
were never intended, using them on junkets, traveling around the world, 
not supporting habitat and wildlife and hunters and fishermen, but 
doing things that bear no resemblance to what this bill has been asked 
to do.
  So I rise in strong support of the gentleman from Alaska (Mr. Young) 
and other supporters of this bill to lend my voice, because sportsmen 
in America are and always have been the original environmentalists.
  When we talk about clean air, when we talk about clean water, there 
have never been people who are more concerned and who have a more 
common sense approach to maintaining the beauty and the natural wonder 
of our habitat and our wildlife than sportsmen.
  So again, I applaud the gentleman from Alaska (Mr. Young) for 
bringing to the attention not only of sportsmen, but the American 
people, how their money has been misspent, even on antihunting 
programs, turning the Fish and Wildlife Service into an extension of 
the endangered species service, turning this into an environmental 
organization.
  Again, let me reemphasize, the environment is something about which I 
and any sportsman cares very deeply about. But to use this money in 
ways other than the enhancement and the protection and the future of 
our wildlife and habitat is simply wrong, it is unacceptable. We want 
to be fiscally responsible. We have collected this money. We have the 
trust of our constituents when we collect Pittman-Robertson money, and 
it is up to us to make sure that that money is spent to preserve 
habitat, to protect wildlife and to create opportunities for present 
and future generations to enjoy the out of doors.
  So again, let me lend my strongest and most enthusiastic support to 
the gentleman's efforts and commend this bill to my colleagues, and I 
ask for their support.
  I am proud of my colleague, Chairman Young and his staff for 
protecting our sports men and women around the country, and preserving 
the original purposes for which Pittman-Robertson and Dingell Johnson 
were enacted.
  In 1937, a federal-state government cooperative program was begun for 
wildlife restoration. Monies are collected by the federal government 
from excises imposed on firearms, ammunition, and bows and arrows.
  These taxes are returned to the states and territories for wildlife 
restoration or hunter safety and education programs.
  Sportsmen are a unique group of people. How many people would 
voluntarily support and additional tax on themselves and send their 
money to Washington. On this side of the aisle were fighting everyday 
to help trim down the size of government and reduce our constituents 
taxes. I have not heard from one sportsman from my district to 
eliminate this excise tax. I have however heard from sportsman to 
return this program back to its original intent.
  Sportsman support this program--or the intent of this program 
because--they are the true environmentalist. They want to preserve as 
wild life and natural habitats.
  U.S. Fish and Wildlife has over stepped there bounds in 
administrating these funds. This legislation seeks to fix the loopholes 
that the Fish and Wildlife Service uses to justify the frivolous 
expenditures to quote/unquote administer this trust funds. I certainly 
understand and support the staff that helps distribute these funds back 
to our states, but the flagrant abuses and mismanagement of these funds 
has caused Congress to help U.S. Fish and Wildlife--follow the intent 
of the original Act.
  This bill will streamline the use of the administration funds and 
define the how they can be used. This bill reduces bureaucracy in the 
U.S. Fish and Wildlife, increases accountability, and puts our 
conservation dollars into conservation projects back home. I would ask 
that my colleagues support Mr. Young's bill and his amendment.
  Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the right to close.
  Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such 
time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, as we finish this debate, I would hope that we would be 
able to hold this in perspective, because I do not think that this bill 
is finished yet; I think, in fact, it is a work in progress. I hope 
that Members who are interested and concerned about this would just 
look at the letter from the International Association of Fish and 
Wildlife Agencies who are expressing some of the very same concerns 
that I am expressing about the funding levels in this legislation. We 
agree, they agree, and almost everybody in this Chamber agrees that 
many of these reforms are fine and should be made. But, when we get 
done, we have to leave this agency in a position to properly deal with 
the charge that we have given them.
  As for those who want to keep coming here and saying that they want 
to slaughter this agency because GAO said this is the worst managed 
program they have ever seen, I think maybe that statement in and of 
itself would call into question the GAO audit. I wonder if the GAO ever 
took a look at the oil shale program. I bet that was a beaut. That was 
billions of dollars. Or, how about that coal fusion program where we 
were spending that money, those guys out in Utah still trying to bring 
it in on time. How about the uranium reprocessing program, the space 
station, the big dig going on up there in Boston, the Resolution Trust 
Corporation. Now, there is one that cost us hundreds of billions of 
dollars. This was the worst managed program these GAO auditors ever 
saw?
  I have to tell my colleagues that these GAO auditors maybe just did 
not have the right experience, because as it turns out, as we reconcile 
all of the concerns that they raised and the issues that they raised, 
we are now down to about $700,000 of seriously questioned expenses that 
should not have been allowed.
  So to suggest that somehow this agency has run amok, and I find it 
interesting that as we say that, we are now giving this agency in this 
legislation the exact duties that supposedly we criticized them for, 
but we know are

[[Page H1814]]

 essential and must be done if, in fact, the State programs are going 
to work.

                              {time}  1645

  So this is not the worst. Tragically to say for the taxpayers of this 
country, this is not the worst program GAO has ever encountered. Maybe 
this GAO auditor, but he probably was not around for that C-121 when 
the wings broke off. That was a hell of a program we had going there.
  How about that one where we sent subsidized water so people will grow 
more cotton, but we have a cotton retirement program, so we buy the 
cotton back from them? That is going on today. There is a good program.
  How about those KV funds, where the Forest Service could not tell us 
where any of the funds were? We still do not know today. Fortunately, 
the Committee on Appropriations started to put a stop to that.
  That mining law has worked out well for the taxpayers of this 
country. We have lost billions and billions of dollars.
  This is not the worst program. This is a program that has gotten off 
track. This is a program that has abused, has abused the authority that 
is given to it. We ought to put it back in line. I think the Chairman's 
legislation goes a long way toward that.
  I still want to say that we have to leave this agency there, because 
those same sportsmen, hunters and fisherpersons that like this program, 
that use this program, have seen it improve. Their experience out there 
in the countryside recognizes the need of this agency to get that done 
in cooperation with the States.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I do thank the gentleman from California for making my 
case. This is an agency that is off track. This is an agency, as I have 
said before, and I am not pointing fingers at any individual, that went 
from 2 percent to 14 percent. They spent money inappropriately. What we 
have to do is to gain the faith back from the sportsmen.
  This is different than all the instances that the gentleman talked 
about the GAO investigating, the planes, et cetera. This is different. 
Every sportsman from 1937 took their money voluntarily and contributed 
11 percent of the cost of that product to go into a fund to be 
redistributed back to the States to keep up the projects for fishing 
and hunting and other activities on our lands. That is what it was for. 
They did that voluntarily.
  What we found out as this investigation went forward, we were finding 
out disgruntled sportsmen deciding that maybe they ought not to pay the 
tax, maybe we ought not to go forward with the program.
  What I am trying to do with this legislation is to make sure there 
will be no money spent on things that were spent in the past such as 
travel, such as alcohol, such as things that the Congress would not 
appropriate money for, reestablishing the strength and trust of this 
trust fund.
  In turn, as I have said before, if we adopt my amendment, they are at 
the same level that they said and required from me, $19 million to 
manage the program. We will lose, after 1 year, ten employees because 
they are bloated right now. The second year we will lose 10 more. That 
is 20 total. Then it is based upon the cost index, and they can get 
more if there is more need, or in fact if there is not a need they will 
get less. We are not gutting this program. In fact, we are encouraging 
the program.
  The sportsmen I have heard from support what we are trying to do 
under this legislation. I urge my colleagues to support the 
legislation.
  Mr. Chairman. I include the following exchange of letters for the 
Record.

