Report text available as:

  • TXT
  • PDF   (PDF provides a complete and accurate display of this text.) Tip ?

106th Congress                                                   Report
                        HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
 2d Session                                                     106-554

======================================================================



 
  WILDLIFE AND SPORT FISH RESTORATION PROGRAMS IMPROVEMENT ACT OF 2000

                                _______
                                

 March 30, 2000.--Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the 
              State of the Union and ordered to be printed

                                _______
                                

  Mr. Young of Alaska, from the Committee on Resources, submitted the 
                               following

                              R E P O R T

                             together with

                            ADDITIONAL VIEWS

                        [To accompany H.R. 3671]

      [Including cost estimate of the Congressional Budget Office]

  The Committee on Resources, to whom was referred the bill 
(H.R. 3671) to amend the Acts popularly known as the Pittman-
Robertson Wildlife Restoration Act and the Dingell-Johnson 
Sport Fish Restoration Act to enhance the funds available for 
grants to States for fish and wildlife conservation projects 
and increase opportunities for recreational hunting, bow 
hunting, trapping, archery, and fishing, by eliminating 
opportunities for waste, fraud, abuse, maladministration, and 
unauthorized expenditures for administration and execution of 
those Acts, and for other purposes, having considered the same, 
report favorably thereon with an amendment and recommend that 
the bill as amended do pass.
  The amendment is as follows:
  Strike out all after the enacting clause and insert in lieu 
thereof the following:

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

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

SEC. 2. DEFINITIONS.

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

                     TITLE I--WILDLIFE RESTORATION

SEC. 101. EXPENDITURES FOR ADMINISTRATION.

  (a) Annual Set-Aside for Administration.--Section 4 of the Wildlife 
Restoration Act (16 U.S.C. 669c) is amended--
          (1) by redesignating subsection (b) as subsection (c);
          (2) by amending so much as precedes the second sentence of 
        subsection (a) to read as follows:
          ``allocation and apportionment of available amounts
  ``Sec. 4. (a) Set-Aside for Administration.--(1) Of the revenues 
(excluding interest accruing under section 3(b)) covered into the fund 
in each fiscal year, up to $5,000,000 may be used by the Secretary for 
expenses to administer this Act, in accordance with this subsection and 
section 9 in each of the fiscal years 2001, 2002, and 2003. Of the 
revenues (excluding interest accruing under section 3(b)) covered into 
the fund in each fiscal year, beginning in fiscal year 2004, such 
amount, adjusted annually to reflect the changes in the Consumer Price 
Index, not to exceed $7,000,000, may be used by the Secretary for 
expenses to administer this Act, in accordance with this subsection and 
section 9.
  ``(2)(A) The amount authorized to be used by the Secretary under 
paragraph (1) each fiscal year shall remain available for obligation 
for such use until the expiration of that fiscal year. Within 60 days 
after that fiscal year, the Secretary shall apportion among the States 
any of the amount that remains unobligated at the end of the fiscal 
year, on the same basis and in the same manner as other amounts 
authorized by this Act are apportioned among the States for the fiscal 
year in which the apportionment is made.
  ``(B) Within 30 days after the end of each fiscal year, the Secretary 
shall--
          ``(i) certify in writing to the Secretary of the Treasury and 
        to each State fish and game department--
                  ``(I) the amount apportioned under subparagraph (A) 
                to each State in the most recent apportionment under 
                that subparagraph; and
                  ``(II) amounts obligated by the Secretary during the 
                fiscal year for administration of this Act; and
          ``(ii) publish in the Federal Register the amounts so 
        certified.
  ``(b) Apportionment to States.--''; and
          (3) in subsection (b), as designated by the amendment made by 
        paragraph (2), by striking ``after making the aforesaid 
        deduction, shall apportion, except as provided in subsection 
        (b) of this section,'' and inserting ``after deducting the 
        amount authorized to be used under subsection (a), the amount 
        apportioned under subsection (c), any amount apportioned under 
        section 8A, and amounts provided as grants under sections 10 
        and 11, shall apportion''.
  (b) Requirements and Restrictions Regarding Use of Amounts for 
Administration.--Section 9 of the Wildlife Restoration Act (16 U.S.C. 
669h) is amended to read as follows:
     ``requirements and restrictions regarding use of amounts for 
                             administration
  ``Sec. 9. (a) Authorized Administrative Costs.--The Secretary may use 
amounts under section 4(a)(1) only for administration expenses that 
directly support the implementation of this Act and that consist of any 
of the following:
          ``(1) Personnel costs of any employee who directly 
        administers this Act on a full-time basis.
          ``(2) Personnel costs of any employee who directly 
        administers this Act on a part-time basis for at least 20 hours 
        each week, not to exceed the portion of such costs incurred 
        with respect to the work hours of such employee during which the 
        employee directly administers this Act, as such hours are 
        certified by the supervisor of the employee.
          ``(3) Support costs directly associated with personnel costs 
        authorized under paragraphs (1) and (2) of this subsection not 
        including costs associated with staffing and operation of 
        regional offices of the United States Fish and Wildlife Service 
        and the Department of the Interior, other than for purposes of 
        this Act.
          ``(4) Costs to evaluate, approve, disapprove, and advise 
        concerning comprehensive fish and wildlife resource management 
        plans under section 6(a)(1) and wildlife restoration projects 
        under section 6(a)(2).
          ``(5) Overhead costs, including general administrative 
        services, that are directly attributable to administration of 
        this Act based on--
                  ``(A) actual costs, as determined by a direct cost 
                allocation methodology approved by the Director of the 
                Office of Management and Budget for use by Federal 
                agencies; and
                  ``(B) for those costs not determinable pursuant to 
                subparagraph (A), an amount per full-time equivalent 
                employee authorized pursuant to paragraphs (1) and (2) 
                that does not exceed the amount charged or assessed for 
                such costs per full-time equivalent employee for any 
                other division or program of the United States Fish and 
                Wildlife Service.
          ``(6) Costs incurred in auditing the wildlife and sportfish 
        activities of each State fish and game department and the use 
        of funds under section 6 by each State fish and game department 
        every 5 years.
          ``(7) Costs of audits under subsection (d).
          ``(8) Costs of necessary training of Federal and State full-
        time personnel who administer this Act to improve 
        administration of this Act.
          ``(9) Costs of travel to the States, territories, and Canada 
        by personnel who administer this Act on a full-time basis for 
        purposes directly related to administration of State programs 
        or projects, or who administer grants under section 6, section 
        10, or section 11.
          ``(10) Costs of travel outside of the United States (except 
        travel to Canada) that relates directly to administration of 
        this Act and that is approved directly by the Assistant 
        Secretary for Fish and Wildlife and Parks.
          ``(11) Relocation expenses for personnel who, after 
        relocation, will administer this Act on a full-time basis for 
        at least 1 year, as certified by the Director of the United 
        States Fish and Wildlife Service at the time such relocation 
        expenses are incurred.
          ``(12) Costs to audit, evaluate, approve, disapprove, and 
        advise concerning grants under section 6, section 10, or 
        section 11.
  ``(b) Unauthorized Costs.--Use of funds for a cost to administer this 
Act shall not be authorized because the cost is not expressly 
prohibited by this Act.
  ``(c) Restriction on Use To Supplement General Appropriations.--The 
Secretary may not use amounts under section 4(a)(1) to supplement any 
function for which general appropriations are made for the United 
States Fish and Wildlife Service or any other entity of the Department 
of the Interior.
  ``(d) Audit Requirement.--(1) The Inspector General of the Department 
of the Interior shall procure the conduct of biennial audits, in 
accordance with generally accepted accounting principles, of 
expenditures of amounts used by the Secretary for administration of 
this Act.
  ``(2) Audits under this subsection shall be performed under contracts 
that are awarded under competitive procedures (as that term is defined 
in section 4 of the Office of Federal Procurement Policy Act (41 U.S.C. 
403)), by a person that is not associated in any way with the 
Department of the Interior.
  ``(3) The auditor selected pursuant to paragraph (1) shall report to, 
and be supervised by, the Inspector General of the Department of the 
Interior, except that the auditor shall submit a copy of the biennial 
audit findings to the Secretary at the time such findings are submitted 
to the Inspector General of the Department of the Interior.
  ``(4) The Inspector General of the Department of the Interior shall 
promptly report to the Committee on Resources of the House of 
Representatives and the Committee on Environment and Public Works of 
the Senate on the results of each such audit.
  ``(e) Certification by Secretary.--(1) The Secretary shall within 3 
months after each fiscal year certify in writing to the Committee on 
Resources of the House of Representatives and the Committee on 
Environment and Public Works of the Senate the following for the fiscal 
year:
          ``(A) The amount of funds used under section 4(a)(1) and a 
        breakdown of categories for which such funds were expended.
          ``(B) The amount of funds apportioned to States under section 
        4(a)(2).
          ``(C) The results of the audits performed pursuant to 
        subsection (d).
          ``(D) That all funds expended under section 4(a)(1) were 
        necessary for administration of this Act.
          ``(E) The Secretary, the Assistant Secretary for Fish and 
        Wildlife and Parks, the Director of the United States Fish and 
        Wildlife Service, and the Assistant Director for Wildlife and 
        Sport Fish Restoration Programs each properly discharged their 
        duties under this Act.
  ``(2) The Secretary may not delegate the responsibility to make 
certifications under paragraph (1) except to the Assistant Secretary 
for Fish and Wildlife and Parks.
  ``(3) Within 60 days after the start of each fiscal year, the 
Assistant Director for Wildlife and Sport Fish Restoration Programs 
shall provide to the Committee on Resources of the House of 
Representatives and the Committee on Environment and Public Works of 
the Senate the following for the fiscal year:
          ``(A) The amount of funds that will be expended in the fiscal 
        year under section 4(a)(1) and a breakdown of categories for 
        which such funds will be expended.
          ``(B) A description of how the funds to be expended are 
        necessary for administration of this Act.
  ``(4) The Secretary shall promptly publish in the Federal Register 
each certification under this subsection.
  ``(f) Certification by Assistant Director for Wildlife and Sport Fish 
Restoration Programs.--Within 1 month after the end of each fiscal 
year, the Assistant Director for Wildlife and Sport Fish Restoration 
Programs shall--
          ``(1) certify that--
                  ``(A) all amounts expended in that fiscal year to 
                administer this Act in agency headquarters and in 
                regional offices of the United State Fish and Wildlife 
                Service were used in accordance with this Act; and
                  ``(B) all such expenditures were necessary to 
                administer this Act; and
          ``(2) distribute such certifications to each State fish and 
        game department.''.

