- TXT
-
PDF
(PDF provides a complete and accurate display of this text.)
Tip
?
Calendar No. 945
106th Congress Report
SENATE
2d Session 106-495
======================================================================
WILDLIFE AND SPORT FISH RESTORATION PROGRAMS IMPROVEMENT ACT OF 2000
_______
October 10 (legislative day, September 22), 2000.--Ordered to be
printed
_______
Mr. Smith of New Hampshire, from the Committee on Environment and
Public Works, submitted the following
R E P O R T
[to accompany H.R. 3671]
together with
minority views
[Including cost estimate of the Congressional Budget Office]
The Committee on Environment and Public Works, to which was
referred a bill 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, having considered the same, reports favorably thereon
with an amendment and recommends that the bill, as amended, do
pass.
General Background
The Pittman-Robertson Act and the Dingell-Johnson Act
(later called the Wallop-Breaux Act), authorized in 1937 and
1950, respectively, created user-pay benefit trust funds.
Together, these programs are called the Sport Fish and Wildlife
Restoration programs and are known more generally as the
Federal Aid program. The Pittman-Robertson program is funded
through an 11 percent tax on sporting firearms, ammunition, and
archery equipment, and a 10 percent tax on pistols and
revolvers. The Wallop-Breaux program is funded through a 10
percent tax on fishing equipment, and a 3 percent tax on fish
finders and electric trolling motors. Funds collected by these
programs are distributed to the States by formulas established
in law. Since its inception, the Pittman-Robertson Act has
provided over $4 billion for State wildlife restoration
projects; the Wallop-Breaux Act has provided over $3.6 billion
for State sport fish projects. In fiscal year 2000, the States
received a total of $434 million for the Pittman-Robertson and
Wallop-Breaux programs.
The States are primarily responsible for managing the
wildlife restoration and sport fish programs. They identify
eligible projects and then pay for the projects up front. The
projects must be directly related to wild and sport fish
restoration efforts. Projects that are eligible for funding
through the Pittman-Robertson and Wallop-Breaux programs
include: acquisition and improvement of wildlife habitat;
hunter education; wildlife population surveys; construction of
facilities to improve public access; management of wildlife
areas; fish stocking, boating and fishing access; and facility
development and maintenance. States are reimbursed for up to 75
percent of the total cost of each project from the wildlife
restoration and sport fish funds. To qualify for the funds,
State game and fish departments are required to dedicate
license fees paid by hunters to the administration of State
fish and game departments. This provides a source of funding
for the States to provide the non-Federal share of any grant.
The Fish and Wildlife Service administers the wildlife
restoration and sport fish programs through the Division of
Federal Aid. Under the Pittman-Robertson and Wallop-Breaux
Acts, the Secretary of the Interior is authorized to use up to
8 percent of the funds that are collected under the Pittman-
Robertson Act to administer the wildlife restoration program,
and up to 6 percent of the funds collected under the Wallop-
Breaux Act to administer the sport fish program. In fiscal year
1999, the programs received a total of approximately $377
million; the Fish and Wildlife Service used $33.6 million of
the funds to administer the two programs, which was the maximum
allowable amount.
Lands purchased with Pittman-Robertson funds are used for
many wildlife-dependent recreation activities; each parcel is
supposed to support multiple uses. Concerns have been raised
recently, however, that the Fish and Wildlife Service is
considering prohibiting the use of Pittman-Robertson lands for
field trials. Field trials are dog competitions in which tests
and training or related activities are conducted to improve the
hunting abilities of, and identify those superior
representatives of, the hunting breeds, as well as the skills
of hunters. Field trials are a legitimate use of Pittman-
Robertson funded lands, provided that the field trials are not
inconsistent with the objectives and purposes of the Act.
Because wildlife conservation is the primary purpose of the
Pittman-Robertson Act, only field trials that do not adversely
affect wildlife or wildlife conservation objectives are viewed
as an acceptable use of Pittman-Robertson acquired lands. A
type of field trial not generally appropriate for lands
acquired with Pittman-Robertson funds would be one that
requires significant manipulation of terrain, landscape, or
vegetation, or intensive site management. Intensive site
management in this context would include regular mowing,
permanent stables, dog kennels, equipment storage areas or
other infrastructure onsite, which would degrade the value of
the land as wildlife habitat. Additionally, field trials
proposed to be conducted during nesting or breeding seasons of
the wildlife species for which the land was acquired would not
be appropriate.
In contrast, field trials which require minimal
manipulation of terrain, vegetation, or habitat would be
appropriate if timed to avoid the breeding and nesting seasons
of the species for which the land was acquired. Proposals for
field trials which fall between these examples, or which would
conflict with hunting seasons or other public uses, would
require case-by-case evaluations and decisions.
General Accounting Office Investigation
In December 1998, the Government Accounting Office (GAO)
began an oversight review of the Fish and Wildlife Service's
administration of the Federal Aid program. The GAO
investigation found that the Fish and Wildlife Service, among
other things, failed to maintain adequate controls over funds,
expenditures, and grants; used administrative funds
inconsistently among different FWS regional offices; and had
conducted limited auditing of the use of funds. A 1993
investigation by the GAO found similar problems. At that time,
the Fish and Wildlife Service indicated that it was taking
steps to address the problems. The 1998 investigation revealed
that the changes promised had not been implemented.
During the 1998 investigation, GAO raised significant
concerns regarding the accountability, oversight, and control
of the Federal Aid program. Among other things, GAO found that
the Fish and Wildlife Service had created two new programs
unrelated to the administration of the wildlife restoration and
sport fish programs and was funding these new programs with
Federal Aid program dollars. The two new programs were: the
Administrative Grants program and the Director's Conservation
Fund. The Administrative Grants program, which was supported by
the States, was created to fund projects that would benefit a
majority of the States. The Administrative Grants program was
allegedly created with funds that were left over from the
administration and execution of the Pittman-Robertson and
Wallop-Breaux programs. However, the Pittman-Robertson and
Wallop-Breaux Acts require that any funds not used for the
administration of the programs within a 2-year period must be
returned to the States. Proponents of the Administrative Grants
program argued that this program effectively returned excess
administrative funds to the States through additional regional
restoration projects that benefited multiple States.
The second new program, the Director's Conservation Fund,
was more controversial. The Director's Conservation Fund was
created in 1994 for use exclusively by the Director of the Fish
and Wildlife Service to make discretionary grants. The
Conservation Fund withheld $1 million annually from the Federal
Aid program for conservation grants selected by the Director of
the Fish and Wildlife Service. The Fund has been used to award
grants totaling over $3.8 million. The procedures for obtaining
grants under this Fund are much less rigorous than those for
obtaining funds under the programs set up under the Federal Aid
program. Moreover, critics argue that the criteria used to
select conservation projects are subjective. Also, GAO reported
that the Fish and Wildlife Service did not follow the Office of
Management and Budget's guidelines requiring agencies awarding
grants to notify the public of funding priorities for
discretionary grant programs.
The GAO investigation and subsequent oversight hearings in
the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works and the
House Committee on Resources raised additional concerns about
unnecessary foreign travel; poor record keeping; and poor
oversight of regional offices. For example, the GAO report
indicated that through mismanagement and inadequate internal
controls, the Fish and Wildlife Service had maintained two sets
of accounting books with a discrepancy of $108 million between
them. Since the report was issued, the Fish and Wildlife
Service has been able to account for all of the money. The
Service's accounting records, however, raised questions about
whether the administrative expenses were in fact legitimate.
There was evidence, for example, that some of the
administrative expenses claimed were attributable not to the
Federal Aid program, but instead to other Fish and Wildlife
Service functions and were reallocated to make up for
shortfalls in annual appropriations to other programs. Further,
questions were raised regarding whether certain expenses, such
as reimbursements for certain foreign travel or training were
justified, even within the Federal Aid program.