                                      Committee on Ways and Means,


                                     House of Representatives,

                                    Washington, DC, April 3, 2000.
     Hon. Don Young,
     Chairman, Committee on Resources,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Chairman Young: I understand that on Thursday, March 
     30, 2000, the Committee on Resources reported H.R. 3671, the 
     ``Wildlife and Sport Fish Restoration Programs Improvement 
     Act of 2000.'' As approved, the bill amends the Wildlife 
     Restoration Act and Sport Fish Restoration Act programs and 
     makes several changes relating to the expenditures of funds 
     arising from dedicated excise taxes on recreational sporting 
     and fishing equipment and supplies, generally.
       As you know, each trust Fund in the Trust Fund Code 
     includes specific provisions within the jurisdiction of the 
     Committee on Ways and Means which limit purposes for which 
     trust fund monies may be spent. Statutorily, the Committee on 
     Ways and Means generally has limited expenditures by cross-
     referencing provisions of authorizing legislation. Currently, 
     with respect to the Aquatic Resources Trust Fund (the 
     ``Aquatic Fund''), the Trust Fund Code provisions approve all 
     expenditures out of the Aquatic Fund permitted under 
     authorization Acts, but only as those Acts were in effect on 
     the date of enactment of the Transportation Equity Act for 
     the 21st Century. Further, if unauthorized expenditures are 
     made, no further tax revenues will be deposited to the Trust 
     Fund. Thus, an Act not referenced in the Trust Fund Code must 
     be approved by the Committee on Ways and Means before the 
     authorizations are funded.
       I now understand that you are seeking to have the bill 
     considered by the House as early as this week. In addition, I 
     have been informed that your Committee will seek an amendment 
     incorporating language which I am supplying (attached) to 
     make the necessary Trust Fund Code amendments to allow the 
     proposed expenditures to occur.
       Based upon this understanding, and in order to expedite 
     consideration of H.R. 3671, it will not be necessary for the 
     Committee on Ways and Means to markup this legislation. This 
     is being done with the further understanding that the 
     Committee will be treated without prejudice as to its 
     jurisdictional prerogatives on such or similar provisions in 
     the future, and it should not be considered as precedent for 
     consideration of matters of jurisdictional interest to the 
     Committee on Ways and Means in the future.
       Finally, I would appreciate your response to this letter, 
     confirming this understanding with respect to H.R. 3671, and 
     would ask that a copy of our exchange of letters on this 
     matter be placed in the Record during consideration of the 
     bill on the Floor. Thank you for your cooperation and 
     assistance on this matter.
           With best personal regards,
                                                      Bill Archer,
                                                         Chairman.
       Attachment.

   Amendment to H.R. 3671, as Reported Offered By Mr. Young of Alaska

       Page 28, after line 24, insert the following:

     SEC.   . CONFORMING AMENDMENT.

       Section 9504(b)(2)(A) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 
     is amended by striking ``(as in effect on the date of the 
     enactment of the TEA 21 Restoration Act)'' and inserting 
     ``(as in effect on the date of the enactment of the Wildlife 
     and Sport Fish Restoration Programs Improvement Act of 
     2000)''.
                                  ____

                                         House of Representatives,


                                       Committee on Resources,

                                    Washington, DC, April 3, 2000.
     Hon. Bill Archer,
     Chairman, Committee on Ways and Means,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. Chairman: Thank you very much for your letter 
     regarding an amendment to H.R. 3671, the Wildlife and 
     Sportfish Restoration Programs Improvement Act of 2000. I 
     appreciate your cooperation in providing a cross-reference in 
     the Internal Revenue Code to allow our amendments to the 
     Dingell-Johnson Sport Fish Restoration Act in H.R. 3671 to be 
     executed and fully funded through the Aquatic Resources Trust 
     Fund.
       As you noted in your letter, I propose that this change be 
     accomplished through a manager's amendment to H.R. 3671, 
     which will be made in order by a rule for consideration of 
     the bill. I concur that your acquiescence to this amendment 
     not be considered prejudicial to your jurisdiction over this 
     or any similar measure in the future, nor would it be 
     considered as precedent for any future changes in trust fund 
     accounts.
       Thank you again for your timely assistance in moving H.R. 
     3671 to the Floor. Enactment of H.R. 3671 will ensure that 
     the taxes paid by sportsmen and women will be used 
     appropriately for fish and wildlife conservation projects 
     with minimal administrative expenditures.
           Sincerely,
                                                        Don Young,
                                                         Chairman.

  Mr. WU. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of H.R. 3671, the 
Wildlife and Sport Fish Restoration Programs Improvement Act of 2000. 
This common sense bill will prevent dollars paid by sportsmen and 
sportswomen from being spent in ways that do not help wildlife, sport 
fish and related restoration efforts, and it will send more money to 
the states for them to use for conservation projects.
  Currently, Oregon receives a little over $4.6 million under the 
Pittman-Robertson Act, and just under $5.5 million under the Dingell-
Johnson Act. These dollars go to support important programs such as 
stocking fish, improving habitat, resource education, fisheries 
research for sports-fishing and building boat ramps and infrastructure 
to support the sports fishing industry. As an avid hunter and 
fisherman, I strongly support these two programs.
  My colleagues on the Resources Committee held several hearings on 
these bills. Unfortunately, it was revealed through the hearings

[[Page H1815]]

that the funds withheld by the Fish and Wildlife Service to administer 
and execute the Pittman-Robertson and Dingell-Johnson Acts were used to 
fund unrelated expenses.
  In addition, funds that were used for true administration of these 
programs were not used responsibly. I commend the committee for working 
with the Fish and Wildlife Service in coming to a bipartisan, common 
sense solution that uses more dollars for fish and wildlife and less on 
administration.
  Mr. Chairman, programs that assist recreation and conservation are 
good for Oregon and good for the United States. Doing this in a way 
that decreases waste is even better. I urge my colleagues to join me in 
voting in favor of H.R. 3671.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the rule, the committee amendment in the 
nature of a substitute printed in the bill is considered as an original 
bill for the purpose of amendment and is considered as read.
  The text of the committee amendment in the nature of a substitute is 
as follows:

                               H.R. 3671

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``Wildlife and Sport Fish 
     Restoration Programs Improvement Act of 2000''.

     SEC. 2. DEFINITIONS.

       In this Act:
       (1) Wildlife restoration act.--The term ``Wildlife 
     Restoration Act'' means the Act of September 2, 1937 (chapter 
     899; 16 U.S.C. 669 et seq.), popularly known as the Federal 
     Aid in Wildlife Restoration Act and as the Pittman-Robertson 
     Wildlife Restoration Act.
       (2) Sport fish restoration act.--The term ``Sport Fish 
     Restoration Act'' means the Act of August 9, 1950 (chapter 
     658; 16 U.S.C. 777 et seq.), popularly known as the Federal 
     Aid in Fish Restoration Act and as the Dingell-Johnson Sport 
     Fish Restoration Act.
                     TITLE I--WILDLIFE RESTORATION

     SEC. 101. EXPENDITURES FOR ADMINISTRATION.

       (a) Annual Set-Aside for Administration.--Section 4 of the 
     Wildlife Restoration Act (16 U.S.C. 669c) is amended--
       (1) by redesignating subsection (b) as subsection (c);
       (2) by amending so much as precedes the second sentence of 
     subsection (a) to read as follows:


          ``allocation and apportionment of available amounts

       ``Sec. 4. (a) Set-Aside for Administration.--(1) Of the 
     revenues (excluding interest accruing under section 3(b)) 
     covered into the fund in each fiscal year, up to $5,000,000 
     may be used by the Secretary for expenses to administer this 
     Act, in accordance with this subsection and section 9 in each 
     of the fiscal years 2001, 2002, and 2003. Of the revenues 
     (excluding interest accruing under section 3(b)) covered into 
     the fund in each fiscal year, beginning in fiscal year 2004, 
     such amount, adjusted annually to reflect the changes in the 
     Consumer Price Index, not to exceed $7,000,000, may be used 
     by the Secretary for expenses to administer this Act, in 
     accordance with this subsection and section 9.
       ``(2)(A) The amount authorized to be used by the Secretary 
     under paragraph (1) each fiscal year shall remain available 
     for obligation for such use until the expiration of that 
     fiscal year. Within 60 days after that fiscal year, the 
     Secretary shall apportion among the States any of the amount 
     that remains unobligated at the end of the fiscal year, on 
     the same basis and in the same manner as other amounts 
     authorized by this Act are apportioned among the States for 
     the fiscal year in which the apportionment is made.
       ``(B) Within 30 days after the end of each fiscal year, the 
     Secretary shall--
       ``(i) certify in writing to the Secretary of the Treasury 
     and to each State fish and game department--
       ``(I) the amount apportioned under subparagraph (A) to each 
     State in the most recent apportionment under that 
     subparagraph; and
       ``(II) amounts obligated by the Secretary during the fiscal 
     year for administration of this Act; and
       ``(ii) publish in the Federal Register the amounts so 
     certified.
       ``(b) Apportionment to States.--''; and
       (3) in subsection (b), as designated by the amendment made 
     by paragraph (2), by striking ``after making the aforesaid 
     deduction, shall apportion, except as provided in subsection 
     (b) of this section,'' and inserting ``after deducting the 
     amount authorized to be used under subsection (a), the amount 
     apportioned under subsection (c), any amount apportioned 
     under section 8A, and amounts provided as grants under 
     sections 10 and 11, shall apportion''.
       (b) Requirements and Restrictions Regarding Use of Amounts 
     for Administration.--Section 9 of the Wildlife Restoration 
     Act (16 U.S.C. 669h) is amended to read as follows:


     ``requirements and restrictions regarding use of amounts for 
                             administration

       ``Sec. 9. (a) Authorized Administrative Costs.--The 
     Secretary may use amounts under section 4(a)(1) only for 
     administration expenses that directly support the 
     implementation of this Act and that consist of any of the 
     following:
       ``(1) Personnel costs of any employee who directly 
     administers this Act on a full-time basis.
       ``(2) Personnel costs of any employee who directly 
     administers this Act on a part-time basis for at least 20 
     hours each week, not to exceed the portion of such costs 
     incurred with respect to the work hours of such employee 
     during which the employee directly administers this Act, as 
     such hours are certified by the supervisor of the employee.
       ``(3) Support costs directly associated with personnel 
     costs authorized under paragraphs (1) and (2) of this 
     subsection not including costs associated with staffing and 
     operation of regional offices of the United States Fish and 
     Wildlife Service and the Department of the Interior, other 
     than for purposes of this Act.
       ``(4) Costs to evaluate, approve, disapprove, and advise 
     concerning comprehensive fish and wildlife resource 
     management plans under section 6(a)(1) and wildlife 
     restoration projects under section 6(a)(2).
       ``(5) Overhead costs, including general administrative 
     services, that are directly attributable to administration of 
     this Act based on--
       ``(A) actual costs, as determined by a direct cost 
     allocation methodology approved by the Director of the Office 
     of Management and Budget for use by Federal agencies; and
       ``(B) for those costs not determinable pursuant to 
     subparagraph (A), an amount per full-time equivalent employee 
     authorized pursuant to paragraphs (1) and (2) that does not 
     exceed the amount charged or assessed for such costs per 
     full-time equivalent employee for any other division or 
     program of the United States Fish and Wildlife Service.
       ``(6) Costs incurred in auditing the wildlife and sportfish 
     activities of each State fish and game department and the use 
     of funds under section 6 by each State fish and game 
     department every 5 years.
       ``(7) Costs of audits under subsection (d).
       ``(8) Costs of necessary training of Federal and State 
     full-time personnel who administer this Act to improve 
     administration of this Act.
       ``(9) Costs of travel to the States, territories, and 
     Canada by personnel who administer this Act on a full-time 
     basis for purposes directly related to administration of 
     State programs or projects, or who administer grants under 
     section 6, section 10, or section 11.
       ``(10) Costs of travel outside of the United States (except 
     travel to Canada) that relates directly to administration of 
     this Act and that is approved directly by the Assistant 
     Secretary for Fish and Wildlife and Parks.
       ``(11) Relocation expenses for personnel who, after 
     relocation, will administer this Act on a full-time basis for 
     at least 1 year, as certified by the Director of the United 
     States Fish and Wildlife Service at the time such relocation 
     expenses are incurred.
       ``(12) Costs to audit, evaluate, approve, disapprove, and 
     advise concerning grants under section 6, section 10, or 
     section 11.
       ``(b) Unauthorized Costs.--Use of funds for a cost to 
     administer this Act shall not be authorized because the cost 
     is not expressly prohibited by this Act.
       ``(c) Restriction on Use To Supplement General 
     Appropriations.--The Secretary may not use amounts under 
     section 4(a)(1) to supplement any function for which general 
     appropriations are made for the United States Fish and 
     Wildlife Service or any other entity of the Department of the 
     Interior.
       ``(d) Audit Requirement.--(1) The Inspector General of the 
     Department of the Interior shall procure the conduct of 
     biennial audits, in accordance with generally accepted 
     accounting principles, of expenditures of amounts used by the 
     Secretary for administration of this Act.
       ``(2) Audits under this subsection shall be performed under 
     contracts that are awarded under competitive procedures (as 
     that term is defined in section 4 of the Office of Federal 
     Procurement Policy Act (41 U.S.C. 403)), by a person that is 
     not associated in any way with the Department of the 
     Interior.
       ``(3) The auditor selected pursuant to paragraph (1) shall 
     report to, and be supervised by, the Inspector General of the 
     Department of the Interior, except that the auditor shall 
     submit a copy of the biennial audit findings to the Secretary 
     at the time such findings are submitted to the Inspector 
     General of the Department of the Interior.
       ``(4) The Inspector General of the Department of the 
     Interior shall promptly report to the Committee on Resources 
     of the House of Representatives and the Committee on 
     Environment and Public Works of the Senate on the results of 
     each such audit.
       ``(e) Certification by Secretary.--(1) The Secretary shall 
     within 3 months after each fiscal year certify in writing to 
     the Committee on Resources of the House of Representatives 
     and the Committee on Environment and Public Works of the 
     Senate the following for the fiscal year:
       ``(A) The amount of funds used under section 4(a)(1) and a 
     breakdown of categories for which such funds were expended.
       ``(B) The amount of funds apportioned to States under 
     section 4(a)(2).
       ``(C) The results of the audits performed pursuant to 
     subsection (d).
       ``(D) That all funds expended under section 4(a)(1) were 
     necessary for administration of this Act.
       ``(E) The Secretary, the Assistant Secretary for Fish and 
     Wildlife and Parks, the Director of the United States Fish 
     and Wildlife Service, and the Assistant Director for Wildlife 
     and Sport Fish Restoration Programs each properly discharged 
     their duties under this Act.
       ``(2) The Secretary may not delegate the responsibility to 
     make certifications under paragraph (1) except to the 
     Assistant Secretary for Fish and Wildlife and Parks.
       ``(3) Within 60 days after the start of each fiscal year, 
     the Assistant Director for Wildlife and Sport Fish 
     Restoration Programs shall provide to the Committee on 
     Resources of the House of

[[Page H1816]]

     Representatives and the Committee on Environment and Public 
     Works of the Senate the following for the fiscal year:
       ``(A) The amount of funds that will be expended in the 
     fiscal year under section 4(a)(1) and a breakdown of 
     categories for which such funds will be expended.
       ``(B) A description of how the funds to be expended are 
     necessary for administration of this Act.
       ``(4) The Secretary shall promptly publish in the Federal 
     Register each certification under this subsection.
       ``(f) Certification by Assistant Director for Wildlife and 
     Sport Fish Restoration Programs.--Within 1 month after the 
     end of each fiscal year, the Assistant Director for Wildlife 
     and Sport Fish Restoration Programs shall--
       ``(1) certify that--
       ``(A) all amounts expended in that fiscal year to 
     administer this Act in agency headquarters and in regional 
     offices of the United State Fish and Wildlife Service were 
     used in accordance with this Act; and
       ``(B) all such expenditures were necessary to administer 
     this Act; and
       ``(2) distribute such certifications to each State fish and 
     game department.''.

     SEC. 102. FIREARM AND BOW HUNTER EDUCATION AND SAFETY PROGRAM 
                   GRANTS.