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

  The Wildlife Restoration Act is amended by redesignating section 10 
as section 12, and by inserting after section 9 the following:
      ``firearm and bow hunter education and safety program grants
  ``Sec. 10. (a) In General.--Of the revenues covered into the fund in 
each fiscal year, $15,000,000, less the amount used under section 4(a) 
and the amount granted under section 11(a)(1), shall be apportioned 
among the States in the manner specified in section 4(b) by the 
Secretary for the following:
          ``(1) Grants to States for the enhancement of hunter 
        education programs, hunter and sporting firearm safety 
        programs, and hunter development programs.
          ``(2) Grants for the enhancement of interstate coordination 
        and development of hunter education programs.
          ``(3) Grants to States for the enhancement of bow hunter and 
        archery education, safety, and development programs.
          ``(4) Grants to States for the enhancement of construction or 
        enhancement of firearm shooting ranges and archery ranges, and 
        updating safety features of firearm shooting ranges and archery 
        ranges.
  ``(b) Cost-Sharing.--The Federal share of the cost of any activity 
carried out with a grant under this section may not exceed 75 percent 
of the total cost of the activity and the remainder of the cost shall 
come from a non-Federal source.
  ``(c) Period of Availability; Reapportionment.--Amounts available 
under this subsection shall remain available for 1 fiscal year, after 
which all unobligated balances shall be apportioned among the States in 
the manner specified in section 4(b).''.

SEC. 103. MULTI-STATE CONSERVATION GRANT PROGRAM.

  The Wildlife Restoration Act is further amended by inserting after 
section 10 the following:
                ``multi-state conservation grant program
  ``Sec. 11. (a) In General.--(1) Up to $2,500,000 of the revenues 
covered into the fund each fiscal year shall be available to the 
Secretary for making multi-State conservation grants in accordance with 
this section.
  ``(2) Amounts available under this subsection shall remain available 
for two fiscal years, after which all unobligated balances shall be 
apportioned in the manner specified in section 4(b).
  ``(b) Selection of Projects.--(1) A project shall not be eligible for 
a grant under this section unless it will benefit at least 26 States, a 
majority of the States in a region of the United States Fish and 
Wildlife Service, or a regional association of State fish and game 
departments.
  ``(2) The Secretary may award grants under this section based only on 
a priority list of wildlife restoration projects prepared and submitted 
by State fish and game departments acting through the International 
Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies each fiscal year in 
accordance with paragraph (3).
  ``(3)(A) The International Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies 
shall--
          ``(i) prepare each priority list through a committee 
        comprised of the heads of State fish and game departments (or 
        their designees);
          ``(ii) approve each priority list by a majority of the heads 
        of all State fish and game departments (or their designees); 
        and
          ``(iii) submit each priority list by not later than October 1 
        of each fiscal year to the Assistant Director for Wildlife and 
        Sport Fish Restoration Programs, who shall accept such list on 
        behalf of the Secretary.
  ``(B) In preparing any priority list under this paragraph, the 
International Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies shall consult 
with nongovernmental organizations that represent conservation 
organizations, sportsmen organizations, and industries that support or 
promote hunting, trapping, recreational shooting, bow hunting, or 
archery.
  ``(4) The Assistant Director for Wildlife and Sport Fish Restoration 
Programs shall publish in the Federal Register each priority list 
submitted under this subsection.
  ``(c) Eligible Grantees.--(1) The Secretary may make a grant under 
this section only to--
          ``(A) a State or group of States; or
          ``(B) subject to paragraph (2), a nongovernmental 
        organization.
  ``(2) Any nongovernmental organization applying for a grant under 
this section shall submit with the application to the International 
Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies a certification that the 
organization does not promote or encourage opposition to regulated 
hunting or trapping of regulated wildlife, and will use any funds 
awarded pursuant to this section in compliance with subsection (d).
  ``(3) Any nongovernmental organization that is found to promote or 
encourage opposition to regulated hunting or trapping of regulated 
wildlife or does not use funds in compliance with subsection (d) shall 
return all funds received and be subject to any other penalties under 
law.
  ``(d) Use of Grants.--Amounts provided as a grant under this section 
may not be used for education, activities, projects, or programs that 
promote or encourage opposition to regulated hunting or trapping of 
regulated wildlife.
  ``(e) Clarification.--No activities undertaken by the personnel of 
State fish and game departments under this section shall constitute 
advice or recommendations for 1 or more agencies or officers of the 
Federal Government.''.

SEC. 104. MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS.

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

                    TITLE II--SPORT FISH RESTORATION

SEC. 201. EXPENDITURES FOR ADMINISTRATION.