Objectives of Legislation
This legislation addresses the problems that were
identified in the GAO report and subsequent Congressional
oversight hearings by making three fundamental changes to the
wildlife restoration and sport fish programs. These changes are
intended to enhance accountability with the Fish and Wildlife
Service with respect to the administration of the Federal Aid
program; to provide further clarity regarding the use of
administrative funds; and to provide additional flexibility to
the States for regional conservation projects. First, the bill
authorizes a fixed sum that the Secretary of Interior may set
aside for administration of both the Pittman-Robertson and
Wallop-Breaux programs. Second, the bill enumerates legitimate
administrative costs and limits the use of Federal Aid to those
expenses. Finally, the bill authorizes a new Multistate
Conservation Grant program to allow for the use of some Federal
Aid funds to be used for regional projects.
Section-By-Section Analysis
Section 1. Short title; table of contents
Section 1 contains the bill title and the table of
contents.
TITLE I-WILDLIFE RESTORATION
Sec. 101. Expenditures for Administration
Summary
Section 101(a) authorizes the Secretary of the Interior to
use $9,500,000 million in fiscal year 2001 for the
administration of the Pittman-Robertson Wildlife Restoration
Act. In subsequent years, the funds available for
administration of the Act are adjusted for cost-of-living
increases in accordance with the Consumer Price Index for All
Urban Consumers published by the Department of Labor. If the
Secretary of the Interior does not use the authorized funds,
the remaining amount is to be reallocated among the States.
Section 101(b) explicitly identifies 12 categories of
appropriate administrative expenses. Among other things, these
include personnel costs of employees directly administering the
wildlife restoration program; costs associated with reviewing
State comprehensive plans and projects; certain overhead costs;
costs incurred in auditing State sport fish and wildlife
conservation activities; necessary training of Federal and
State personnel administering the Pittman Robertson Act;
foreign travel; and relocation expenses. If the Secretary of
the Interior determines that it is necessary to spend funds on
an administrative expense that is not authorized, the Secretary
is required to submit a letter to the Senate Committee on
Environment and Public Works and the House Committee on
Resources describing the expense. The Secretary of the Interior
is required to wait 30 days before spending the money in order
to give the committees time to review the appropriateness of
the expenditure. In addition, the Secretary of the Interior is
no longer authorized to supplement general appropriation funds
with Pittman-Robertson funds for any department or agency
within the Department of the Interior.
Section 101(d) directs the Inspector General of the
Department of the Interior to contract out a biennial audit on
the use of funds by the Secretary to administer the Pittman
Robertson Act. The audit must be performed by an entity that is
not associated with the Department of the Interior. The results
of the audit are to be provided to the Secretary of the
Interior, the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works
and the House Committee on Resources.
Discussion
One of the most significant concerns raised by the GAO
report was that the Fish and Wildlife Service was using
administrative funds made available under the Pittman-Robertson
program for a variety of activities that are not administrative
in nature or not related to the program. For example, GAO found
that funds were being spent on travel unrelated to the Federal
Aid program and on unauthorized grants. In order to avoid this
problem in the future, the bill authorizes 12 specific
categories of expenses that are considered appropriate
administrative costs. The manager's amendment also included a
new provision that would allow the Secretary of the Interior to
request authorization from the Senate Environment and Public
Works Committee and the House Natural Resources Committee to
use Pittman Robertson funds for other legitimate administrative
costs. This provision was added to address a concern raised by
the Fish and Wildlife Service that the bill's list of 12
categories of administrative expenses may unintentionally
exclude an otherwise appropriate type of administrative
activity that has not yet been identified. The provision
requires the Secretary to submit a letter to the committees
describing the nature of the expense. If the committees do not
reply within 30 days, the Administration has the authority to
spend the additional funds. The Secretary of the Interior
should not expend the funds for the purpose requested if the
committees of jurisdiction object.
Several witnesses at the committee's July 19, 2000 hearing
on H.R. 3671, as passed by the House, expressed concern that
the bill did not provide adequate funding for the
administration of the wildlife conservation and sport fish
programs. The States, in particular, indicated that the
authorized amounts were ``not believed to adequately and
effectively deliver apportioned funds to the States.'' As
amended by the committee, the bill now authorizes $9,500,000
for the Pittman-Robertson Act and $9,500,000 for the Dingell-
Johnson Sport Fish Restoration Act. Together, $19,000,000 is
authorized for the administration of both programs. After
extensive discussion with the Fish and Wildlife Service, it was
determined that 120 full time employees were necessary to
administer both programs (until recently, the programs were
authorized to employ more than 150 full time employees). On
average, the Fish and Wildlife Service estimated that each
employee receives $78,800 per year in salary and benefits, and
that the overhead cost per person is approximately $77,800. For
120 full time employees, the Federal Aid program needs
approximately $19 million to effectively administer both
programs.
To prevent future mismanagement of the Pittman-Robertson
program, the Inspector General of the Department of the
Interior is required to contract an entity to perform a
biennial audit of the Federal Aid program. The findings have to
be reported to the Senate Committee on Environment and Public
Works and the House Natural Resources Committee.
Sec. 102. Firearm and Bow Hunter Education and Safety Program Grants
Summary
Section 102 authorizes $7,500,000 from the Pittman-
Robertson account to be distributed to the States in the form
of grants for hunter, firearm, bow hunter, and archery
education, safety and development programs. In addition, the
funds can be used for the development and construction of
firearm and archery ranges. Grants provided to the States under
this section can not exceed 75 percent of the total cost of the
activity. Any funds remaining at the end of the fiscal year are
required to be reapportioned to the States.
Discussion
Under current law, States may use, at their discretion, up
to 50 percent of the revenues collected from handgun and
archery equipment for hunter education and shooting range
development. Concerns have been raised, however, by several
organizations that represent the hunting and angler community
that several States have not been fully funding their safety
and training programs, or using Federal funds to construct
hunting and archery ranges. In a survey done by the
International Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies for
fiscal year 1999, the 43 States who responded indicated that
they spent in excess of $26 million on hunter safety and
education; $18 million of this amount was funded with money
from the Pittman-Robertson program. Many States reported that
they were spending the maximum amount allowed on education and
training. A number of States also spend funds from other
sources on hunter education and training, as well as on the
construction of hunting and archery ranges. To encourage States
that are not maximizing the use of Pittman-Robertson funds,
this provision requires States to spend a minimum of $7,500,000
million to enhance hunter and safety education.
Sec. 103. Multistate Conservation Grant Program
Summary
Section 103 authorizes the Secretary to use $3,500,000 in
Pittman-Robertson funds to issue grants for projects that
benefit 26 States, a majority of the States in a Fish and
Wildlife Service Region, or the regional association of State
fish and game departments. The Secretary is required to choose
projects from a list submitted by the International Association
of Fish and Wildlife Service Agencies (International). The
Secretary is only authorized to award grants to a State or
group of States; the Fish and Wildlife Service for purposes of
carrying out the National Survey of Fishing, Hunting, and
Wildlife Associated Recreation; or nongovernmental
organizations.
When preparing the list of projects, the International
Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies must consult with
nongovernmental organizations representing conservation and
sportsmen organizations, and industries that support or promote
hunting, trapping, recreational shooting, bow hunting, or
archery. The International then submits a list of proposed
projects to the Chief of the Division of Federal Aid by October
1, of each fiscal year. The Chief of the Division of Federal
Aid may only select projects for funding from the list received
from the International. The Chief of the Division of Federal
Aid is also required to publish the list in the Federal
Register.