       The Wildlife Restoration Act is amended by redesignating 
     section 10 as section 12, and by inserting after section 9 
     the following:


      ``firearm and bow hunter education and safety program grants

       ``Sec. 10. (a) In General.--Of the revenues covered into 
     the fund in each fiscal year, $15,000,000, less the amount 
     used under section 4(a) and the amount granted under section 
     11(a)(1), shall be apportioned among the States in the manner 
     specified in section 4(b) by the Secretary for the following:
       ``(1) Grants to States for the enhancement of hunter 
     education programs, hunter and sporting firearm safety 
     programs, and hunter development programs.
       ``(2) Grants for the enhancement of interstate coordination 
     and development of hunter education programs.
       ``(3) Grants to States for the enhancement of bow hunter 
     and archery education, safety, and development programs.
       ``(4) Grants to States for the enhancement of construction 
     or enhancement of firearm shooting ranges and archery ranges, 
     and updating safety features of firearm shooting ranges and 
     archery ranges.
       ``(b) Cost-Sharing.--The Federal share of the cost of any 
     activity carried out with a grant under this section may not 
     exceed 75 percent of the total cost of the activity and the 
     remainder of the cost shall come from a non-Federal source.
       ``(c) Period of Availability; Reapportionment.--Amounts 
     available under this subsection shall remain available for 1 
     fiscal year, after which all unobligated balances shall be 
     apportioned among the States in the manner specified in 
     section 4(b).''.

     SEC. 103. MULTI-STATE CONSERVATION GRANT PROGRAM.

       The Wildlife Restoration Act is further amended by 
     inserting after section 10 the following:


                ``multi-state conservation grant program

       ``Sec. 11. (a) In General.--(1) Up to $2,500,000 of the 
     revenues covered into the fund each fiscal year shall be 
     available to the Secretary for making multi-State 
     conservation grants in accordance with this section.
       ``(2) Amounts available under this subsection shall remain 
     available for two fiscal years, after which all unobligated 
     balances shall be apportioned in the manner specified in 
     section 4(b).
       ``(b) Selection of Projects.--(1) A project shall not be 
     eligible for a grant under this section unless it will 
     benefit at least 26 States, a majority of the States in a 
     region of the United States Fish and Wildlife Service, or a 
     regional association of State fish and game departments.
       ``(2) The Secretary may award grants under this section 
     based only on a priority list of wildlife restoration 
     projects prepared and submitted by State fish and game 
     departments acting through the International Association of 
     Fish and Wildlife Agencies each fiscal year in accordance 
     with paragraph (3).
       ``(3)(A) The International Association of Fish and Wildlife 
     Agencies shall--
       ``(i) prepare each priority list through a committee 
     comprised of the heads of State fish and game departments (or 
     their designees);
       ``(ii) approve each priority list by a majority of the 
     heads of all State fish and game departments (or their 
     designees); and
       ``(iii) submit each priority list by not later than October 
     1 of each fiscal year to the Assistant Director for Wildlife 
     and Sport Fish Restoration Programs, who shall accept such 
     list on behalf of the Secretary.
       ``(B) In preparing any priority list under this paragraph, 
     the International Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies 
     shall consult with nongovernmental organizations that 
     represent conservation organizations, sportsmen 
     organizations, and industries that support or promote 
     hunting, trapping, recreational shooting, bow hunting, or 
     archery.
       ``(4) The Assistant Director for Wildlife and Sport Fish 
     Restoration Programs shall publish in the Federal Register 
     each priority list submitted under this subsection.
       ``(c) Eligible Grantees.--(1) The Secretary may make a 
     grant under this section only to--
       ``(A) a State or group of States; or
       ``(B) subject to paragraph (2), a nongovernmental 
     organization.
       ``(2) Any nongovernmental organization applying for a grant 
     under this section shall submit with the application to the 
     International Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies a 
     certification that the organization does not promote or 
     encourage opposition to regulated hunting or trapping of 
     regulated wildlife, and will use any funds awarded pursuant 
     to this section in compliance with subsection (d).
       ``(3) Any nongovernmental organization that is found to 
     promote or encourage opposition to regulated hunting or 
     trapping of regulated wildlife or does not use funds in 
     compliance with subsection (d) shall return all funds 
     received and be subject to any other penalties under law.
       ``(d) Use of Grants.--Amounts provided as a grant under 
     this section may not be used for education, activities, 
     projects, or programs that promote or encourage opposition to 
     regulated hunting or trapping of regulated wildlife.
       ``(e) Clarification.--No activities undertaken by the 
     personnel of State fish and game departments under this 
     section shall constitute advice or recommendations for 1 or 
     more agencies or officers of the Federal Government.''.

     SEC. 104. MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS.

       Section 5 of the Wildlife Restoration Act (16 U.S.C. 669d) 
     is amended by inserting ``, at the time such deduction or 
     apportionment is made'' after ``he has apportioned to each 
     State''.
                    TITLE II--SPORT FISH RESTORATION

     SEC. 201. EXPENDITURES FOR ADMINISTRATION.

       (a) Annual Set-Aside for Administration.--Section 4(d) of 
     the Sport Fish Restoration Act (16 U.S.C. 777c(d)) is amended 
     to read as follows:
       ``(d)(1) Of the balance of each such annual appropriation 
     remaining after the distribution and use under subsections 
     (a), (b), and (c) of this section and section 14, up to 
     $5,000,000 may be used by the Secretary of the Interior for 
     expenses in accordance with this subsection and section 9 in 
     each of the fiscal years 2001, 2002, and 2003. Of the balance 
     of each such annual appropriation remaining after the 
     distribution and use under subsections (a), (b), and (c) of 
     this section and section 14, beginning in fiscal year 2004, 
     such amount, adjusted annually to reflect the changes in the 
     Consumer Price Index, not to exceed $7,000,000, may be used 
     by the Secretary of the Interior for expenses in accordance 
     with this subsection and section 9.
       ``(2) The amount authorized to be used by the Secretary 
     under paragraph (1) each fiscal year shall remain available 
     for obligation for such use until the expiration of that 
     fiscal year. Within 60 days after the end of that fiscal 
     year, the Secretary shall apportion any of the amount that 
     remains unobligated at the end of the fiscal year on the same 
     basis and in the same manner as other amounts authorized by 
     this Act are apportioned among the States under section 4(e) 
     for the fiscal year in which the apportionment is made.''.
       (b) Requirements and Restrictions Regarding Use of Amounts 
     for Administration.--Section 9 of the Sport Fish Restoration 
     Act (16 U.S.C. 777h) is amended to read as follows:


     ``requirements and restrictions regarding use of amounts for 
                             administration

       ``Sec. 9. (a) Authorized Administration Costs.--The 
     Secretary of the Interior may use amounts under section 4(d) 
     only for administration expenses that directly support the 
     implementation of this Act and that consist of any of the 
     following:
       ``(1) Personnel costs of any employee who directly 
     administers this Act on a full-time basis.
       ``(2) Personnel costs of any employee who directly 
     administers this Act on a part-time basis for at least 20 
     hours each week, not to exceed the portion of such costs 
     incurred with respect to the work hours of such employee 
     during which the employee directly administers this Act, as 
     such hours are certified by the supervisor of the employee.
       ``(3) Support costs directly associated with personnel 
     costs authorized under paragraphs (1) and (2).
       ``(4) Costs to evaluate, approve, disapprove, and advise 
     concerning comprehensive fish and wildlife resource 
     management plans under section 6(a)(1) and fish restoration 
     and management projects under section 6(a)(2).
       ``(5) Overhead costs, including general administrative 
     services, that are directly attributable to administration of 
     this Act based on--
       ``(A) actual costs, as determined by a direct cost 
     allocation methodology approved by the Director of the Office 
     of Management and Budget for use by Federal agencies; and
       ``(B) for those costs not determinable pursuant to 
     subparagraph (A), an amount per full-time equivalent employee 
     authorized pursuant to paragraphs (1) and (2) that does not 
     exceed the amount charged or assessed for such costs per 
     full-time equivalent employee for any other division or 
     program of the United States Fish and Wildlife Service.
       ``(6) Costs incurred in auditing the wildlife and sport 
     fish activities of each State fish and game department and 
     the use of funds under section 6 by each State fish and game 
     department every 5 years.
       ``(7) Costs of audits under subsection (d).
       ``(8) Costs of necessary training of Federal and State 
     full-time personnel who administer this Act to improve 
     administration of this Act.
       ``(9) Costs of travel to the States, territories, and 
     Canada by personnel who administer this Act on a full-time 
     basis for purposes directly related to administration of 
     State programs or projects, or who administer grants under 
     section 6 or section 14.
       ``(10) Costs of travel outside of the United States (except 
     travel to Canada) that relates to administration of this Act 
     and that is approved directly by the Assistant Secretary for 
     Fish and Wildlife and Parks.
       ``(11) Relocation expenses for personnel who, after 
     relocation, will administer this Act on a full-time basis for 
     at least 1 year, as certified by the Director of the United 
     States Fish and Wildlife Service at the time such relocation 
     expenses are incurred.