  (a) Annual Set-Aside for Administration.--Section 4(d) of the Sport 
Fish Restoration Act (16 U.S.C. 777c(d)) is amended to read as follows:
  ``(d)(1) Of the balance of each such annual appropriation remaining 
after the distribution and use under subsections (a), (b), and (c) of 
this section and section 14, up to $5,000,000 may be used by the 
Secretary of the Interior for expenses in accordance with this 
subsection and section 9 in each of the fiscal years 2001, 2002, and 
2003. Of the balance of each such annual appropriation remaining after 
the distribution and use under subsections (a), (b), and (c) of this 
section and section 14, beginning in fiscal year 2004, such amount, 
adjusted annually to reflect the changes in the Consumer Price Index, 
not to exceed $7,000,000, may be used by the Secretary of the Interior 
for expenses in accordance with this subsection and section 9.
  ``(2) The amount authorized to be used by the Secretary under 
paragraph (1) each fiscal year shall remain available for obligation 
for such use until the expiration of that fiscal year. Within 60 days 
after the end of that fiscal year, the Secretary shall apportion any of 
the amount that remains unobligated at the end of the fiscal year on 
the same basis and in the same manner as other amounts authorized by 
this Act are apportioned among the States under section 4(e) for the 
fiscal year in which the apportionment is made.''.
  (b) Requirements and Restrictions Regarding Use of Amounts for 
Administration.--Section 9 of the Sport Fish Restoration Act (16 U.S.C. 
777h) is amended to read as follows:
     ``requirements and restrictions regarding use of amounts for 
                             administration
  ``Sec. 9. (a) Authorized Administration Costs.--The Secretary of the 
Interior may use amounts under section 4(d) only for administration 
expenses that directly support the implementation of this Act and that 
consist of any of the following:
          ``(1) Personnel costs of any employee who directly 
        administers this Act on a full-time basis.
          ``(2) Personnel costs of any employee who directly 
        administers this Act on a part-time basis for at least 20 hours 
        each week, not to exceed the portion of such costs incurred 
        with respect to the work hours of such employee during which 
        the employee directly administers this Act, as such hours are 
        certified by the supervisor of the employee.
          ``(3) Support costs directly associated with personnel costs 
        authorized under paragraphs (1) and (2).
          ``(4) Costs to evaluate, approve, disapprove, and advise 
        concerning comprehensive fish and wildlife resource management 
        plans under section 6(a)(1) and fish restoration and management 
        projects under section 6(a)(2).
          ``(5) Overhead costs, including general administrative 
        services, that are directly attributable to administration of 
        this Act based on--
                  ``(A) actual costs, as determined by a direct cost 
                allocation methodology approved by the Director of the 
                Office of Management and Budget for use by Federal 
                agencies; and
                  ``(B) for those costs not determinable pursuant to 
                subparagraph (A), an amount per full-time equivalent 
                employee authorized pursuant to paragraphs (1) and (2) 
                that does not exceed the amount charged or assessed for 
                such costs per full-time equivalent employee for any 
                other division or program of the United States Fish and 
                Wildlife Service.
          ``(6) Costs incurred in auditing the wildlife and sport fish 
        activities of each State fish and game department and the use 
        of funds under section 6 by each State fish and game department 
        every 5 years.
          ``(7) Costs of audits under subsection (d).
          ``(8) Costs of necessary training of Federal and State full-
        time personnel who administer this Act to improve 
        administration of this Act.
          ``(9) Costs of travel to the States, territories, and Canada 
        by personnel who administer this Act on a full-time basis for 
        purposes directly related to administration of State programs 
        or projects, or who administer grants under section 6 or 
        section 14.
          ``(10) Costs of travel outside of the United States (except 
        travel to Canada) that relates to administration of this Act 
        and that is approved directly by the Assistant Secretary for 
        Fish and Wildlife and Parks.
          ``(11) Relocation expenses for personnel who, after 
        relocation, will administer this Act on a full-time basis for 
        at least 1 year, as certified by the Director of the United 
        States Fish and Wildlife Service at the time such relocation 
        expenses are incurred.
          ``(12) Costs to audit, evaluate, approve, disapprove, and 
        advise concerning grants under section 6 and section 14.
  ``(b) Unauthorized Costs.--Use of funds for a cost to administer this 
Act shall not be authorized because the cost is not expressly 
prohibited by this Act.
  ``(c) Restriction on Use To Supplement General Appropriations.--The 
Secretary may not use amounts under section 4(d) to supplement any 
function for which general appropriations are made for the United 
States Fish and Wildlife Service or any other entity of the Department 
of the Interior.
  ``(d) Audit Requirement.--(1) The Inspector General of the Department 
of the Interior shall procure the conduct of biennial audits, in 
accordance with generally accepted accounting principles, of 
expenditures of amounts used by the Secretary for administration of 
this Act.
  ``(2) Audits under this subsection shall be performed under contracts 
that are awarded under competitive procedures (as that term is defined 
in section 4 of the Office of Federal Procurement Policy Act (41 U.S.C. 
403)), by a person that is not associated in any way with the 
Department of the Interior.
  ``(3) The auditor selected pursuant to paragraph (1) shall report to, 
and be supervised by, the Inspector General of the Department of the 
Interior, except that the auditor shall submit a copy of the biennial 
audit findings to the Secretary of the Interior at the time such 
findings are submitted to the Inspector General of the Department of 
the Interior.
  ``(4) The Inspector General of the Department of the Interior shall 
promptly report to the Committee on Resources of the House of 
Representatives and the Committee on Environment and Public Works of 
the Senate on the results of each such audit.
  ``(e) Certification by Secretary.--(1) The Secretary of the Interior 
shall within 3 months after each fiscal year certify in writing to the 
Committee on Resources of the House of Representatives and the 
Committee on Environment and Public Works of the Senate the following 
for the fiscal year:
          ``(A) The amount of funds used under section 4(d) and a 
        breakdown of categories for which such funds were expended.
          ``(B) The amount of funds apportioned to States under section 
        4(d)(2)(A).
          ``(C) The results of the audits performed pursuant to 
        subsection (d).
          ``(D) That all funds expended under section 4(d) were 
        necessary for administration of this Act.
          ``(E) The Secretary, Assistant Secretary for Fish and 
        Wildlife and Parks, the Director of the United States Fish and 
        Wildlife Service, and the Assistant Director for Wildlife and 
        Sport Fish Restoration Programs each properly discharged their 
        duties under this Act.
  ``(2) The Secretary may not delegate the responsibility to make 
certifications under paragraph (1) except to the Assistant Secretary 
for Fish and Wildlife and Parks.
  ``(3) The Secretary shall promptly publish in the Federal Register 
each certification under this subsection.
  ``(f) Certification by Assistant Director for Wildlife and Sport Fish 
Restoration Programs.--Within 1 month after the end of each fiscal 
year, the Assistant Director for Wildlife and Sport Fish Restoration 
Programs shall--
          ``(1) certify that--
                  ``(A) all amounts expended in that fiscal year to 
                administer this Act in agency headquarters and in 
                regional offices of the United States Fish and Wildlife 
                Service were used in accordance with this Act; and
                  ``(B) all such expenditures were necessary to 
                administer this Act; and
          ``(2) distribute such certifications to each State fish and 
        game department.''.

SEC. 202. MULTI-STATE GRANT PROGRAM.

  (a) Establishment of Program.--The Sport Fish Restoration Act is 
amended by striking the second section 13 (16 U.S.C. 777 note) and 
inserting the following:
                ``multi-state conservation grant program
  ``Sec. 14. (a) In General.--(1) Of the balance of each annual 
appropriation made in accordance with section 3 remaining after the 
distribution and use under subsections (a), (b), and (c) of section 4 
each fiscal year, up to $2,500,000 shall be available to the Secretary 
of the Interior for making multi-State conservation grants in 
accordance with this section.
  ``(2) Amounts available under this subsection shall remain available 
for 2 fiscal years, after which all unobligated balances shall be 
apportioned in the manner specified in section 4(e).
  ``(b) Selection of Projects.--(1) A project shall not be eligible for 
a grant under this section unless it will benefit at least 26 States, a 
majority of the States in a region of the Fish and Wildlife Service, or 
a regional association of State fish and game departments.
  ``(2) The Secretary of the Interior may award grants under this 
section based only on a priority list of sportfish restoration projects 
prepared and submitted by State fish and game departments acting 
through the International Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies 
each fiscal year in accordance with paragraph (3).
  ``(3)(A) The International Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies 
shall--
          ``(i) prepare each priority list through a committee 
        comprised of the heads of State fish and game departments (or 
        their designees);
          ``(ii) approve each priority list by a majority of the heads 
        of State fish and game departments (or their designees); and
          ``(iii) submit each priority list by not later than October 1 
        of each fiscal year to the Secretary of the Interior.
  ``(B) In preparing any priority list under this paragraph, the 
International Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies shall consult 
with nongovernmental organizations that represent conservation 
organizations, sportsmen organizations, and industries that fund the 
Sport Fish Restoration Programs.
  ``(4) The Assistant Director for Wildlife and Sport Fish Restoration 
Programs shall publish in the Federal Register each priority list 
submitted under this subsection.
  ``(c) Eligible Grantees.--(1) The Secretary of the Interior may make 
a grant under this section only to--
          ``(A) a State or group of States; or
          ``(B) subject to paragraph (2) a nongovernmental 
        organization.
  ``(2) Any nongovernmental organization applying for a grant under 
this section shall submit with the application to the International 
Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies a certification that the 
organization does not promote or encourage opposition to the regulated 
taking of fish and will use any funds awarded pursuant to this section 
in compliance with subsection (d).
  ``(3) Any nongovernmental organization that is found to promote or 
encourage opposition to the regulated taking of fish or does not use 
funds in compliance with subsection (d) shall return all funds received 
and be subject to any other penalties under law.
  ``(d) Use of Grants.--Amounts provided as a grant under this section 
may not be used for education, activities, projects, or programs that 
promote or encourage opposition to the regulated taking of fish.
  ``(e) Clarification.--No activities undertaken by the personnel of 
State fish and game departments, other State agencies, or organizations 
of State fish and game departments under this section shall constitute 
advice or recommendations for 1 or more agencies or officers of the 
Federal Government.
  ``(f) Funding for Marine Fisheries Commissions.--Of the balance of 
each annual appropriation made in accordance with section 3 remaining 
after the distribution and use under subsections (a), (b), and (c) of 
section 4 each fiscal year and after deducting amounts used for grants 
under subsection (a) of this section, $200,000 shall be available for 
each of--
          ``(1) the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission;
          ``(2) the Gulf States Marine Fisheries Commission;
          ``(3) the Pacific States Marine Fisheries Commission; and
          ``(4) the Great Lakes Fisheries Commission.''.
  (b) Conforming Amendments.--Section 4 of the Sport Fish Restoration 
Act (16 U.S.C. 777c) is amended in subsection (e) by inserting ``of 
this section and section 14'' after ``subsections (a), (b), (c), and 
(d)''.