In order for a nongovernmental organization to receive
funding for a project under the multistate grant program, the
organization must certify that it does not promote or encourage
opposition to regulated hunting or trapping. In addition, the
organization cannot use a grant awarded under this section to
support any activity, project or program that promotes or
encourages opposition to regulated hunting or trapping. If the
organization violates either of these conditions, it is subject
to penalties under law and must return all funds received under
this program.
Any funds remaining at the end of the fiscal year are
required to be reapportioned to the States.
Discussion
In 1994, the Office of Federal Aid established an
Administrative Grant program that utilized administrative funds
to support national fish and wildlife projects that provided
collective benefits to at least 50 percent of the States.
Although the program was extremely popular, it was questionable
whether the Service had the authority to establish this type of
grant program. The Fish and Wildife Service abolished the
program in 1999 for this reason.
This bill authorizes a new multistate grant program that is
substantially similar to the old Administrative Grant program
and provides $3,500,000 for the new program. The Multistate
grant program is expected to fund projects that benefit a
majority of the States, such as the National Survey of Fishing,
Hunting, and Wildlife Associated Recreation, Hooked on Fishing-
Not on Drugs, and the National Outdoor Ethics Conference. This
grant program will serve an important function because these
projects, and others, are widely acknowledged to be necessary,
but in most cases cannot be funded in a cost-effective manner
by any one State.
The bill also recognizes that nongovernmental
organizations, not just the States and the Fish and Wildlife
Service, can play a valuable role in carrying out regional
wildlife conservation projects. At the same time, however, the
bill recognizes the legitimate concern of the user groups that
pay the excise taxes that fund these programs that Pittman-
Robertson dollars must not be used to promote or encourage
anti-hunting or anti-trapping activities. For this reason, the
bill expressly prohibits any nongovernmental organization from
using funds under the Multistate Grant program to promote or
encourage opposition to hunting or trapping. Similarly, the
bill precludes an organization that itself promotes or
encourages opposition to regulated hunting or trapping from
receiving funds under this program. However, nothing in the
bill precludes an organization from establishing an affiliate
that is physically and financially separate and that does not
oppose hunting or trapping from applying for a grant under this
program.
TITLE II-SPORT FISH RESTORATION
Sec. 201. Expenditures for Administration
Section 201(a) authorizes the Secretary of the Interior to
use $9,500,000 million in fiscal year 2001 for the
administration of the Dingell-Johnson Sport Fish Restoration
Act. In subsequent years, the funds available for
administration of the Act are adjusted for cost-of-living
increases in accordance with the Consumer Price Index for All
Urban Consumers published by the Department of Labor. If the
Secretary of the Interior does not use the authorized funds,
the remaining amount is to be reallocated among the States.
Section 201(b) explicitly identifies 12 categories of
appropriate administrative expenses. Among other things, these
include personnel costs of employees directly administering the
wildlife restoration program; costs associated with reviewing
State comprehensive plans and projects; certain overhead costs;
costs incurred in auditing State sport fish activities;
necessary training of Federal and State personnel administering
the Wallop-Breaux Act; foreign travel; and relocation expenses.
If the Secretary of the Interior determines that it is
necessary to spend funds on an administrative expense that is
not authorized, the Secretary is required to submit a letter to
the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works and the
House Committee on Resources describing the expense. The
Secretary of the Interior is required to wait 30 days before
spending the money in order to give the committees time to
review the appropriateness of the expenditure. In addition, the
Secretary of the Interior is no longer authorized to supplement
general appropriation funds with Dingell-Johnson Sport Fish
Restoration funds for any department or agency within the
Department of the Interior.
Section 201(d) directs the Inspector General of the
Department of the Interior to contract out a biennial audit on
the use of funds by the Secretary to administer the Pittman
Robertson Act. The audit must be performed by an entity that is
not associated with the Department of the Interior. The results
of the audit are to be provided to the Secretary of the
Interior, the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works
and the House Committee on Resources.
Sec. 202. Multistate Conservation Grant Program
Summary
Section 202 authorizes the Secretary to use $3,500,000 in
Dingell-Johnson Sport Fish Restoration funds to issue grants
for projects that benefit 26 States, a majority of the States
in a Fish and Wildlife Service Region, or the regional
association of State fish and game departments. The Secretary
is required to choose projects from a list submitted by the
International Association of Fish and Wildlife Service
Agencies. The Secretary is only authorized to award grants to a
State or group of States; the Fish and Wildlife Service for
purposes of carrying out the National Survey of Fishing,
Hunting, and Wildlife Associated Recreation; or nongovernmental
organizations.
When preparing the list of projects, the International
Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies must consult with
nongovernmental organizations representing conservation and
sportsmen organizations, and industries that support or promote
hunting, trapping, recreational shooting, bow hunting, or
archery. The International then submits a list of proposed
projects to the Chief of the Division of Federal Aid by October
1, of each fiscal year. The Chief of the Division of Federal
Aid may only select projects for funding from the list received
from the International. The Chief of the Division of Federal
Aid is also required to publish the list in the Federal
Register.
Any funds remaining at the end of the fiscal year are
required to be reapportioned to the States.
This section also provides a total of $2,100,000 in funding
for a variety of programs including: $200,000 each for the
Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission, the Gulf States
Marine Fisheries Commission, the Pacific States Marine
Fisheries Commission, the Great Lakes Fisheries Commission;
$400,000 for the Sport Fishing and Boating Partnership Council;
and $900,000 for the construction and renovation of pump out
stations and waste reception facilities, coastal wetlands
conservation grants under section 305 of the Coastal Wetlands
Planning, Protection and Restoration Act, boating
infrastructure grants under section 7404 of the Sportfishing
and Boating Safety Act of 1998, and the National Outreach and
Communications Programs established under section 8(d).
Discussion
In 1994, the Office of Federal Aid established an
Administrative Grant program that utilized administrative funds
to support national fish and wildlife projects that provided
collective benefits to at least 50 percent of the States.
Although the program was extremely popular, it was questionable
whether the Service had the authority to establish this type of
grant program. The Fish and Wildife Service abolished the
program in 1999 for this reason.
This bill authorizes a new multistate grant program that is
substantially similar to the old Administrative Grant program
and provides $3,500,000 for the new program. The Multistate
grant program is expected to fund projects that benefit a
majority of the States, such as the National Survey of Fishing,
Hunting, and Wildlife Associated Recreation, Hooked on Fishing-
Not on Drugs, and the National Outdoor Ethics Conference. This
grant program will serve an important function because these
projects, and others, are widely acknowledged to be necessary,
but in most cases cannot be funded in a cost-effective manner
by any one State.
The bill also recognizes that nongovernmental
organizations, not just the States and the Fish and Wildlife
Service, can play a valuable role in carrying out regional
wildlife conservation projects. At the same time, however, the
bill recognizes the legitimate concern of the user groups that
pay the excise taxes that fund these programs that Dingell-
Johnson Sports Fish Restoration dollars must not be used to
promote or encourage anti-hunting or anti-trapping activities.
For this reason, the bill expressly prohibits any
nongovernmental organization from using funds under the
Multistate Grant program to promote or encourage opposition to
hunting or trapping. Similarly, the bill precludes an
organization that itself promotes or encourages opposition to
regulated hunting or trapping from receiving funds under this
program. However, nothing in the bill precludes an organization
from establishing an affiliate that is physically and
financially separate and that does not oppose hunting or
trapping from applying for a grant under this program.
