79–010

Calendar No. 945

106TH CONGRESS REPORT

2d Session " ! SENATE 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

REPORT

[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 PittmanRobertson 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 pro-
2

grams 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 PittmanRobertson 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 accept-
3

able 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 PittmanRobertson and Wallop-Breaux programs. However, the PittmanRobertson 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 con-
4

servation 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 PittmanRobertson 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.
5

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 Re-
6

sources 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. Con-
7

cerns 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.
8

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 deter-
9

mines 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
10

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 rec-
11

ommendations 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 amend-
12

ed, 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.
13

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 edu- cation 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.
14

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.
15

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 PittmanRobertson 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.
16

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 øblack 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 ‘‘PittmanRobertson Wildlife Restoration Act’’)

AN ACT To provide that the United States shall aid the States in wildliferestoration projects, and for other purposes.

* * * * * * *

øSEC. 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 onehalf 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.—
17

(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 UNOBLI- GATED 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.

ø(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, popu-
18

lation 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 øsection 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.

* * * * * * *

øSEC. 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
19

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 fulltime 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).
20

(c) RESTRICTION ON USE TO SUPPLEMENT GENERAL APPROPRIA- TIONS.—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.—
21

(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.
22

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.

(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. ø10¿ 12. The Secretary of Agriculture 1 is authorized to

make rules and regulations for carrying out the provisions of this

Act.

* * * * * * *

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) * * *

* * * * * * *
23

ø(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 Sec-
24

retary 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.

* * * * * * *

øSEC. 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,
25

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 fulltime 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—
26

(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.

* * * * * * *

øSEC. 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.—
27

(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
28

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.
29

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 ø(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.

* * * * * * *

Æ