SEC. 203. CERTIFICATIONS.

  Section 5 of the Sport Fish Restoration Act (16 U.S.C. 777d) is 
amended--
          (1) by striking ``Sec. 5.'' and inserting the following:
                            ``certifications
  ``Sec. 5. (a) Administrative Deduction and State Apportionments.--'';
          (2) in subsection (a) (as designated by the amendment made by 
        paragraph (1) of this section) by inserting ``, at the time 
        such deduction or apportionment is made'' after ``apportioned 
        to each State for such fiscal year''; and
          (3) by adding at the end the following:
  ``(b) Fiscal Yearend Certification by Secretary.--Within 30 days 
after the end of each fiscal year, the Secretary of the Interior 
shall--
          ``(1) certify in writing to the Secretary of the Treasury and 
        to each State fish and game department--
                  ``(A) the amount apportioned under section 4(d)(2) to 
                each State in the most recent apportionment under that 
                section for that fiscal year; and
                  ``(B) amounts obligated by the Secretary during the 
                fiscal year for administration of this Act; and
          ``(2) publish in the Federal Register the amounts so 
        certified.
  ``(c) Certification by Assistant Director.--(1) Within 60 days after 
the start of each fiscal year, the Assistant Director for Wildlife and 
Sport Fish Restoration Programs shall provide to the Committee on 
Resources of the House of Representatives and the Committee on 
Environment and Public Works of the Senate the following for the fiscal 
year:
          ``(A) The amount of funds that will be expended in the fiscal 
        year under section 4(d)(2) and a breakdown of categories for 
        which such funds will be expended.
          ``(B) A description of how the funds to be expended are 
        necessary for administration of this Act.
  ``(2) The Secretary of the Interior shall promptly publish in the 
Federal Register each certification under this subsection.''.

SEC. 204. PERIOD OF AVAILABILITY.

  Section 4(f) of the Sport Fish Restoration Act (16 U.S.C. 777c) is 
amended by striking the first sentence.

        TITLE III--WILDLIFE AND SPORT FISH RESTORATION PROGRAMS

SEC. 301. DESIGNATION OF PROGRAMS.

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

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

  (a) Establishment.--There is established within the United States 
Fish and Wildlife Service of the Department of the Interior an 
Assistant Director for Wildlife and Sport Fish Restoration Programs.
  (b) Superior.--The Assistant Director for Wildlife and Sport Fish 
Restoration Programs shall report directly to the Director of the 
United States Fish and Wildlife Service.
  (c) Responsibilities.--The Assistant Director for Wildlife and Sport 
Fish Restoration Programs shall be responsible for the administration, 
management, and oversight of the Federal Assistance Program for State 
Wildlife and Sport Fish Restoration Programs under the Wildlife 
Restoration Act and the Sport Fish Restoration Act.

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

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

                          Purpose of the Bill

    The purpose of H.R. 3671 is 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.

                  Background and Need for Legislation


                               A. History

    In 1937, Congress enacted the Federal Aid in Wildlife 
Restoration Act (popularly known as Pittman-Robertson Wildlife 
Restoration Act, 16 U.S.C. 669 et seq.) so that the federal 
government and the States would ``cooperatively engage in a 
broad program which will not only preserve our present-day 
limited supply of wildlife, but restore it to some semblance of 
its former abundance.'' (See, Aid to States In Wildlife 
Restoration Projects, Report No. 1572, 1st Session, 75th 
Cong.). Wildlife restoration was to be funded though excise 
taxes on sporting arms and ammunition. The theory behind that 
Act was that money taken in by Government agencies from 
sportsmen's license fees and excise taxes should be spent for 
the conservation and maintenance of wildlife species.
    To get the conservation money collected through excise 
taxes for a State project, the State game and fish departments 
had to make laws governing the conservation of wildlife that 
included a prohibition against the diversion of license fees 
paid by hunters for any other purpose than the administration 
of State fish and game departments. This created a funding 
source for the State matching requirement that would be needed 
to obtain the federal portion of the grants to the States.
    The Fiscal year (FY) 1951 General Appropriations Act 
(Public Law 759) added language so that the wildlife 
conservation trust fund would have a permanent appropriation, 
making excise tax money collected automatically available to 
the Fish and Wildlife Service for apportionment and then grants 
to the States.
    In 1970 revenue from an 11 percent excise tax on pistols 
and revolvers was added to the fund. One-half of those revenues 
would be available for hunter education programs and 
construction and maintenance of public target ranges, with the 
other half of the revenues going toward wildlife restoration 
projects. In addition, another provision encouraged 
comprehensive planning by State fish and game departments.
    In 1972 an 11 percent excise tax was placed on archery 
equipment. Half of this revenue was designated for wildlife 
restoration and the other half was added to hunter education 
and target range development.
    In 1950, Congress enacted the Federal Aid in Fish 
Restoration (popularly known as Dingell-Johnson Sport Fish 
Restoration Act, 16 U.S.C. 777 et seq.). Patterned after the 
Pittman-Robertson Act, the Dingell-Johnson Act was to do for 
sport fish what the Pittman-Robertson Act had done for 
wildlife: create a program of aid to the States for the 
restoration and management of sport fish resources of the 
States. The Dingell-Johnson Act is financed by a ten percent 
tax on fishing rods, reels, and artificial lures, bait and 
flies.
    In 1984 an amendment to the Dingell-Johnson Act established 
a new trust fund, the Aquatic Resources Trust Fund (sport fish 
trust fund) which is divided into two accounts: the Boat Safety 
Account and the Sport Fish Restoration Account. The base tax 
was expanded to include all items of fishing tackle, new 
motorboat fuel taxes and import duties on fishing tackle and 
boats. In 1990 an increase in federal fuel excise taxes 
deposited to the Highway Trust Fund was mandated, of which 1.08 
percent was to accrue to the Aquatic Resources Trust Fund. 
Federal fuel tax receipts attributable to small gasoline 
engines were designated for deposit to the Sport Fish 
Restoration Account.
    Since its inception, the Pittman-Robinson Wildlife 
Restoration Act has provided over $2 billion for State wildlife 
restoration projects, and the Dingell-Johnson Sport Fish 
Restoration Act has provided more than $3.6 billion for State 
sport fish restoration projects. Both Acts are administered by 
the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) of the 
Department of the Interior. Collectively, the two Acts are 
known as the Federal Aid Program.
    Under the both Acts, administration is funded by 
withholding a percentage (up to eight percent in the case of 
Pittman-Robertson and up to six percent in the case of Dingell-
Johnson) of the revenues in each fund each fiscal year. The 
Secretary of the Interior has discretion to withhold up to the 
maximum percentage, provided the funds are used to ``administer 
and execute'' the Acts. To date, $237,176,491 was used for 
administration of the Wildlife Restoration Act and $186,240,791 
was used for administration of the Sport Fish Restoration Act. 
Under the Dingell-Johnson Act, before the administration and 
execution funds are taken, other distributions are made from 
the trust funds for the Coastal Wetlands Planning, Protection 
and Restoration Act, projects under the Clean Vessel Act of 
1992, projects under the Sportfishing and Boating Safety Act of 
1998, recreational boating and safety programs and funds for 
National Outreach and Communications Program.
    After deduction for ``administration and execution,'' the 
remainder of the trust funds are apportioned to the States 
according to a formula established in the Acts. The amount for 
administration is available for two fiscal years, and any 
remainder is then apportioned by the formula to the State fish 
and game departments. Administering the amounts apportioned to 
the States is done through a grant process.
    The FWS Division of Federal Aid allocates trust funds to 
the States for fish and wildlife restoration projects. In FY 
1998, the combined excise taxes collected for the Federal Aid 
programs were $426,836,814, of which ``administration and 
execution'' funds were $30,825,115. As the chart below 
demonstrates, during the last two years the six percent and 
eight percent caps have been reached and prior to that even 
greater percentages were taken. The yearly average for the 
Federal Aid Program administrative expenses since 1993 was 
$26,511,924.