TITLE III-WILDLIFE AND SPORT FISH RESTORATION PROGRAMS
Sec. 302. Implementation Report
Summary
Section 302 requires the Secretary of the Interior to
submit a report to Congress 3 years after the date of enactment
on the implementation of the Act; disbursement of funds to the
States; justification of Administrative expenses; and the
findings of the audits. The report should also include
information on the personnel reduction that has resulted as a
result of compliance with the Act and recommendations on
legislative changes that are needed to administer the program
more effectively.
Discussion
The report to Congress will make the Fish and Wildlife
Service's administration of the Federal Aid program transparent
to Congress, and will aid Congress in conducting oversight to
prevent future mismanagement.
Regulatory Impact Statement
In compliance with section 11(b) of the Standing Rules of
the Senate, the committee makes the following evaluation of the
regulatory impact of the reported bill. The reported bill will
have no regulatory impact. This bill will not have any adverse
impact on the personal privacy of any individuals.
Mandates Assessment
In compliance with the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
(Public Law 104-4), the committee finds that H.R. 3671 would
impose no Federal intergovernmental unfunded mandates on State,
local, or tribal governments. All of the bill's directives are
imposed on Federal agencies. The bill does not directly impose
any private sector mandates.
Hearings
On July 19, 2000, the Senate Committee on Environment and
Public Works Subcommittee on Fisheries, Wildlife and Water held
an oversight hearing to receive testimony on the Fish and
Wildlife Service's administration of the Federal Aid program.
Witnesses who testified were: The Honorable Jamie Clark,
Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service; Mr. Barry Hill,
Associate Director for Energy, Resources, and Sciences, General
Accounting Office; Mr. Max Peterson, Executive Vice President,
International Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies; Ms.
Susan Lamson, Director of Conservation and Natural Resources,
National Rifle Association; Mr. Mike Nussman, Vice President,
American Sport Fishing Association; and Dr. Terry Riley,
Director of Conservation, Wildlife Management Institute.
Legislative History
On April 6, 2000, H.R. 3671, a bill to amend the Acts
popularly known as the Pittman-Robertson Wildlife Restoration
Act and the Dingell-Johnson Sports Fish Restoration Act was
referred to the Senate Committee on Environment and Public
Works. A hearing was held on this bill in the Subcommittee on
Fisheries, Wildlife and Water on July 19, 2000. The Committee
on Environment and Public Works held a business meeting to
consider this bill on September 21 and 28, 2000. Senator Smith
offered a manager's amendment in the nature of a substitute and
a second degree amendment consisting of technical amendments.
The manager's amendment and the second degree amendment were
adopted by voice vote on September 21, 2000. On September 28,
2000, H.R. 3671, as amended, was favorably reported out of the
committee by voice vote, with Senator Boxer recorded in
opposition.
Cost of Legislation
Section 403 of the Congressional Budget and Impoundment
Control Act requires that a statement of the cost of the
reported bill, prepared by the Congressional Budget Office, be
included in the report. That statement follows:
U.S. Congress,
Congressional Budget Office,
Washington, DC, October 4, 2000.
Hon. Robert C. Smith, Chairman,
Committee on Environment and Public Works,
U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Chairman: The Congressional Budget Office has prepared
the enclosed revised cost estimate for H.R. 3671, the Wildlife
and Sport Fish Restoration Programs Improvement Act of 2000.
This supercedes our estimate of October 3, 2000, our previous
estimate incorrectly stated that the legislation contained a
private-sector mandate; this estimate corrects that mistake.
If you wish further details on this estimate, we will be
pleased to provide them. The CBO staff contact is Deborah Reis,
who can be reached at 226-2860.
Sincerely,
Dan L. Crippen.
----------
Congressional Budget Office Cost Estimate
H.R. 3671, Wildlife and Sport Fish Restoration Programs, Improvement
Act of 2000, as ordered reported by the Senate Committee on
Environment and Public Works on September 28, 2000
CBO estimates that enacting H.R. 3671 would have no net
impact on the Federal budget. Because the Act could affect the
timing of outlays from direct spending authority, pay-as-you-go
procedures would apply. We estimate, however, that the net
impact on Federal spending would not be significant in any
year. H.R. 3671 contains no intergovernmental or private-sector
mandates as defined in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA)
and would impose no costs on State, local, or tribal
governments.
H.R. 3671 would amend the Federal Aid in Wildlife
Restoration Act and the Federal Aid in Sport Fish Restoration
Act to reduce the amounts that may be spent for administering
grants for fish and wildlife restoration. Specifically, for
each of the two grant programs carried out under these acts,
the legislation would limit spending for administrative
expenses to $9.5 million in 2001, and to that amount, adjusted
for inflation, for each year thereafter.
Under existing law, the amounts set aside for such expenses
are calculated as a percentage of total deposits to the two
funds each year. The annual deposits consist of excise taxes
(primarily on fishing and hunting equipment), import duties,
and interest earnings. All such amounts, including those used
for administration, are available without appropriation in the
year following deposit. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service,
which oversees both programs, allocates 8 percent annually to
administer the Federal aid-wildlife program ($17 million in
2000) and 6 percent to administer the sport fish program ($16
million in 2000). By capping administrative costs, the
legislation would reduce such costs in the future, however,
this savings would be offset by an equal amount of additional
grant expenditures.
H.R. 3671 also would create a new program for hunting
education and safety, to be funded with up to $7.5 million of
each year's revenues. In addition, it would set aside up to
$3.5 million from each of the two funds for multistate
conservation grants. These new authorized expenditures would
not increase the total amount of spending for fish and wildlife
restoration but rather would offset funding for other existing
grants.
On October 3, 2000, CBO transmitted a cost estimate for
H.R. 3671 as ordered reported by the Senate Committee on
Environment and Public Works on September 28, 2000. That
estimate incorrectly stated that the act contains a private-
sector mandate, as defined in UMRA. This revised estimate
corrects that mistake.
On March 23, 2000, CBO transmitted a cost estimate for H.R.
3671 as ordered reported by the House Committee on Resources on
March 15, 2000. The two versions of the legislation are
similar, and the estimated effects on the Federal budget are
the same. The House version of H.R. 3671 would, however, impose
a private-sector mandate on the International Association of
Fish and Wildlife Agencies. The cost of that mandate would not
be significant. The Senate version does not contain any
mandates.
The CBO staff contact for this estimate is Deborah Reis,
who can be reached at 226-2860. This estimate was approved by
Peter H. Fontaine, Deputy Assistant Director for Budget
Analysis.
Minority Views of Senator Boxer
H.R. 3671, the Wildlife and Sportfish Restoration Programs
Improvement Act of 2000, is a generally positive bill that will
likely improve the administration of the Federal Aid program.
While the Federal Aid program's reputation has suffered from
recent allegations regarding mismanagement, the program has a
long history of making important and substantial contributions
to the conservation of our nation's wildlife and wildlife
habitat. I strongly support efforts to improve and promote this
program.
I have had to withhold my support from H.R. 3671, however,
because it includes an egregious provision that will do nothing
to promote the success of the Federal Aid program, but that
will blatantly violate the First Amendment's guarantee of free
speech.
The provision that concerns me is part of the two
multistate conservation grant programs. These programs provide
grants to support projects that meet the purposes of the
Federal Aid program, but that benefit several States rather
than just a single State. To qualify for one of these grants, a
project must meet certain requirements and must be included on
a list of priority projects recommended by the International
Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies. The grant may not be
used for a project that promotes or encourages opposition to
regulated hunting, trapping, or fishing. Furthermore, the bill
requires that the applicant organization certify that the
organization itself does not in any way ``promote or encourage
opposition'' to regulated hunting, trapping, or fishing.
