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

[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.

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.

____________________