                                    FEDERAL AID DEDUCTIONS FOR ADMINISTRATION
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                             Wildlife Restoration       Sport Fish Restoration
                       Fiscal Year                       -------------------------------------------------------
                                                             Amount      Percentage      Amount      Percentage
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1959 and earlier........................................    $7,786,190  ............    $1,766,130  ............
1960....................................................       766,193           4.6       289,379           5.2
1961....................................................       857,708           5.5       350,695           6.0
1962....................................................       985,093           6.6       453,432           7.2
1963....................................................       979,717           6.6       478,494           7.9
1964....................................................       580,000           3.6       203,000           3.2
1965....................................................       719,941           4.1       316,529           4.3
1966....................................................       964,720           4.5       563,380           7.7
1967....................................................       810,804           3.3       359,018           4.5
1968....................................................     1,485,901           5.3       493,513           5.0
1969....................................................     1,051,605           3.4       383,299           4.2
1970....................................................     1,406,322           4.3       573,719           4.8
1971....................................................     2,005,725           6.1       819,091           5.3
1972....................................................     2,249,089           7.6       868,045           6.1
1973....................................................     2,288,533           5.1       922,667           7.1
1974....................................................     2,415,268           4.8       903,348           5.9
1975....................................................     3,384,672           5.9     1,338,692           7.4
1976....................................................     4,446,646           7.1     1,694,197           7.7
1977....................................................     5,287,154           5.9     1,784,610           6.7
1978....................................................     4,889,316           7.2     2,031,887           7.7
1979....................................................     3,818,633           4.1     1,369,505           4.8
1980....................................................     4,974,102           5.3     2,417,772           7.9
1981....................................................     7,250,651           7.9     2,690,051           8.0
1982....................................................     4,927,999           4.0     1,973,626           6.2
1983....................................................     4,394,029           3.9     2,201,798           6.3
1984....................................................     5,256,702           5.6     2,325,466           5.9
1985....................................................     6,772,254           7.9     3,025,995           7.9
1986....................................................     8,528,516           7.1     7,267,378           5.9
1987....................................................     6,487,540           5.9     5,855,884           4.2
1988....................................................     5,189,251           5.9     5,373,398           4.2
1989....................................................     7,534,070           6.0     7,162,802           3.8
1990....................................................     9,994,000           7.9    10,391,000           5.4
1991....................................................    13,683,734           8.0    12,541,280           6.0
1992....................................................     9,958,217           6.2    12,514,431           5.8
1993....................................................    11,888,000           7.5    11,714,000           5.2
1994....................................................    11,297,000           6.2    10,573,000           5.7
1995....................................................    14,012,598           6.3    12,750,084           6.0
1996....................................................    14,326,972           6.6    12,583,206           6.0
1997....................................................    13,681,466           7.6    13,994,166           5.0
1998....................................................    13,461,598           8.0    17,363,517           6.0
                                                         -------------------------------------------------------
1999....................................................    14,378,562           8.0    13,559,307           6.0
      Total.............................................  $237,176,491       \3\ 5.9  $186,240,791      \4\ 5.9
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Wildlife Restoration deductions began in 1939 and Sport Fish Restoration deductions began in 1952.
\2\ Includes transition quarter funding.
\3\ This is the average percentage for the 1960 to 1999 period.
\4\ This is the average percentage for the 1960 to 1999 period.
Source: Published Federal Aid data on deductions made for administration.

                              b. oversight

    The Committee on Resources initiated an oversight review of 
the ``administration and execution'' expenditures by the FWS 
through its Division of Federal Aid in December 1998 through 
the Government Accounting Office (GAO) and in March 1999 
(through Committee staff). GAO and the Committee encountered a 
severe lack of documentation explaining where and how funds 
were spent. It was difficult to determine who within the FWS 
made decisions about how to spend the administration dollars. 
To date, the FWS has been unable to provide a clear accounting 
of how ``administration and execution'' funds were spent. Even 
considering a lack of documentation, the review uncovered 
irresponsible, wasteful, unauthorized and inappropriate 
expenditures of the administration and execution funds.
    The Committee on Resources held three oversight hearings to 
examine how the FWS through its Division of Federal Aid 
administered and executed the Pittman-Robertson Act and 
Dingell-Johnson Act. It was revealed that the funds withheld by 
the Department of Interior to administer and execute the 
Pittman-Robertson and Dingell-Johnson Acts were used for 
expenses unrelated to the administration of these Acts. In 
addition, some funds that were used for appropriate and 
legitimate administration of these programs were not used 
responsibly. A lack of fiscal and organizational accountability 
and management throughout the Federal Aid Program was uncovered 
and found to be reinforced by those who were supposed to be 
administering these programs at all levels of the FWS. In fact, 
GAO characterized the program as the ``one of the worst managed 
programs'' the investigators had ever encountered.
    Since the establishment of the Pittman-Robertson and 
Dingell-Johnson Acts, Congress has not reviewed the 
administration of the Federal Aid Program. The direct and 
indefinite appropriation of the funds to the Wildlife and Sport 
Fish Restoration accounts does not provide the yearly 
appropriations scrutiny that most other programs within federal 
agencies must undergo to receive funds, and there were no other 
built-in checks for administration and execution expenditures. 
In part, this contributed to an environment that enabled the 
FWS to invent new uses for trust fund money or cover costs 
unrelated to the administration and execution of Federal Aid 
Program.
    In general, the Committee oversight found that because the 
authorizing legislation makes ``administration and execution'' 
funds available based on a percentage of the money in the 
Federal Aid Program, new ways to spend the maximum available 
administration and execution money were found. In federal 
agencies there are innumerable ``needs'' for money, but in many 
years the bulk of ``administration and execution'' expenditures 
were either unauthorized or only tangentially related 
administration of this program. While the core function of 
administering the restoration programs--dispensing wildlife and 
fish conservation grants to States and ensure that the funds 
are properly spent--did not change over the years, a host of 
other uses of administration money were devised.
    Abuse of administration funds occurred throughout the FWS 
from the Washington Office level down to the Regional level. 
Adding to the abuse of administrative funds is the 
mismanagement of the Federal Aid Program by the Service. 
According to the GAO, collectively the problems suggest a lack 
of attention to detail that erodes the Division of Federal 
Aid's ability to effectively manage and oversee the 
administrative aspects of the program. In each area where 
administrative funds are used, there are problems. These 
include ineffective management oversight, inadequate internal 
controls, and inadequate policies and procedures for reviewing 
and approving administrative expenditures. As a result, it 
appears that some of the administrative funds have been spent 
unnecessarily and ineffectively. GAO testified at both hearings 
that these conditions have spawned a culture of permissive 
spending that raises significant questions about whether the 
Division is meeting its management responsibilities.
    For example, the GAO and Committee investigations 
discovered that administration funds were being used by 
entities other than the Federal Aid Program. In some instances, 
individuals within the Director's office of the FWS were using 
Federal Aid Program administration funds for expenses unrelated 
to Federal Aid. In other instances, Regional Directors of the 
seven Fish and Wildlife Service Regions were using 
administration funds for expenses unrelated to Federal Aid. 
Under both scenarios expenses were being ``charged'' to 
administration of the Federal Aid Program that had nothing at 
all to do with administration of the Program.