Therefore, if an organization wants to submit an
application for a perfectly worthy project, it is barred from
doing so if it advocates a position that could be interpreted
as opposition to regulated hunting, trapping, or fishing. For
example, an organization could not submit a grant to restore
habitat for migratory waterfowl if it has at any time advocated
for restrictions on the use of steel-jaw leghold traps. If a
pro-hunting organization submitted the identical grant proposal
for a project on migratory waterfowl, however, that
organization would be eligible for the Federal funds.
This provision is fundamentally offensive. It seeks to
punish, through the withholding of a Federal benefit,
organizations that oppose hunting, trapping, or fishing. In
other words, this provision punishes organizations because of
their beliefs and their related advocacy regarding important
matters of public policy.
By doing so, I believe that the provision violates the
First Amendment's protection of free speech. I understand that,
in 1991, a divided Supreme Court upheld a Congressional
restriction on the use of funds by family planning clinics,
based, in part, on the clinics' advocacy of abortion rights
(Rust v. Sullivan). In Rust v. Sullivan and other relevant
cases, the Court has found that the government has the right to
provide Federal funds for certain activities and prevent them
from being used for others. I am not arguing with the idea that
Federal Aid projects should be limited to activities that will
not undermine or oppose regulated hunting, fishing, or
trapping. In Rust v. Sullivan, however, the Court distinguished
that limitations on Federal grant eligibility do not violate
the First Amendment so long as they do not force a Federal
grant recipient to give up other activities that are funded
using non-Federal funds. This bill would do just that. It would
not only limit how an organization may use the Federal Aid
funds, but it would also seek to limit how the organization
uses any of its funds. I find this to be unacceptable.
Aside from questions of Constitutionality, the provision
suffers from being extraordinarily vague. An organization is
excluded from eligibility if it ``promotes or encourages
opposition to'' regulated hunting, trapping, or fishing. Does
this mean that an organization is disqualified because it has
taken a single position, in a letter to Congress, that could be
construed to oppose some form of hunting, trapping, or fishing?
What if the organization generally supports hunting, but
opposes a specific type of hunting? The language is
sufficiently vague to make it nearly impossible for a potential
applicant organization to interpret with any confidence.
Despite this lack of precision, the bill includes a provision
to penalize any organization that receives a grant, but is
later deemed to have been ineligible because of its opposition
to hunting, trapping, or fishing. The combination of vague
guidelines and subsequent undefined ``penalties'' for failure
to meet these guidelines is likely to prevent some
organizations from ever applying for these grants.
The First Amendment to the Constitution provides that
``Congress shall make no law . . . abridging the freedom of
speech.'' Without question, this right to free speech is one of
the defining features of our country. Indeed, it is a right
that many people have given their lives to defend. While it may
be worthwhile to pass legislation that improves management of
the Federal Program, it is certainly not worth doing so at the
expense of any American's First Amendment rights. Any
organization that intends to use Federal Aid dollars for
projects that promote the purposes of the Pittman-Robertson and
Wallop-Breaux Acts should be eligible for those Federal
dollars--regardless of what those organizations do, say, or
think in any other context.
For this reason, I will work aggressively to delete this
provision; and, if unsuccessful, will oppose the bill.
Changes in Existing Law
In compliance with section 12 of rule XXVI of the Standing
Rules of the Senate, changes in existing law made by the bill
as reported are shown as follows: Existing law proposed to be
omitted is enclosed in [black brackets], new matter is printed
in italic, existing law in which no change is proposed is shown
in roman:
----------
ACT OF SEPTEMBER 2, 1937
(Chapter 899; 50 Stat. 917 et seq.)
(Popularly known as the ``Federal Aid in Wildlife Restoration Act'' and
the ``Pittman-Robertson Wildlife Restoration Act'')
AN ACT To provide that the United States shall aid the States in
wildlife-restoration projects, and for other purposes.
* * * * * * *
[Sec. 4. (a) So much, not to exceed 8 per centum, of the
revenues (excluding interest accruing under section 3(b))
covered into said fund in each fiscal year as the Secretary of
the Interior may estimate to be necessary for his expenses in
the administration and execution of this Act and the Migratory
Bird Conservation Act shall be deducted for that purpose, and
such sum is authorized to be made available therefor until the
expiration of the next succeeding fiscal year, and within sixty
days after the close of such fiscal year the Secretary of the
Interior shall apportion such part thereof as remains
unexpended by him, if any, and make certificate thereof to the
Secretary of the Treasury and to the State fish and game
departments on the same basis and in the same manner as is
provided as to other amounts authorized by this Act to be
apportioned among the States for such current fiscal year. The
Secretary of the Interior, after making the aforesaid
deduction, shall apportion, except as provided in subsection
(b) of this section, the remainder of the revenue in said fund
for each fiscal year among the several States in the following
manner: One-half in the ratio which the area of each State
bears to the total area of all the States, and one-half in the
ratio which the number of paid hunting-license holders of each
State in the second fiscal year preceding the fiscal year for
which such apportionment is made, as certified to said
Secretary by the State fish and game departments, bears to the
total number of paid hunting-license holders of all the States.
Such apportionments shall be adjusted equitably so that no
State shall receive less than one-half of 1 per centum nor more
than 5 per centum of the total amount apportioned. The term
fiscal year as used in this Act shall be a period of twelve
consecutive months from October 1 through the succeeding
September 30, except that the period for enumeration of paid
hunting-license holders shall be a State's fiscal or license
year.]
SEC. 4. ALLOCATION AND APPORTIONMENT OF AVAILABLE AMOUNTS.
(a) Set-Aside for Administrative Expenses.--
(1) In general.--
(A) Set-aside.--For fiscal year 2001 and
each fiscal year thereafter, of the revenues
(excluding interest accruing under section
3(b)) covered into the fund for the fiscal
year, the Secretary of the Interior may use not
more than the available amount specified in
subparagraph (B) for the fiscal year for
administrative expenses incurred in
implementation of this Act, in accordance with
this subsection and section 9.
(B) Available amounts.--The available
amount referred to in subparagraph (A) is--
(i) for fiscal year 2001,
$9,500,000; and
(ii) for fiscal year 2002 and each
fiscal year thereafter, the sum of--
(I) the available amount
for the preceding fiscal year;
and
(II) the amount determined
by multiplying--
(aa) the available
amount for the
preceding fiscal year;
and
(bb) the change,
relative to the
preceding fiscal year,
in the Consumer Price
Index for All Urban
Consumers published by
the Department of
Labor.
(2) Period of availability; apportionment of
unobligated amounts.--
(A) Period of availability.--For each
fiscal year, the available amount under
paragraph (1) shall remain available for
obligation for use under that paragraph until
the end of the fiscal year.
(B) Apportionment of unobligated amounts.--
Not later than 60 days after the end of a
fiscal year, the Secretary of the Interior
shall apportion among the States any of the
available amount under paragraph (1) that
remains unobligated at the end of the fiscal
year, on the same basis and in the same manner
as other amounts made available under this Act
are apportioned among the States for the fiscal
year.
(b) Apportionment to States.--''; and
(3) in subsection (b) (as designated 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 available amount 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)] (c) One-half of the revenues accruing to the fund
under this Act each fiscal year (beginning with the fiscal year
1975) from any tax imposed on pistols, revolvers, bows, and
arrows shall be apportioned among the States in proportion to
the ratio that the population of each State bears to the
population of all the States: Provided, That each State shall
be apportioned not more than 3 per centum and not less than 1
per centum of such revenues and Guam, the Virgin Islands,
American Samoa, and the Northern Mariana Islands shall each be
apportioned one-sixth of 1 per centum of such revenues. For the
purpose of this subsection, population shall be determined on
the basis of the latest decennial census for which figures are
available, as certified by the Secretary of Commerce.
* * * * * * *
Sec. 8. (a) Maintenance of wildlife-restoration projects
established under the provisions of this Act shall be the duty
of the State in accordance with their respective laws.