[[Page H1817]]

       ``(12) Costs to audit, evaluate, approve, disapprove, and 
     advise concerning grants under section 6 and section 14.
       ``(b) Unauthorized Costs.--Use of funds for a cost to 
     administer this Act shall not be authorized because the cost 
     is not expressly prohibited by this Act.
       ``(c) Restriction on Use To Supplement General 
     Appropriations.--The Secretary may not use amounts under 
     section 4(d) to supplement any function for which general 
     appropriations are made for the United States Fish and 
     Wildlife Service or any other entity of the Department of the 
     Interior.
       ``(d) Audit Requirement.--(1) The Inspector General of the 
     Department of the Interior shall procure the conduct of 
     biennial audits, in accordance with generally accepted 
     accounting principles, of expenditures of amounts used by the 
     Secretary for administration of this Act.
       ``(2) Audits under this subsection shall be performed under 
     contracts that are awarded under competitive procedures (as 
     that term is defined in section 4 of the Office of Federal 
     Procurement Policy Act (41 U.S.C. 403)), by a person that is 
     not associated in any way with the Department of the 
     Interior.
       ``(3) The auditor selected pursuant to paragraph (1) shall 
     report to, and be supervised by, the Inspector General of the 
     Department of the Interior, except that the auditor shall 
     submit a copy of the biennial audit findings to the Secretary 
     of the Interior at the time such findings are submitted to 
     the Inspector General of the Department of the Interior.
       ``(4) The Inspector General of the Department of the 
     Interior shall promptly report to the Committee on Resources 
     of the House of Representatives and the Committee on 
     Environment and Public Works of the Senate on the results of 
     each such audit.
       ``(e) Certification by Secretary.--(1) The Secretary of the 
     Interior shall within 3 months after each fiscal year certify 
     in writing to the Committee on Resources of the House of 
     Representatives and the Committee on Environment and Public 
     Works of the Senate the following for the fiscal year:
       ``(A) The amount of funds used under section 4(d) and a 
     breakdown of categories for which such funds were expended.
       ``(B) The amount of funds apportioned to States under 
     section 4(d)(2)(A).
       ``(C) The results of the audits performed pursuant to 
     subsection (d).
       ``(D) That all funds expended under section 4(d) were 
     necessary for administration of this Act.
       ``(E) The Secretary, Assistant Secretary for Fish and 
     Wildlife and Parks, the Director of the United States Fish 
     and Wildlife Service, and the Assistant Director for Wildlife 
     and Sport Fish Restoration Programs each properly discharged 
     their duties under this Act.
       ``(2) The Secretary may not delegate the responsibility to 
     make certifications under paragraph (1) except to the 
     Assistant Secretary for Fish and Wildlife and Parks.
       ``(3) The Secretary shall promptly publish in the Federal 
     Register each certification under this subsection.
       ``(f) Certification by Assistant Director for Wildlife and 
     Sport Fish Restoration Programs.--Within 1 month after the 
     end of each fiscal year, the Assistant Director for Wildlife 
     and Sport Fish Restoration Programs shall--
       ``(1) certify that--
       ``(A) all amounts expended in that fiscal year to 
     administer this Act in agency headquarters and in regional 
     offices of the United States Fish and Wildlife Service were 
     used in accordance with this Act; and
       ``(B) all such expenditures were necessary to administer 
     this Act; and
       ``(2) distribute such certifications to each State fish and 
     game department.''.

     SEC. 202. MULTI-STATE GRANT PROGRAM.

       (a) Establishment of Program.--The Sport Fish Restoration 
     Act is amended by striking the second section 13 (16 U.S.C. 
     777 note) and inserting the following:


                ``multi-state conservation grant program

       ``Sec. 14. (a) In General.--(1) Of the balance of each 
     annual appropriation made in accordance with section 3 
     remaining after the distribution and use under subsections 
     (a), (b), and (c) of section 4 each fiscal year, up to 
     $2,500,000 shall be available to the Secretary of the 
     Interior for making multi-State conservation grants in 
     accordance with this section.
       ``(2) Amounts available under this subsection shall remain 
     available for 2 fiscal years, after which all unobligated 
     balances shall be apportioned in the manner specified in 
     section 4(e).
       ``(b) Selection of Projects.--(1) A project shall not be 
     eligible for a grant under this section unless it will 
     benefit at least 26 States, a majority of the States in a 
     region of the Fish and Wildlife Service, or a regional 
     association of State fish and game departments.
       ``(2) The Secretary of the Interior may award grants under 
     this section based only on a priority list of sportfish 
     restoration projects prepared and submitted by State fish and 
     game departments acting through the International Association 
     of Fish and Wildlife Agencies each fiscal year in accordance 
     with paragraph (3).
       ``(3)(A) The International Association of Fish and Wildlife 
     Agencies shall--
       ``(i) prepare each priority list through a committee 
     comprised of the heads of State fish and game departments (or 
     their designees);
       ``(ii) approve each priority list by a majority of the 
     heads of State fish and game departments (or their 
     designees); and
       ``(iii) submit each priority list by not later than October 
     1 of each fiscal year to the Secretary of the Interior.
       ``(B) In preparing any priority list under this paragraph, 
     the International Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies 
     shall consult with nongovernmental organizations that 
     represent conservation organizations, sportsmen 
     organizations, and industries that fund the Sport Fish 
     Restoration Programs.
       ``(4) The Assistant Director for Wildlife and Sport Fish 
     Restoration Programs shall publish in the Federal Register 
     each priority list submitted under this subsection.
       ``(c) Eligible Grantees.--(1) The Secretary of the Interior 
     may make a grant under this section only to--
       ``(A) a State or group of States; or
       ``(B) subject to paragraph (2) a nongovernmental 
     organization.
       ``(2) Any nongovernmental organization applying for a grant 
     under this section shall submit with the application to the 
     International Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies a 
     certification that the organization does not promote or 
     encourage opposition to the regulated taking of fish and will 
     use any funds awarded pursuant to this section in compliance 
     with subsection (d).
       ``(3) Any nongovernmental organization that is found to 
     promote or encourage opposition to the regulated taking of 
     fish or does not use funds in compliance with subsection (d) 
     shall return all funds received and be subject to any other 
     penalties under law.
       ``(d) Use of Grants.--Amounts provided as a grant under 
     this section may not be used for education, activities, 
     projects, or programs that promote or encourage opposition to 
     the regulated taking of fish.
       ``(e) Clarification.--No activities undertaken by the 
     personnel of State fish and game departments, other State 
     agencies, or organizations of State fish and game departments 
     under this section shall constitute advice or recommendations 
     for 1 or more agencies or officers of the Federal Government.
       ``(f) Funding for Marine Fisheries Commissions.--Of the 
     balance of each annual appropriation made in accordance with 
     section 3 remaining after the distribution and use under 
     subsections (a), (b), and (c) of section 4 each fiscal year 
     and after deducting amounts used for grants under subsection 
     (a) of this section, $200,000 shall be available for each 
     of--
       ``(1) the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission;
       ``(2) the Gulf States Marine Fisheries Commission;
       ``(3) the Pacific States Marine Fisheries Commission; and
       ``(4) the Great Lakes Fisheries Commission.''.
       (b) Conforming Amendments.--Section 4 of the Sport Fish 
     Restoration Act (16 U.S.C. 777c) is amended in subsection (e) 
     by inserting ``of this section and section 14'' after 
     ``subsections (a), (b), (c), and (d)''.

     SEC. 203. CERTIFICATIONS.