                        c. abuses and solutions

    The Committee focused on the Federal Aid program 
administration expenses in FY 1998, although different abuses 
occurred in different years to different degrees. For FY 1998, 
the Committee identified at least $15.8 million in 
``administration and execution'' funds that were not used for 
administration of the Federal Aid Program. Some of these abuses 
are highlighted below with the proposed changes in the bill 
designed to curb or stop the abuses:

Administration and Execution Expenses

    As stated above, in the original Acts, the FWS is able to 
withhold up to eight percent of the wildlife revenues and up to 
six percent of the sport fish revenues (after deductions for 
specific grant programs) for ``administration and execution'' 
of the two Acts. The GAO testified that while program 
administration was a relatively well-understood concept, 
neither statute specifies exactly what might constitute program 
``execution.'' While the Committee disagrees with the FWS's 
contorted reading of the law, the bill deals with this 
problematic shortfall in the existing Acts in three ways: (1) 
it eliminates all references to funds being used for 
``execution;'' (2) it specifies clearly what functions 
constitute ``administration'' of the law; and (3) it 
substitutes a reasonable dollar amount for the percentage 
concept in current law.
    These changes eliminate entirely any possible 
interpretation, as the FWS testified, that the agency had 
``broad discretionary authority under the law'' to spend 
administration funds as it wished.Thus, reading Section 9 of 
both Acts (that authorizes things like paying for employees, clerks, 
and equipment) in combination with the word ``execution'' is no longer 
a possible justification for the FWS to use any funds authorized for 
administration of the laws however it wishes. The percentage scenario, 
coupled with the contorted reading of Section 9, was used as a license 
to allow the administration of the Federal Aid Program to grow 
unchecked. The size of the administration side of the program became a 
function of funds available for administration, not the needs of 
properly carrying out apportionments and grants to the States for 
conservation projects and programs.
    The three modifications also are intended to ensure that 
the bulk of the revenues in the fund go for the purposes of the 
Acts--to the States for wildlife and sport fish restoration 
projects. The modifications also avoid a varying level of 
administration funds. For example, under current law if there 
is a spike in fishing equipment sales, the revenues put into 
the fund would increase and there would be a 1:1 increase in 
the amount of funds available for administration. There are not 
necessarily added needs for administering the new level of 
money in the sport fish trust fund; however, the opportunity 
for ``creatively'' finding new ways to spend the additional 
``administration'' money was easy and often occurred.
    The construction of these modifications will also allow 
better fiscal planning, force the FWS and the Division of 
Federal Aid to make choices most important to its core 
function, and provide for more than adequate attention to the 
core functions of administering the program. Providing a dollar 
cap forces the FWS to request a new cap when it needs 
additional funds. This will give the Committee the opportunity 
to review administrative spending and determine if the 
additional funds are needed for administration of the Program.
    Due to lack of data provided by the FWS, the bill 
authorizes a total of $15 million for expenses that were 
formerly funded though ``administration and execution'' 
withholdings. This includes a new statutory $5 million multi-
state grant program for projects that benefit groups of States 
or regions. The remaining funds for administration (in FY 2001-
2003) are $10 million total, combining sport fish and wildlife 
administration. Of that amount, the Committee anticipates the 
following staffing levels at the grade indicated for 
administration of the programs:

Washington Office

    Staffing levels outlined below will enable the Assistant 
Director to have the staff needed to administer, manage and 
oversee the Federal Aid Program. This structure will reinstate 
biological support for the Federal Aid Program and provide the 
fiscal integrity and accountability of the Program. By 
eliminating excess staffing, more funds will be available for 
the States for on-the-ground projects. The goal is to eliminate 
the bureaucracy that developed over time when there was a sense 
of unlimited funds that facilitated growth of the Program.
    Assistant Director for Wildlife and Sport Fish Restoration 
Programs (1) [SES/GS 15]--Administration, management, and 
oversight of the wildlife and sport fish restoration programs 
under the Wildlife Restoration Act and the Sport Fish 
Restoration Act.
    Wildlife Biologist (2) [GS 14]--Administer regional office 
operations consistently with regard to national issues, visit 
regional offices, maintain consistency between regions, deal 
with programmatic national issues.
    Fish Biologist (2) [GS 14]--Administer regional office 
operations consistently with regard to national issues, visit 
regional offices, maintain consistency between regions, deal 
with programmatic national issues.
    Accounting/Auditing (2) [GS 13]--Tracking of all financial 
transactions involving administrative funds, supervision of the 
State audits, administration of State audit resolutions 
consistently throughout the United States and the Territories.
    Reporting Administration (1) [GS 12]--Fulfillment of 
reporting requirements for the Federal Assistance Program for 
Wildlife and Sport Fish Restoration.
    Multi-State Conservation Grant/Firearm & Bow Hunter Grant 
Administration (1) [GS 13]--Administration and oversight of the 
grants awarded under the Multi-State Conservation Grant Program 
and the Firearm and Bow Hunting Grant Program.
    Secretarial/Office Support (4) [GS 5/6/7]--General 
secretarial support for the Washington Office.
    Computer Support (2) [GS 12/13]--Computer support for the 
FAIMS system. These individuals would provide support for all 
Federal Aid offices.
    Regulation Management (1) [GS 13]--Writing and management 
of regulations for the Federal Assistance Program for Wildlife 
and Sport Fish Restoration.

Regional Offices

    Each Region will have an Assistant Regional Director for 
Wildlife and Sport Fish Restoration Programs. The 
responsibilities will be to administer, manage and oversee the 
Program at the Regional level. This includes administering and 
overseeing the grants that are awarded under the State 
apportionments. The number and size of the States in each 
Region will be reflected in the staffing of the Regional 
office. Depending on the number and size of the States in each 
Region, the number of biologists will vary as will the number 
of secretarial/support staff. A breakdown in the staffing of 
each Region is provided below:
            Region 1
Assistant Regional Director for Wildlife and Sport Fish 
        Restoration Programs (1) [GS 14]
Secretarial/Office Support (1) [GS 5/6]
Senior Wildlife Biologist (1) [GS 13]
Senior Fish Biologist (1) [GS 13]
Junior Wildlife Biologist (1) [GS 9/10/11/12]
Junior Fish Biologist (1) [GS 9/10/11/12]
            Region 2
Assistant Regional Director for Wildlife and Sport Fish 
        Restoration Programs (1) [GS 14]
Secretarial/Office Support (1) [GS 5/6]
Senior Wildlife Biologist (1) [GS 13]
Senior Fish Biologist (1) [GS 13]
            Region 3
Assistant Regional Director for Wildlife and Sport Fish 
        Restoration Programs (1) [GS 14]
Secretarial/Office Support (1) [GS 5/6]
Senior Wildlife Biologist (2) [GS 13]
Senior Fish Biologist (2) [GS 13]
Program Administrator (1) [GS 11/12]
            Region 4
Assistant Regional Director for Wildlife and Sport Fish 
        Restoration Programs (with wildlife/fish background) 
        (1) [GS 14]
Secretarial/Office Support (1) [GS 5/6]
Senior Wildlife Biologist (2) [GS 13]
Senior Fish Biologist (2) [GS 13]
Junior Wildlife Biologist (1) [GS 9/10/11/12]
Junior Fish Biologist (1) [GS 9/10/11/12]
Program Administrator (1) [GS 11/12]
            Region 5
Assistant Regional Director for Wildlife and Sport Fish 
        Restoration Programs (1) [GS 14]
Secretarial/Office Support (2) [GS 5/6]
Senior Wildlife Biologist (2) [GS 13]
Senior Fish Biologist (2) [GS 13]
Junior Wildlife Biologist (.5) [GS 9/10/11/12]
Junior Fish Biologist (.5) [GS 9/10/11/12]
Program Administrator (1) [GS 11/12]
            Region 6
Assistant Regional Director for Wildlife and Sport Fish 
        Restoration Programs (1) [GS 14]
Secretarial/Office Support (2) [GS 5/6]
Senior Wildlife Biologist (2) [GS 13]
Senior Fish Biologist (2) [GS 13]
Program Administrator (1) [GS 11/12]
            Region 7
Assistant Regional Director for Wildlife and Sport Fish 
        Restoration Programs (1) [GS 14]
Secretarial/Office Support (1) [GS 5/6]
Senior Wildlife Biologist (1) [GS 13]
Senior Fish Biologist (1) [GS 13]
    This staffing level provides 63 FTEs. Using the $76,000 per 
employee figure provided by the FWS for salary and benefits, 
approximately $5 million of the authorized amount would be used 
for personnel and support costs.