Beginning July 1, 1945, the term ``wildlife-restoration
project'', as defined in section 2 of this Act, shall include
maintenance of completed projects. Notwithstanding any other
provisions of this Act, funds apportioned to a State under this
Act may be expended by the State for management (exclusive of
law enforcement and public relations) of wildlife areas and
resources.
(b) Each State may use the funds apportioned to it under
[section 4(b) of this Act] section 4(c) to pay up to 75 per
centum of the costs of a hunter safety program and the
construction, operation, and maintenance of public target
ranges, as a part of such program. The non-Federal share of
such costs may be derived from license fees paid by hunters,
but not from other Federal grant programs. The Secretary shall
issue not later than the 120th day after the effective date of
this subsection such regulations as he deems advisable relative
to the criteria for the establishment of hunter safety programs
and public target ranges under this subsection.
* * * * * * *
[Sec. 9. Out of the deductions set aside for administering
and executing this Act and the Migratory Bird Conservation Act,
the Secretary of Agriculture is authorized to employ such
assistants, clerks, and other persons in the city of Washington
and elsewhere, to be taken from the eligible lists of the Civil
Service; to rent or construct buildings outside of the city of
Washington; to purchase such supplies, materials, equipment,
office fixtures, and apparatus; and to incur such travel and
other expenses, including purchase, maintenance, and hire of
passenger-carrying motor vehicles, as he may deem necessary for
carrying out the purposes of this Act.]
SEC. 9. REQUIREMENTS AND RESTRICTIONS CONCERNING USE OF AMOUNTS FOR
ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENSES.
(a) Authorized Administrative Costs.--Except as provided in
subsection (b), the Secretary of the Interior may use available
amounts under section 4(a)(1) only for administrative expenses
that directly support the implementation of this Act,
consisting of--
(1) personnel costs of employees who directly
administer this Act on a full-time basis;
(2) personnel costs of employees who directly
administer this Act on a part-time basis for at least
20 hours each week, not to exceed the portion of those
costs incurred with respect to the work hours of an
employee during which the employee directly administers
this Act, as those hours are certified by the
supervisor of the employee;
(3) support costs directly associated with
personnel costs authorized under paragraphs (1) and
(2), excluding 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 the purposes of this Act;
(4) costs of determining under section 6(a) whether
State comprehensive plans and projects are substantial
in character and design;
(5) overhead costs, including the costs of general
administrative services, that are directly attributable
to administration of this Act and are 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) in the case of costs that are not
determinable under subparagraph (A), an amount
per full-time equivalent employee authorized
under paragraphs (1) and (2) that does not
exceed the amount charged or assessed for 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, every 5 years, 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;
(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 States, territories, and
Canada by personnel who--
(A) administer this Act on a full-time
basis for purposes directly related to
administration of State programs or projects;
or
(B) administer grants under section 6, 10,
or 11;
(10) costs of travel by personnel outside 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 at which the relocation expenses are incurred; and
(12) costs to audit, evaluate, approve, disapprove,
and advise concerning grants under section 6, 10, or
11.
(b) Reporting of Other Uses.--If the Secretary of the
Interior determines that available amounts under section
4(a)(1) should be used for an administrative expense other than
an administrative expense described in subsection (a), the
Secretary--
(1) shall submit to the Committee on Environment
and Public Works of the Senate and the Committee on
Resources of the House of Representatives a report
describing the administrative expense; and
(2) may use any such available amounts for the
administrative expense only after the end of the 30-day
period beginning on the date of submission of the
report under paragraph (1).
(c) Restriction on Use To Supplement General
Appropriations.--The Secretary of the Interior shall not use
available amounts under section 4(a)(1) to supplement the
funding of 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) In general.--The Inspector General of the
Department of the Interior shall procure the
performance of biennial audits, in accordance with
generally accepted accounting principles, of
expenditures and obligations of amounts used by the
Secretary of the Interior for administrative expenses
incurred in implementation of this Act.
(2) Auditor.--
(A) In general.--An audit under this
subsection shall be performed under a contract
that is awarded under competitive procedures
(as defined in section 4 of the Office of
Federal Procurement Policy Act (41 U.S.C. 403))
by a person or entity that is not associated in
any way with the Department of the Interior
(except by way of a contract for the
performance of an audit).
(B) Supervision of auditor.--The auditor
selected under subparagraph (A) 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 at which the findings are submitted
to the Inspector General of the Department of
the Interior.
(3) Report to congress.--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 audit
under this subsection.
SEC. 10. FIREARM AND BOW HUNTER EDUCATION AND SAFETY PROGRAM GRANTS.
(a) In General.--Of the revenues covered into the fund for
a fiscal year, $7,500,000 shall be apportioned among the States
in the manner specified in section 4(b) by the Secretary of the
Interior and used to make grants to the States to be used for--
(1) the enhancement of hunter education programs,
hunter and sporting firearm safety programs, and hunter
development programs;
(2) the enhancement of interstate coordination and
development of hunter education and shooting range
programs;
(3) the enhancement of bow hunter and archery
education, safety, and development programs; and
(4) the enhancement of construction or development
of firearm shooting ranges and archery ranges, and the
updating of 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 shall not
exceed 75 percent of the total cost of the activity.
(c) Period of Availability; Reapportionment.--
(1) Period of availability.--A grant under this
section shall remain available only for the fiscal year
for which the grant is made.
(2) Reapportionment.--At the end of the period of
availability under paragraph (1), the Secretary of the
Interior shall apportion any grant funds that remain
available among the States in the manner specified in
section 4(b) for use by the States in accordance with
this section.
SEC. 11. MULTISTATE CONSERVATION GRANT PROGRAM.
(a) In General.--
(1) Amount for grants.--Not more than $3,500,000 of
the revenues covered into the fund for a fiscal year
shall be available to the Secretary of the Interior for
making multistate conservation project grants in
accordance with this section.
(2) Period of availability; apportionment.--
(A) Period of availability.--A grant under
this subsection shall remain available only for
the fiscal year for which the grant is made and
the following fiscal year.
(B) Apportionment.--At the end of the
period of availability under subparagraph (A),
the Secretary of the Interior shall apportion
any grant funds that remain available among the
States in the manner specified in section 4(b)
for use by the States in the same manner as
funds apportioned under section 4(b).
(b) Selection of Projects.--
(1) States or entities to be benefited.--A project
shall not be eligible for a grant under this section
unless the project will benefit--
(A) at least 26 States;
(B) a majority of the States in a region of
the United States Fish and Wildlife Service; or
(C) a regional association of State fish
and game departments.
(2) Use of submitted priority list of projects.--
The Secretary of the Interior may award grants under
this section only for projects identified on a priority
list of wildlife restoration projects described in
paragraph (3).
(3) Priority list of projects.--A priority list
referred to in paragraph (2) is a priority list of
projects that the International Association of Fish and
Wildlife Agencies--
(A) prepares through a committee comprised
of the heads of State fish and game departments
(or their designees), in consultation with--
(i) nongovernmental organizations
that represent conservation
organizations;
(ii) sportsmen organizations; and
(iii) industries that support or
promote hunting, trapping, recreational
shooting, bow hunting, or archery;
(B) approves by vote of a majority of the
heads of State fish and game departments (or
their designees); and
(C) not later than October 1 of each fiscal
year, submits to the Chief of the Division of
Federal Aid.
(4) Publication.--The Chief of the Division of
Federal Aid shall publish in the Federal Register each
priority list submitted under paragraph (3)(C).