       Section 5 of the Sport Fish Restoration Act (16 U.S.C. 
     777d) is amended--
       (1) by striking ``Sec. 5.'' and inserting the following:


                            ``certifications

       ``Sec. 5. (a) Administrative Deduction and State 
     Apportionments.--'';
       (2) in subsection (a) (as designated by the amendment made 
     by paragraph (1) of this section) by inserting ``, at the 
     time such deduction or apportionment is made'' after 
     ``apportioned to each State for such fiscal year''; and
       (3) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(b) Fiscal Yearend Certification by Secretary.--Within 30 
     days after the end of each fiscal year, the Secretary of the 
     Interior shall--
       ``(1) certify in writing to the Secretary of the Treasury 
     and to each State fish and game department--
       ``(A) the amount apportioned under section 4(d)(2) to each 
     State in the most recent apportionment under that section for 
     that fiscal year; and
       ``(B) amounts obligated by the Secretary during the fiscal 
     year for administration of this Act; and
       ``(2) publish in the Federal Register the amounts so 
     certified.
       ``(c) Certification by Assistant Director.--(1) Within 60 
     days after the start of each fiscal year, the Assistant 
     Director for Wildlife and Sport Fish Restoration Programs 
     shall provide to the Committee on Resources of the House of 
     Representatives and the Committee on Environment and Public 
     Works of the Senate the following for the fiscal year:
       ``(A) The amount of funds that will be expended in the 
     fiscal year under section 4(d)(2) and a breakdown of 
     categories for which such funds will be expended.
       ``(B) A description of how the funds to be expended are 
     necessary for administration of this Act.
       ``(2) The Secretary of the Interior shall promptly publish 
     in the Federal Register each certification under this 
     subsection.''.

     SEC. 204. PERIOD OF AVAILABILITY.

       Section 4(f) of the Sport Fish Restoration Act (16 U.S.C. 
     777c) is amended by striking the first sentence.
        TITLE III--WILDLIFE AND SPORT FISH RESTORATION PROGRAMS

     SEC. 301. DESIGNATION OF PROGRAMS.

       The programs established under the Wildlife Restoration Act 
     and the Sport Fish Restoration Act may be collectively 
     referred to as the Federal Assistance Program for State 
     Wildlife and Sport Fish Restoration Programs.

     SEC. 302. ASSISTANT DIRECTOR FOR WILDLIFE AND SPORT FISH 
                   RESTORATION PROGRAMS.

       (a) Establishment.--There is established within the United 
     States Fish and Wildlife Service of the Department of the 
     Interior an Assistant Director for Wildlife and Sport Fish 
     Restoration Programs.
       (b) Superior.--The Assistant Director for Wildlife and 
     Sport Fish Restoration Programs shall report directly to the 
     Director of the United States Fish and Wildlife Service.

[[Page H1818]]

       (c) Responsibilities.--The Assistant Director for Wildlife 
     and Sport Fish Restoration Programs shall be responsible for 
     the administration, management, and oversight of the Federal 
     Assistance Program for State Wildlife and Sport Fish 
     Restoration Programs under the Wildlife Restoration Act and 
     the Sport Fish Restoration Act.

     SEC. 303. CHIEF OF THE DIVISION OF FEDERAL AID.

       The Chief of the Division of Federal Aid of the Department 
     of the Interior, or any similar position, is abolished and 
     the duties of that position shall be the responsibility of 
     the Assistant Director for Wildlife and Sport Fish 
     Restoration Programs.

  The CHAIRMAN. The amendment printed in House Report 106-558 shall be 
considered as read and shall not be subject to amendment or to a demand 
for division of the question.
  During consideration of the bill for amendment, the Chair may accord 
priority in recognition to a Member offering an amendment that he has 
printed in the designated place in the Congressional Record. Those 
amendments will be considered as read.
  The Chairman of the Committee of the Whole may postpone a request for 
a recorded vote on any amendment, and may reduce to a minimum of 5 
minutes the time for voting on any postponed question that immediately 
follows another vote, provided that the time for voting on the first 
question shall be a minimum of 15 minutes.
  Are there amendments to the bill?


             Amendment No. 1 Offered by Mr. Young of Alaska

  Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment No. 1 printed in House Report 106-558 offered by 
     Mr. Young of Alaska:
       Page 3, strike line 19 and all that follows through page 4, 
     line 5, and insert the following:
       ``Sec. 4. (a) Set-Aside for Administration.--(1)(A) Of the 
     revenues (excluding interest accruing under section 3(b)) 
     covered into the fund, the Secretary may use up to the amount 
     specified in subparagraph (B) for expenses to administer this 
     Act, in accordance with this subsection and section 9.
       ``(B) The amount referred to in subparagraph (A) is the 
     following:
       ``(i) In fiscal year 2001, $7,090,000.
       ``(ii) In fiscal year 2002, $6,710,000.
       ``(iii) In fiscal year 2003, $6,330,000.
       ``(iv) In fiscal year 2004 and each fiscal year 
     thereafter--
       ``(I) the amount available for the preceding fiscal year, 
     plus
       ``(II) an amount to reflect the change in the consumer 
     price index over the preceding fiscal year, which shall be 
     determined by the Secretary of the Treasury by multiplying 
     such change times the amount available for the preceding 
     fiscal year.
       Page 16, strike line 18 and all that follows through page 
     17, line 5, and insert the following:
       ``(d)(1)(A) Of the balance of each such annual 
     appropriation remaining after the distribution and use under 
     subsections (a), (b), and (c) of this section and section 14, 
     the Secretary of the Interior may use up to the amount 
     specified in subparagraph (B) for expenses to administer this 
     Act, in accordance with this subsection and section 9.
       ``(B) The amount referred to in subparagraph (A) is the 
     following:
       ``(i) In fiscal year 2001, $7,090,000.
       ``(ii) In fiscal year 2002, $6,710,000.
       ``(iii) In fiscal year 2003, $6,330,000.
       ``(iv) In fiscal year 2004 and each fiscal year 
     thereafter--
       ``(I) the amount available for the preceding fiscal year, 
     plus
       ``(II) an amount to reflect the change in the consumer 
     price index over the preceding fiscal year, which shall be 
     determined by the Secretary of the Treasury by multiplying 
     such change times the amount available for the preceding 
     fiscal year.
       Page 6, strike lines 16 through 19 and insert the 
     following:
       ``(4) Costs of determining under section 6(a) whether State 
     comprehensive plans and projects are substantial in character 
     and design.
       Page 12, line 19, after ``education'' insert ``and shooting 
     range''.
       Page 12, line 25, strike ``enhancement'' and insert 
     ``development''.
       Page 15, line 16, strike ``regulated''.
       Page 15, line 20, strike ``regulated''.
       Page 18, strike lines 12 through 16 and insert the 
     following:
       ``(4) Costs of determining under section 6(a) whether State 
     comprehensive plans and projects are substantial in character 
     and design.
       Page 28, after line 24, insert the following:

     SEC. ____. CONFORMING AMENDMENT.

       Section 9504(b)(2)(A) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 
     is amended by striking ``(as in effect on the date of the 
     enactment of the TEA 21 Restoration Act)'' and inserting 
     ``(as in effect on the date of the enactment of the Wildlife 
     and Sport Fish Restoration Programs Improvement Act of 
     2000)''.

  Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, this is an amendment which 
increases the funding levels in the bill from $10 million to $14 
million for true administration expenses, but also assumes a transition 
period that reduces the number of program administrators from 120 to 
100 over a period of 3 years, and then it adjusts upward thereafter 
based on the Consumer Price Index.
  This amendment makes other technical changes to make sure the bill 
conforms with the Pittman-Robertson Dingell-Johnson Acts that we are 
not omitting at this time.
  Mr. Chairman, I would suggest respectfully that this should answer 
the concerns of the gentleman from California about not having enough 
money. It raises the expenses, at least $5 million more. That is $19 
million total. In 3 years, we drop the participation of the 
administrators from 120 to 100. Then if they need more after that, it 
will ratchet back up if necessary.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge the adoption of the amendment.
  Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the 
last word.
  Mr. Chairman, I raise the questions I raised earlier about those 
amendments, whether or not this goes far enough. I appreciate that the 
gentleman has added some money back. As I understand it, the $5 million 
is money that will go directly to the States as part of the national 
program, so I think where we are left is about $14 million for 
administration.
  As I read the letters, again, from the International Association of 
Fish and Wildlife Agencies and the National Wildlife Federation, again, 
who are strong supporters of this legislation and of the program, they 
indicate that they think that the figure is somewhat higher than that.
  Originally we had talked about 18. That did not happen. They 
mentioned 16. Their formula figure may take it above that.
  We are obviously not going to solve that issue here today, but I 
would hope that the gentleman would continue to consult with these 
supporters of the programs and certainly with the State wildlife 
agencies that are administering the State side of that program, because 
I think they do raise the concerns about that.
  I do not know that exact figure yet, however. I believe it is higher 
than the figure the gentleman has in his budget. I would just hope that 
that could be done certainly before we contemplate sending this 
legislation to the White House.
  Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. I yield to the gentleman from 
Alaska.
  Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Again if I can get the figures from the Fish and 
Wildlife directly, an explanation of what it is being spent for, I am 
willing to adjust these figures. This is the best we can do right now. 
I believe it is correct. We are not cutting back on the State 
administrators, other than 20. Then we will ratchet it back up over 3 
year's time.
  I think we are meeting most of those goals which the gentleman has 
raised in the point of order. We will go to the Senate. We will be 
talking.
  Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, we have talked long, 
and the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell) and others who have been 
long involved in the program. We want to see this program come out 
whole at the end of this process with these changes and with this 
accountability. That is very important, I think, to all of our 
constituents.
  I am not happy raising these issues, but I think they have to be 
raised so that we can arrive at a point where we are comfortable and we 
can tell the State agencies and the other organizations that work with 
them in cooperation that we have made this program whole and it is 
doing the things for which it was designed and which are appropriate 
for it to do.
  I raise this at this time in conjunction with the manager's 
amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. Are there additional Members to speak on this 
amendment?
  If not, the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman 
from Alaska (Mr. Young).
  The amendment was agreed to.
  The CHAIRMAN. Are there additional amendments?

[[Page H1819]]

               Amendment Offered by Mr. Udall of Colorado

  Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mr. Udall of Colorado:
       Page 30, after line 6 insert the following:

     SEC. 304. IMPLEMENTATION REPORT.

       (a) Timing.--At the time the President submits a budget 
     request for the Department of the Interior for the third 
     fiscal year beginning after the date of enactment of this 
     Act, the Secretary of the Interior shall inform the Committee 
     on Resources of the House of Representatives and the 
     Committee on Environment and Public Works of the Senate about 
     the steps taken to comply with this Act.
       (b) Contents.--The report required by this section shall 
     indicate--
       (1) the extent to which compliance with this Act has 
     required a reduction in the number of personnel assigned to 
     administer, manage, and oversee the Federal Assistance 
     Program for State Wildlife and Sport Fish Restoration 
     Programs;
       (2) any revisions to this Act that would be desirable in 
     order for the Secretary to adequately administer such 
     programs and assure that funds provided to state agencies are 
     properly used; and
       (3) any other information regarding the implementation of 
     this Act that the Secretary considers appropriate.

  Mr. UDALL of Colorado (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I ask 
unanimous consent that the amendment be considered as read and printed 
in the Record.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Colorado?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Chairman, I will make a brief statement 
about the amendment.
  The amendment is very simple. It would require the Secretary of the 
Interior to inform the Committee on Resources and the corresponding 
committee of the other body about administrative changes required by 
this bill.
  In particular, it would require the Secretary to tell us about any 
reduction in the number of people assigned, to make sure that these 
important programs are being properly administered.
  As I mentioned when the Committee on Resources considered the bill, 
these programs are very important for Colorado and all the other 49 
States and territories. The assistance they can provide can help us 
greatly as we work to respond to the pressures on our fish and wildlife 
populations and the habitat that are coming under increasingly rapid 
population stresses and the resulting growth and sprawl.
  The programs cannot be properly administered without adequate 
personnel and other resources, however. So I take seriously the 
concerns expressed by the Wildlife Management Institute, the 
International Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies, and others who 
tell us that they fear that the bill's current limits threaten to 
undermine the ability of the Department of the Interior to properly 
manage the programs.
  This amendment itself would not revise the bill's limits on 
administrative expenses, but it would require the Department of the 
Interior to inform the committee and the Congress about how those 
limits affect the implementation of these important programs.
  With that information, the committee in the future can consider 
whether or not to propose changes to that part of the bill.
  I think the amendment does not detract from the purpose of the bill. 
It merely provides for our obtaining information for consideration as 
the committee carries out its future oversight and review 
responsibilities.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge the adoption of the amendment.
  Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, my amendment provides a transition period to scale the 
program back slightly, making it more effective. We keep the level of 
current employees, 120, constant for the first year, and have a gradual 
reduction in the years following.
  If the gentleman has modified his amendment by changing the word 
``first'' to ``third,'' which would allow the bill to take effect 
before the report is issued, then I would accept his amendment.
  Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. I yield to the gentleman from Colorado.
  Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Chairman, I would be glad to modify the 
amendment to change ``first'' to ``third.'' Whatever the chairman would 
like to do, I am with him.
  Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, I think everything is taken care 
of. We have all agreed.
  Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Chairman, I think the amendment has 
already been modified at the desk. We are on the same page.
  Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. I apologize. I think the staff has told me that 
is settled.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Chair would notify all Members that the 
modification was actually made to the amendment that was offered, so 
there is no need to modify based upon the conversation.
  Mrs. CHENOWETH-HAGE. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite 
number of words.
  Mr. Chairman, I really appreciate the leadership that has been shown 
on this very important bill, and the leadership and thoughtfulness that 
has gone into the amendment, because I do think that the committee does 
need to make sure that there is good oversight, because we had some 
very serious problems with the Pittman-Robertson administration of the 
funds.
  I want to make it very, very clear, Mr. Chairman, that this 
legislation is very good, and it does not mean that we should stop 
pursuing violations that have occurred under current law. I think our 
investigation that was conducted in the committee clearly exposed the 
wrongs, and the wrongdoing must have consequences.
  Mr. Chairman, what we have learned so far about this issue was 
disturbing, and this is the reason why we are on this House floor 
today, because millions of dollars specifically designated for the 
administration of the Federal Aid program established through the 
Pittman-Robinson Act and the Dingell-Johnson Act were diverted into a 
slush fund for the Secretary of the Interior.
  The Secretary has subsequently divvied these monies out under a 
completely unauthorized Directors' Conservation Fund. Mr. Chairman, as 
we have broken these illegal expenditures down, the revelations about 
where these funds were spent really infuriated the sportsmen and really 
bothered taxpayers, who have generously contributed to this program. 
These funds are set aside by law to go towards State fish and game 
programs, but instead, the funds have gone toward Federal initiatives 
such as the spotted owl and the ferry shrimp and wolf reintroduction, 
the black-footed ferret, the American Rivers Conference, the Arctic 
Conference, and the grizzly bears that are attempted to be introduced 
into Idaho.

                              {time}  1700

  Moreover, the secretary did go ahead and use some of these funds for 
areas even completely unrelated to wildlife, such as NAFTA and 
Retirement Costs, the RAMSAR Convention and the Solicitor's Office.
  Mr. Chairman, common sportsmen and women of this Nation were very 
disturbed to know that instead of going to the State to improve big 
game habitat nearly $668,000 of their hard-earned dollars were being 
spent on about up to 140 Federal AID employees in the form of bonuses, 
as well as $108,000 to personnel who do not even work for Federal AID, 
they were given awards.
  These are the same Federal officials who in 1995 gave a mere $89 of 
carried-over administrative funds back to the States while keeping over 
$1 million for themselves.
  This is a bipartisan effort, Mr. Speaker, and it is a bill very 
worthy of bipartisan support to correct some of the wrongs that have 
gone on in this particular fund. With the careful oversight of the 
committee in the future, I feel confident that it will be corrected.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Udall).
  The amendment was agreed to.


                   Amendment Offered by Mr. Traficant

  Mr. TRAFICANT. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mr. Traficant:
       At the end of the bill add the following new sections:

     SEC.   . COMPLIANCE WITH BUY AMERICAN ACT

       No funds authorized pursuant to this Act may be expended by 
     an entity unless the entity agrees that in expending the 
     assistance the entity will comply with sections 2 through 4 
     of the Act of March 3, 1933 (41 U.S.C. 10a-10c, popularly 
     known as the ``Buy American Act'').