Administrative Grants Program

    The FWS created an ``Administrative Grants Program'' from 
administrative funds that were ``left over.'' According to the 
Acts, funds not used for administration within the two year 
period are to be returned to the States through the 
apportionment formula. Instead of returning the funds to the 
States as directed by the law, the FWS created an 
administrative grants program, in spite of the fact that no 
words in either statute authorize such a grant program. The 
theory behind the program was to fund projects that would 
benefit a majority of the States. In reviewing the projects 
that were funded through the Administrative Grant Program, not 
all projects funded met even this criteria. For example, some 
projects benefitted States of a specific region. In addition, 
the projects that the Director decided to fund did not always 
reflect the wishes of the States. In some cases, the Director 
would approve projects for funding that the States did not feel 
were a priority and should not be funded.
    H.R. 3671 recognized the value of funding some projects 
that benefit groups of States by creating a new (but more 
transparent and clearly authorized) Multi-State Conservation 
Grant Program. The Multi-State Conservation Grant Program 
(MSCGP) authorizes projects that benefit a majority of the 
States or the majority of States in a Region of the FWS or a 
majority of the States within a regional association of State 
fish and game departments. A State, group of States, or a non-
governmental organization may apply for a grant under the 
MSCGP. The International Association of Fish and Wildlife 
Agencies, which is the organization that represents all State 
fish and game departments, plays a central role in coordinating 
recommendations of worthwhile projects to the Secretary of the 
Interior. This legislation was designed to allow those groups 
that primarily pay into the trust funds to have a strong voice 
in the recommendations of conservation projects from which the 
Secretary may select.
    Non-governmental organizations may apply for grants under 
the MSCGP if they meet specificcriteria. For the wildlife 
grants, the organization must certify that it does not promote or 
encourage opposition to regulated hunting or trapping of wildlife, and 
will not use the funds awarded for education, activities, projects or 
programs that promote or encourage opposition to regulated hunting or 
trapping of wildlife. Any non-governmental organization that is found 
to promote or encourage opposition to regulated hunting or trapping of 
wildlife or does not use the funds as stated in the law will return all 
funds received and be subject to any other penalties under law. On the 
sport fish side, the non-governmental organizations may not oppose the 
regulated taking of fish or use the funds for education, activities, 
projects or programs that promote or encourage opposition to the 
regulated taking of fish.
    These criteria were developed to ensure that the anglers, 
hunters, and shooters who pay the excise taxes see the benefits 
of enhanced hunting, fishing, and shooting conservation and 
recreation opportunities. Groups that oppose those activities 
and groups who do not promote those activities are not to 
receive grant money under the MSCGP. These criteria were also 
developed in response to testimony before the Committee 
concerning an administrative grant that was applied for by the 
Fund for Animals. The Fund for Animals had applied for two 
administrative grants. The grant applications were reviewed by 
Federal Aid Program grant administrators, and were found not to 
satisfy the criteria established for the grants. However, 
superiors of the grant administrator, Mr. Jim Beers, at the FWS 
pressured him to approve the grant despite the fact that it 
lacked several criteria for the grant. He was then forced out 
of his job.
    Jim Beers served with the FWS for thirty years. In his 
capacity as a grants administrator in the Federal Aid Program, 
Mr. Beers turned down funding for animal-rights applicants. The 
FWS, in reaction to his refusal of approving the application of 
an animal-rights group for consideration as an administrative 
grant and his work on a humane trapping standards project, 
announced that Mr. Beers would be transferred to a Regional 
office in Massachusetts. Mr. Beers alleged that his transfer 
was illegal and that FWS had proposed to transfer him because 
he differed with his superiors over whether to approve a 
request for grant money that had been filed by the Fund for 
Animals, a conservation group, and because of his involvement 
in the negotiation of an international agreement concerning 
humane trapping standards. Mr. Beers received a highly 
favorable award with the help of the Office of Special Counsel.
    It was troubling to the Committee this type of mistreatment 
occurred and that excise taxes paid by sportsmen and women 
might be available for groups diametrically opposed to the 
activities from which the revenues are collected. Therefore, 
while sanctioning and providing legislative authorization for a 
MSCGP grant, the Committee ensured that funds available in the 
new MSCG program would not be used in any way to the detriment 
of the interests of those who collectively pay the excise taxes 
that fund the wildlife and sport fish conservation programs.
    Certain projects were being funded with admininstrative 
funds under the direction of the FWS without concurrence of the 
State fish and game departments. Some of these projects have 
been described as necessary, while others have been described 
as unnecessary. For example, the Management Assistance Team 
(MAT) provided consultant services to State fish and game 
departments on a wide range of topics including organization 
development, planning, budgeting, leadership development, 
programmatic and agency review, work force diversity, 
commissions and boards, and organization effectiveness. MAT was 
previously funded solely by the Service and evolved into being 
fully funded by the Federal Aid Program. MAT employed six FWS 
FTEs and an additional 11 contract personnel. A recently 
removed homepage of MAT described the services they provide to 
State game and fish departments as ``free.'' The services, 
however, were not free. In fact the States were funding MAT 
through administration and execution dollars belonging to the 
Federal Aid Program. Instead of apportioning funds not used for 
administration back to the States, the Service funneled the 
money to MAT. This decision was not being made by the States 
and was not related to administering the conservation trust 
funds managed by the Division of Federal Aid.
    Another example is the funding of the National Fishing and 
Hunting Survey. The survey is conducted every five years at a 
current cost of $10 million. Over the years, States have 
complained about the timeliness of the data and the method and 
information gathered and whether it was helpful. The Survey was 
one of the most expensive projects that was funded with 
administration funds. The Service transferred in 1997 a total 
of almost $9.7 million from its interest-earning account to 
cover the cost of the Survey over a five year period. By 
transferring the money prematurely, the FWS lost over $400,000 
in interest, which would have increased the amount of funds in 
the program. Again, the FWS was making spending decisions for 
the State game and fish departments.
    A final example of funding from administration is the 
funding of the Fish and Wildlife Reference Service. Since 1965, 
the Federal Aid Program has been fully funding the Fish and 
Wildlife Reference Service (FWRS). FWRS receives, indexes, 
stores and distributes copies of reports produced by State fish 
and wildlife agencies from research studies supported by 
Federal Aid Program funding. FWRS also receives reports 
produced by the Anadromous Fish Conservation Program, the 
Endangered Species Grant Program, and the Cooperative Fish and 
Wildlife Research Units. Additional collections located at FWRS 
include the Lead Shot/Lead Poisoning Clearinghouse, Boating 
Access/Boating Facilities Clearinghouse, and the Clean Vessel 
Act Education/Information Clearinghouse. Although FWRS clearly 
serves other programs of importance to the FWS, the funding of 
FWRS is the sole responsibility of the Federal Aid Program.
    The Committee is not recommending whether these three 
expenses should or should not be funded, but some of them 
appear to be beyond functions that relate to ``administration 
and execution'' of the Federal Aid Program. However, it is the 
intention of the Committee that these expenses, as well as 
others that have been traditionally funded under the 
Administrative Grant Program, compete under the new MSCGP for 
funding. Placing the funding of these programs under the 
auspices of the MSCG, forces setting of priorities and gives 
the States and other stakeholders influence over what projects 
may receive funding. In addition, through the competitive 
process the opportunity exists for realization of a savings if 
others are allowed to bid for the contracts to perform these 
services or projects.
    MSCG projects under the new program include multi-State, 
regional or national projects which meet identified 
conservation needs. Such projects include those that strengthen 
the ability of the State and territorial fish and wildlife 
agencies to effectively meet the needs of the public for fish 
and wildlife resources, or to provide direct benefit to a 
significant number of states at the national or broad 
geographic level to meet the needs of the Acts. Proposals must 
address a pressing resource management problem that is 
significant and urgent and will provide a practical and 
economically feasiblemanagement approach for fish and wildlife 
management which could not practically be addressed by a single State. 
Proposals for marine resource projects must also be of direct concern 
or provide direct benefit to a significant number of the States. 
Highest priority projects should be selected by the States from among 
those proposals submitted.