(c) Eligible Grantees.--
(1) In general.--The Secretary of the Interior may
make a grant under this section only to--
(A) a State or group of States;
(B) the United States Fish and Wildlife
Service for the purpose of carrying out the
National Survey of Fishing, Hunting, and
Wildlife-Associated Recreation; and
(C) subject to paragraph (2), a
nongovernmental organization.
(2) Nongovernmental organizations.--
(A) In general.--Any nongovernmental
organization that applies 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--
(i) does not promote or encourage
opposition to the regulated hunting or
trapping of wildlife; and
(ii) will use any funds awarded
under this section in compliance with
subsection (d).
(B) Penalties for certain activities.--Any
nongovernmental organization that is found to
promote or encourage opposition to the
regulated hunting or trapping of wildlife or
that does not use funds in compliance with
subsection (d) shall return all funds received
under this section and be subject to any other
penalties under law.
(d) Use of Grants.--A grant under this section shall not be
used for an activity, project, or program that promotes or
encourages opposition to the regulated hunting or trapping of
wildlife.
Sec. [10] 12. The Secretary of Agriculture \1\ is
authorized to make rules and regulations for carrying out the
provisions of this Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Reorganization Plan No. II of 1939, transferred functions of
the Secretary of Agriculture relating to conservation of wildlife,
game, and migratory birds to the Secretary of the Interior.
* * * * * * *
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
----------
ACT OF AUGUST 9, 1950
(Chapter 658; 64 Stat. 430 et seq.)
(Popularly known as the ``Federal Aid in Fish Restoration Act'', the
``Fish Restoration and Management Projects Act'', and the ``Dingell-
Johnson Sport Fish Restoration Act'')
AN ACT To provide that the United States shall aid the States in fish
restoration and management projects, and for other purposes.
* * * * * * *
Sec. 4. (a) * * *
* * * * * * *
[(d) Of the balance of each such annual appropriation
remaining after the distribution and use under subsections (a),
(b), and (c), respectively, so much, not to exceed 6 per centum
of such balance, as the Secretary of the Interior may estimate
to be necessary for his or her expenses in the conduct of
necessary investigations, administration, and the execution of
this Act, for an outreach and communications program and for
aiding in the formulation, adoption, or administration of any
compact between two or more States for the conservation and
management of migratory fishes in marine or freshwaters, shall
be deducted for that purpose, and such sum is authorized to be
made available until the expiration of the next succeeding
fiscal year. Of the sum available to the Secretary of the
Interior under this subsection for any fiscal year, up to
$2,500,000 may be used for the National Outreach and
Communications program under section 8(d) in addition to the
amount available for that program under subsection (c). No
funds available to the Secretary under this subsection may be
used to replace funding traditionally provided through general
appropriations, nor for any purposes except those purposes
authorized by this Act. The Secretary shall publish a detailed
accounting of the projects, programs, and activities funded
under this subsection annually in the Federal Register.]
(d) Set-Aside for Administrative Expenses.--
(1) In general.--
(A) Set-aside.--For fiscal year 2001 and
each fiscal year thereafter, of the balance of
each such annual appropriation remaining after
the distribution and use under subsections (a),
(b), and (c) and section 14, the Secretary of
the Interior may use not more than the
available amount specified in subparagraph (B)
for the fiscal year for administrative expenses
incurred in implementation of this Act, in
accordance with this subsection and section 9.
(B) Available amounts.--The available
amount referred to in subparagraph (A) is--
(i) for fiscal year 2001,
$9,500,000; and
(ii) for fiscal year 2002 and each
fiscal year thereafter, the sum of--
(I) the available amount
for the preceding fiscal year;
and
(II) the amount determined
by multiplying--
(aa) the available
amount for the
preceding fiscal year;
and
(bb) the change,
relative to the
preceding fiscal year,
in the Consumer Price
Index for All Urban
Consumers published by
the Department of
Labor.
(2) Period of availability; apportionment of
unobligated amounts.--
(A) Period of availability.--For each
fiscal year, the available amount under
paragraph (1) shall remain available for
obligation for use under that paragraph until
the end of the fiscal year.
(B) Apportionment of unobligated amounts.--
Not later than 60 days after the end of a
fiscal year, the Secretary of the Interior
shall apportion among the States any of the
available amount under paragraph (1) that
remains unobligated at the end of the fiscal
year, on the same basis and in the same manner
as other amounts made available under this Act
are apportioned among the States under
subsection (e) for the fiscal year.
(e) The Secretary of the Interior, after the distribution,
transfer, use, and deduction under subsections (a), (b), (c),
and (d), respectively and after deducting amounts used for
grants under section 14, shall apportion the remainder of each
such annual appropriation among the several States in the
following manner: 40 per centum in the ratio which the area of
each State including coastal and Great Lakes waters (as
determined by the Secretary of the Interior) bears to the total
area of all the States, and 60 per centum in the ratio which
the number of persons holding paid licenses to fish for sport
or recreation in the State in the second fiscal year preceding
the fiscal year for which such apportionment is made, as
certified to said Secretary by the State fish and game
departments, bears to the number of such persons in all the
States. Such apportionments shall be adjusted equitably so that
no State shall receive less than 1 per centum nor more than 5
per centum of the total amount apportioned. Where the
apportionment to any State under this section is less than
$4,500 annually, the Secretary of the Interior may allocate not
more than $4,500 of said appropriation to said State to carry
out the purposes of this Act when said State certifies to the
Secretary of the Interior that it has set aside not less than
$1,500 from its fish-and-game funds or has made, through its
legislature, an appropriation in this amount for said purposes.
* * * * * * *
[Sec. 9. Out of the deductions set aside for administering
and executing this Act the Secretary of the Interior is
authorized to employ such assistants, clerks, and other persons
in the District of Columbia and elsewhere, to be taken from the
eligible lists of the civil service; to rent or construct
buildings outside of the District of Columbia; to purchase such
supplies, materials, equipment, office fixtures, and apparatus;
and to incur such travel and other expenses, including
publication of technical and administrative reports, purchase,
maintenance, and hire of passenger-carrying motor vehicles, as
he may deem necessary for carrying out the provisions of this
Act.]
SEC. 9. REQUIREMENTS AND RESTRICTIONS CONCERNING USE OF AMOUNTS FOR
ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENSES.
(a) Authorized Administrative Costs.--Except as provided in
subsection (b), the Secretary of the Interior may use available
amounts under section 4(d) only for administrative expenses
that directly support the implementation of this Act,
consisting of--
(1) personnel costs of employees who directly
administer this Act on a full-time basis;
(2) personnel costs of employees who directly
administer this Act on a part-time basis for at least
20 hours each week, not to exceed the portion of those
costs incurred with respect to the work hours of an
employee during which the employee directly administers
this Act, as those hours are certified by the
supervisor of the employee;
(3) support costs directly associated with
personnel costs authorized under paragraphs (1) and
(2), excluding 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 the purposes of this Act;
(4) costs of determining under section 6(a) whether
State comprehensive plans and projects are substantial
in character and design;
(5) overhead costs, including the costs of general
administrative services, that are directly attributable
to administration of this Act and are 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) in the case of costs that are not
determinable under subparagraph (A), an amount
per full-time equivalent employee authorized
under paragraphs (1) and (2) that does not
exceed the amount charged or assessed for 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, every 5 years, 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;
(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 States, territories, and
Canada by personnel who--
(A) administer this Act on a full-time
basis for purposes directly related to
administration of State programs or projects;
or
(B) administer grants under section 6 or
14;
(10) costs of travel by personnel outside 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 at which the relocation expenses are incurred; and
(12) costs to audit, evaluate, approve, disapprove,
and advise concerning grants under section 6 or 14.