[[Page H1820]]

     SEC.   . SENSE OF CONGRESS; REQUIREMENT REGARDING NOTICE

       (a) Purchase of American-Made Equipment and Products.--In 
     the case of any equipment or products that may be authorized 
     to be purchased with financial assistance provided under this 
     Act, it is the sense of the Congress that entities receiving 
     such assistance should, in expending the assistance, purchase 
     only American-made equipment and products.
       (b) Notice to Recipients of Assistance.--In providing 
     financial assistance under this Act, the Secretary of 
     Interior shall provide to each recipient of the assistance a 
     notice describing the statement made in subsection (a) by the 
     Congress.

     SEC.   . PROHIBITION OF CONTRACTS.

       If it has been finally determined by a court or Federal 
     agency that any person intentionally affixed a label bearing 
     a ``Made in America'' inscription, or any inscription with 
     the same meaning, to any product sold in or shipped to the 
     United States that is not made in the United States, such 
     person shall be ineligible to receive any contract or 
     subcontract made with funds provided pursuant to this Act, 
     pursuant to the debarment, suspension, and ineligibility 
     procedures described in section 9.400 through 9.409 of title 
     48, Code of Federal Regulations.

  Mr. TRAFICANT (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous 
consent that the amendment be considered as read and printed in the 
Record.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Ohio?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. TRAFICANT. Mr. Chairman, I would like to start out by commending 
the gentleman from Alaska (Mr. Young) on a much-needed measure of 
reform. Congress was not designed to send signals. We do not work for 
the Western Union. Congress' role is to pass legislation, and the 
gentleman from Alaska (Mr. Young) and the committee is doing the right 
thing.
  I hope our great leader, the gentleman from California (Mr. George 
Miller), will reconcile himself to that fact and in the final analysis 
work towards these goals.
  I want to also pay a special tribute on behalf of all the sportsmen 
in America to the gentleman from Michigan, big John Dingell, the great 
job he has done and the fingerprints that he has over the years in this 
legislation now being modified by our chairman. I support the bill and 
I support these reforms.
  My amendment deals with the money. They must comply with the Buy 
American Act, giving notice to the people who have given the money who 
has been wasting it. By the way, if they are going to continue to waste 
it, buy American made goods with it. I hope they do not waste it. There 
will be a notice given and if they do not comply with the act or place 
a fraudulent label on something that they purchase, they would be 
prohibited from engaging in business with the agencies herein affected 
and impacted by this legislation.
  With that, I would ask the committee to accept this legislation.
  Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the 
amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I cannot argue against the gentleman's comments and I 
would gladly accept the amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Traficant).
  The amendment was agreed to.
  The CHAIRMAN. Are there any other amendments?
  If not, the question is on the committee amendment in the nature of a 
substitute, as amended.
  The committee amendment in the nature of a substitute, as amended, 
was agreed to.
  The CHAIRMAN. Under the rule, the Committee rises.
  Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr. 
Thune) having assumed the Chair, Mr. Burr of North Carolina, Chairman 
of the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union, reported 
that that Committee, having had under consideration 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, pursuant to House Resolution 455, he 
reported the bill back to the House with an amendment adopted by the 
Committee of the Whole.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the rule, the previous question is 
ordered.
  Is a separate vote demanded on any amendment to the committee 
amendment in the nature of substitute adopted in the Committee of the 
Whole? If not, the question is on the amendment.
  The amendment was agreed to.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the engrossment and third 
reading of the bill.
  The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, and was 
read the third time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the passage of the bill.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground 
that a quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum 
is not present.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Evidently a quorum is not present.
  The Sergeant at Arms will notify absent Members.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 423, 
nays 2, not voting 9, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 105]

                               YEAS--423

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Aderholt
     Allen
     Andrews
     Armey
     Baca
     Bachus
     Baird
     Baker
     Baldacci
     Baldwin
     Ballenger
     Barcia
     Barr
     Barrett (NE)
     Barrett (WI)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bass
     Bateman
     Becerra
     Bentsen
     Bereuter
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Biggert
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop
     Blagojevich
     Bliley
     Blumenauer
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bonior
     Bono
     Borski
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Brady (PA)
     Brady (TX)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Bryant
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Canady
     Cannon
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardin
     Carson
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Chenoweth-Hage
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clyburn
     Coble
     Coburn
     Collins
     Combest
     Condit
     Conyers
     Cooksey
     Costello
     Cox
     Coyne
     Cramer
     Crowley
     Cubin
     Cummings
     Cunningham
     Danner
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis (VA)
     Deal
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     DeLay
     DeMint
     Deutsch
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Doggett
     Dooley
     Doolittle
     Doyle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Edwards
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     Engel
     English
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Everett
     Ewing
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Fletcher
     Foley
     Forbes
     Ford
     Fossella
     Fowler
     Frank (MA)
     Franks (NJ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Frost
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gejdenson
     Gekas
     Gephardt
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Gonzalez
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Gordon
     Goss
     Graham
     Granger
     Green (TX)
     Green (WI)
     Greenwood
     Gutierrez
     Gutknecht
     Hall (OH)
     Hall (TX)
     Hansen
     Hastings (FL)
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Herger
     Hill (IN)
     Hill (MT)
     Hilleary
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hobson
     Hoeffel
     Hoekstra
     Holden
     Holt
     Hooley
     Horn
     Hostettler
     Houghton
     Hoyer
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Inslee
     Isakson
     Istook
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Jenkins
     John
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     Jones (OH)
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kasich
     Kelly
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kind (WI)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kleczka
     Klink
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     Kucinich
     Kuykendall
     LaFalce
     LaHood
     Lampson
     Lantos
     Largent
     Larson
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Lazio
     Leach
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (GA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Lucas (KY)
     Lucas (OK)
     Luther
     Maloney (CT)
     Maloney (NY)
     Manzullo
     Markey
     Martinez
     Mascara
     Matsui
     McCarthy (MO)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McIntosh
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Menendez
     Metcalf
     Mica
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller (FL)
     Miller, Gary
     Miller, George
     Minge
     Mink
     Moakley
     Mollohan
     Moore
     Moran (KS)
     Moran (VA)
     Morella
     Murtha
     Myrick
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Nethercutt
     Ney
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Ose

[[Page H1821]]


     Owens
     Oxley
     Packard
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Paul
     Payne
     Pease
     Pelosi
     Peterson (MN)
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Phelps
     Pickering
     Pickett
     Pitts
     Pombo
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Portman
     Price (NC)
     Pryce (OH)
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Rahall
     Ramstad
     Regula
     Reyes
     Reynolds
     Riley
     Rivers
     Rodriguez
     Roemer
     Rogan
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Rothman
     Roukema
     Roybal-Allard
     Royce
     Rush
     Ryan (WI)
     Ryun (KS)
     Sabo
     Salmon
     Sanchez
     Sanders
     Sandlin
     Sanford
     Sawyer
     Saxton
     Scarborough
     Schaffer
     Schakowsky
     Scott
     Sensenbrenner
     Serrano
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Sherman
     Sherwood
     Shimkus
     Shows
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Sisisky
     Skeen
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Souder
     Spence
     Spratt
     Stabenow
     Stark
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Strickland
     Stump
     Stupak
     Sununu
     Sweeney
     Talent
     Tancredo
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Terry
     Thomas
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Thornberry
     Thune
     Thurman
     Tiahrt
     Tierney
     Toomey
     Towns
     Traficant
     Turner
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Upton
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Vitter
     Walden
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Watkins
     Watt (NC)
     Watts (OK)
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Wexler
     Weygand
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson
     Wise
     Wolf
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Young (AK)

                                NAYS--2

     Jackson (IL)
     Waters
       

                             NOT VOTING--9

     Archer
     Campbell
     Clement
     Cook
     Crane
     Rangel
     Vento
     Wynn
     Young (FL)

                              {time}  1727

  Messrs. ENGEL, NADLER and HALL of Texas changed their vote from 
``nay'' to ``yea.''
  So the bill was passed.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

                          ____________________