(b) Reporting of Other Uses.--If the Secretary of the
Interior determines that available amounts under section 4(d)
should be used for an administrative expense other than an
administrative expense described in subsection (a), the
Secretary--
(1) shall submit to the Committee on Environment
and Public Works of the Senate and the Committee on
Resources of the House of Representatives a report
describing the administrative expense; and
(2) may use any such available amounts for the
administrative expense only after the end of the 30-day
period beginning on the date of submission of the
report under paragraph (1).
(c) Restriction on Use To Supplement General
Appropriations.--The Secretary of the Interior shall not use
available amounts under section 4(d) to supplement the funding
of 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) In general.--The Inspector General of the
Department of the Interior shall procure the
performance of biennial audits, in accordance with
generally accepted accounting principles, of
expenditures and obligations of amounts used by the
Secretary of the Interior for administrative expenses
incurred in implementation of this Act.
(2) Auditor.--
(A) In general.--An audit under this
subsection shall be performed under a contract
that is awarded under competitive procedures
(as defined in section 4 of the Office of
Federal Procurement Policy Act (41 U.S.C. 403))
by a person or entity that is not associated in
any way with the Department of the Interior
(except by way of a contract for the
performance of an audit).
(B) Supervision of auditor.--The auditor
selected under subparagraph (A) 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 at which the findings are submitted
to the Inspector General of the Department of
the Interior.
(3) Report to congress.--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 audit
under this subsection.
* * * * * * *
[Sec. 13. The effective date of this Act shall be July 1,
1950.]
SEC. 14. MULTISTATE CONSERVATION GRANT PROGRAM.
(a) In General.--
(1) Amount for grants.--Of the balance of each
annual appropriation made under section 3 remaining
after the distribution and use under subsections (a),
(b), and (c) of section 4 in a fiscal year, not more
than $3,500,000 shall be available to the Secretary of
the Interior for making multistate conservation project
grants in accordance with this section.
(2) Period of availability; apportionment.--
(A) Period of availability.--A grant under
this subsection shall remain available only for
the fiscal year for which the grant is made and
the following fiscal year.
(B) Apportionment.--At the end of the
period of availability under subparagraph (A),
the Secretary of the Interior shall apportion
any grant funds that remain available among the
States in the manner specified in section 4(e)
for use by the States in the same manner as
funds apportioned under section 4(e).
(b) Selection of Projects.--
(1) States or entities to be benefited.--A project
shall not be eligible for a grant under this section
unless the project will benefit--
(A) at least 26 States;
(B) a majority of the States in a region of
the United States Fish and Wildlife Service; or
(C) a regional association of State fish
and game departments.
(2) Use of submitted priority list of projects.--
The Secretary of the Interior may award grants under
this section only for projects identified on a priority
list of sport fish restoration projects described in
paragraph (3).
(3) Priority list of projects.--A priority list
referred to in paragraph (2) is a priority list of
projects that the International Association of Fish and
Wildlife Agencies--
(A) prepares through a committee comprised
of the heads of State fish and game departments
(or their designees), in consultation with--
(i) nongovernmental organizations
that represent conservation
organizations;
(ii) sportsmen organizations; and
(iii) industries that fund the
sport fish restoration programs under
this Act;
(B) approves by vote of a majority of the
heads of State fish and game departments (or
their designees); and
(C) not later than October 1 of each fiscal
year, submits to the Chief of the Division of
Federal Aid.
(4) Publication.--The Chief of the Division of
Federal Aid shall publish in the Federal Register each
priority list submitted under paragraph (3)(C).
(c) Eligible Grantees.--
(1) In general.--The Secretary of the Interior may
make a grant under this section only to--
(A) a State or group of States;
(B) the United States Fish and Wildlife
Service for the purpose of carrying out the
National Survey of Fishing, Hunting, and
Wildlife-Associated Recreation; and
(C) subject to paragraph (2), a
nongovernmental organization.
(2) Nongovernmental organizations.--
(A) In general.--Any nongovernmental
organization that applies 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--
(i) does not promote or encourage
opposition to the regulated taking of
fish; and
(ii) will use any funds awarded
under this section in compliance with
subsection (d).
(B) Penalties for certain activities.--Any
nongovernmental organization that is found to
promote or encourage opposition to the
regulated taking of fish or that does not use
funds in compliance with subsection (d) shall
return all funds received under this section
and be subject to any other penalties under
law.
(d) Use of Grants.--A grant under this section shall not be
used for an activity, project, or program that promotes or
encourages opposition to the regulated taking of fish.
(e) Funding for Other Activities.--Of the balance of each
annual appropriation made under section 3 remaining after the
distribution and use under subsections (a), (b), and (c) of
section 4 for each fiscal year and after deducting amounts used
for grants under subsection (a), $2,100,000 shall be made
available for--
(1) the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries
Commission;
(2) the Gulf States Marine Fisheries Commission;
(3) the Pacific States Marine Fisheries Commission;
(4) the Great Lakes Fisheries Commission;
(5) the Sport Fishing and Boating Partnership
Council established by the United States Fish and
Wildlife Service;
(6) construction and renovation of pumpout stations
and waste reception facilities under the Clean Vessel
Act of 1992 (33 U.S.C. 1322 note; subtitle F of title V
of Public Law 102-587);
(7) coastal wetlands conservation grants under
section 305 of the Coastal Wetlands Planning,
Protection and Restoration Act (16 U.S.C. 3954);
(8) boating infrastructure grants under section
7404 of the Sportfishing and Boating Safety Act of 1998
(16 U.S.C. 777g-1); and
(9) the National Outreach and Communications
Program established under section 8(d).
* * * * * * *
----------
TITLE 26--U.S. CODE--INTERNAL REVENUE CODE
* * * * * * *
Sec. 9504. Aquatic Resources Trust Fund
(a) Creation of Trust Fund--
(1) In general.--There is hereby established in the
Treasury of the United States a trust fund to be known as the
``Aquatic Resources Trust Fund''.
(2) Accounts in Trust Fund The Aquatic Resources Trust Fund
shall consist of--
(A) a Sport Fish Restoration Account, and
(B) a Boat Safety Account.
Each such Account shall consist of such amounts as may be
appropriated, credited, or paid to it as provided in this
section, section 9503(c)(4), section 9503(c)(5), or section
9602(b).
(b) Sport Fish Restoration Account--
(1) Transfer of certain taxes to account.--There is hereby
appropriated to the Sport Fish Restoration Account amounts
equivalent to the following amounts received in the Treasury on
or after October 1, 1984--
(A) the taxes imposed by section 4161(a) (relating
to sport fishing equipment), and
(B) the import duties imposed on fishing tackle
under heading 9507 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of
the United States (19 U.S.C. 1202) and on yachts and
pleasure craft under chapter 89 of the Harmonized
Tariff Schedule of the United States.
(2) Expenditures from account.--Amounts in the Sport Fish
Restoration Account shall be available, as provided by
appropriation Acts, for making expenditures--
(A) to carry out the purposes of the Act entitled
''An Act to provide that the United States shall aid
the States in fish restoration and management projects,
and for other purposes'', approved August 9, 1950 [(as
in effect on the date of the enactment of the TEA 21
Restoration Act)] (as in effect on the date of
enactment of the Wildlife and Sport Fish Restoration
Programs Improvement Act of 2000),
(B) to carry out the purposes of section 7404(d) of
the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (as
in effect on the date of the enactment of the TEA 21
Restoration Act), and
(C) to carry out the purposes of the Coastal
Wetlands Planning, Protection and Restoration Act (as
in effect on the date of the enactment of the TEA 21
Restoration Act).
Amounts transferred to such account under section
9503(c)(5) may be used only for making expenditures described
in subparagraph (B) of this paragraph.
* * * * * * *