Use of Federal Aid Administration and Execution Money for Expenses 
        Unrelated to the Trust Funds

    The Committee found that the administration funds were used 
for expenses unrelated to the administration of the program. To 
ensure that the FWS only uses the funds for legitimate 
administration of the trust funds, H.R. 3671 establishes 12 
categories of allowable administration costs.
    The twelve categories were developed by examining what 
agency personnel actually do to accomplish the core tasks of 
allocating approximately $450 million annually in grant money 
to States for wildlife and sport fish conservation projects and 
ensuring that grants are properly spent. The 12 authorized 
categories provide an additional ``checks and balances'' to the 
program. The Committee consulted with the FWS on potential 
modifications of the categories to ensure all core, essential 
functions were covered, and the FWS could suggest no additional 
functions. The categories will prevent the Regions and the 
other parts of the FWS generally from supplementing their 
budgets with Federal Aid Program administrative funds. The 12 
categories eliminate the ability of the FWS to redefine 
administration of the programs. The 12 categories are listed 
below:
          (1) Personnel costs of any employee who directly 
        administers this Act on a full-time basis.
          (2) Personnel costs of any employee who directly 
        administers this Act on a part-time basis for at least 
        20 hours each week, not to exceed the portion of such 
        costs incurred with respect to the work hours of such 
        employee during which the employee directly administers 
        this Act, as such hours are certified by the supervisor 
        of the employee.
          (3) Support costs directly associated with personnel 
        costs authorized under paragraphs (1) and (2) of this 
        subsection not including costs associated with staffing 
        and operation of regional offices of the United States 
        Fish and Wildlife Service and the Department of the 
        Interior, other than for purposes of this Act.
          (4) Costs to evaluate, approve, disapprove, and 
        advise concerning comprehensive fish and wildlife 
        resource management plans and wildlife restoration 
        projects.
          (5) Overhead costs, including general administrative 
        services, that are directly attributable to 
        administration of this Act based on--
                  (A) actual costs, as determined by a direct 
                cost allocation methodology approved by the 
                Director of the Office of Management and Budget 
                for use by Federal agencies;
                  (B) for those costs not determinable pursuant 
                to subparagraph (A), an amount per full-time 
                equivalent employee authorized pursuant to 
                paragraphs (1) and (2) that does not exceed the 
                amount charged or assessed for such costs per 
                full-time equivalent employee for any other 
                division or program of the United States Fish 
                and Wildlife Service.
          (6) Costs incurred in auditing the wildlife and sport 
        fish activities of each State fish and game department 
        and the use of funds by each State fish and game 
        department every 5 years.
          (7) Costs of audits.
          (8) Costs of necessary training of federal and State 
        full-time personnel who administer this Act to improve 
        administration of this Act.
          (9) Costs of travel to the States, territories, and 
        Canada by personnel who administer this Act on a full-
        time basis for purposes directly related to 
        administration of State programs or projects, or who 
        administer this Act on a full-time basis for purposes 
        directly related to administration of State programs or 
        projects, who administer apportionments to the States, 
        the MSCGP, funding for the Marine Fisheries 
        Commissions, or the Firearm and Bow Hunter Education 
        Program.
          (10) Costs of travel outside of the United States 
        that relates directly to administration of this Act and 
        that is approved directly by the Assistant Secretary 
        for Fish and Wildlife and Parks.
          (11) Relocation expenses for personnel who, after 
        relocation, will administer this Act on a full-time 
        basis for at least 1 year, as certified by the Director 
        of the United States Fish and Wildlife Service at the 
        time such relocation expenses are incurred.
          (12) Costs to audit, evaluate, approve, disapprove, 
        and advise concerning apportionments to the States, the 
        MSGCP, Marine Fisheries Commissions), or the Firearm 
        and Bow Hunter Education Program.

Unauthorized Grant Programs

    Federal Aid ``administration and execution'' funds were 
used for several unauthorized grant programs described as 
``slush funds.'' For example, an unauthorized FWS Director's 
Conservation Fund was created in 1994 (perhaps it was created 
earlier on an informal basis) using $1 million annually drawn 
from money withheld for ``administration and execution'' of the 
Federal Aid Program. No words in either statute authorized this 
fund. The money was controlled exclusively by the Director, and 
had no criteria other than the Director's approval for issuance 
of grants. While some grants may be for worthy projects, they 
were completely unauthorized by either Federal Aid Program law, 
and there was no transparant process to evaluate the 
expenditures.
    The Director gave grants to non-government organizations 
and used the Fund for other purposes within the FWS. Examples 
of ``Director's Conservation Fund'' grants include:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
            Organization                  Grant title/year       Amount
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Future Fisherman Foundation.........  Hooked on Fishing-Not     $243,125
                                       on Drugs/FY95.
Mississippi Interstate Cooperative    Lower Mississippi          100,000
 Resource Assoc..                      Resource Conservation
                                       Council/FY 98.
States Organization for Boating       Nationwide Boating          49,868
 Access.                               Access Needs
                                       Assessment/FY 95.
Izzak Walton League of America......  Hunter Ethics/Land-        117,860
                                       Access Project/FY 97.
Fish and Wildlife Service...........  Human Resources--          235,886
                                       Various Projects/FY 94.
Office of Migratory Bird Mgmt, Fish   Nesting and Foraging        85,000
 and Wildlife Service.                 Ecology and Habitat
                                       Use of Band-Tailed
                                       Pigeons in Western
                                       Oregon/FY 95.
Office of Migratory Bird Mgmt, Fish   Webless Migratory Bird     150,000
 and Wildlife Service.                 Research--Various
                                       Projects/FY96.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition to Director's Conservation Fund, the FWS 
created two additional granting mechanisms that tap 
``administration and execution'' funds: ``Operational grants'' 
and ``Regional Administrative Grants.'' Operational grants are 
made by the Division of Federal Aid as needed for projects that 
supported the Federal Aid Program. Operational grants awarded 
include: $78,924 to analyze a 1996 Survey of Fishing and 
Hunting and Wildlife-Associated Recreation, and $10,000 to 
Tread Lightly, Inc., for a 1997 Conference. Regional 
Administrative Grants are made by the Regions for projects and 
programs. Regional Administrative Grants include: $13,000 for a 
neotropical bird workshop; $11,500 for a SE deer study group 
conference; and $40,000 for routine Federal/State projects.
    The Service has no statutory authorization to make the 
Operational grants or the Regional Administrative Grants from 
Pittman-Robertson and Dingell-Johnson ``administration and 
execution'' funds. Administration funds are only to be drawn 
from the money otherwise available for conservation grants to 
the States if they are necessary for administration and 
execution of the law.
    Due to the lack of recordkeeping on the part of the FWS, 
the Committee does not believe all grant information has been 
provided to the Committee regarding these grants. Until that 
information is confirmed, there is no way to tell how the 
grants were used. Therefore, H.R. 3671 does not authorize the 
use of Federal Aid Program money for these grants.

Federal aid paying for overhead of the Fish and Wildlife Service 
        through disproportionate assessments of General Administrative 
        Services (GAS)

    This was perhaps one of the most significant areas of 
abuse. The FWS ``assessed'' the Federal Aid Program a 
disproportionally high percentage of the funds available for 
administration and execution to make up for a shortfall in 
appropriated and recovered dollars for the funding of FWS-wide 
Administrative Support or overhead.
    Non-resource management accounts (such as the Federal Aid 
Program) were assessed to pay for General Administrative 
Services (GAS), based on a percentage of the amount of their 
management and administrative funds. The FWS assessed Federal 
Aid Program based on the total amount of funds allowable to be 
withheld under the law--the whole eight percent and six 
percent--irrespective of what percentage of the funds were 
actually used for administration and execution. So, for 
example, in the years that administration and execution funds 
were only five percent of the Wildlife Restoration Program and 
four percent of the Sport Fish Restoration Program, the FWS 
still based its GAS assessment on the whole eight percent and 
six percent. In addition the size of the program provided a 
larger baseline level on which to make the assessment. The more 
money in a program the higher the assessment for GAS. These odd 
practices allowed the FWS to use this money on non-
conservation, non-authorized projects and programs.
    FWS-wide Administrative Expenses were used by the Director 
to fund ``Director's Office Projects and Initiatives.'' From FY 
1990-1998, the Director has spent $10,174,993 of overhead funds 
on projects and initiatives. The projects and initiatives 
funded include: Spotted Owl, Seattle Sea Lions, Ferry Shrimp 
Habitat Conservation Plan under the Endangered Species Act, 
Mexican Wolf, Wolf Monitoring Project, Wolf Reintroduction 
Program, Grizzly Bears, Blackfoot Ferret, Habitat Conservation 
Planning, Department of the Interior Solicitor's Office, 
Relocation Costs, and the North American Free Trade Agreement.
    The FWS testified that only ``Director's Projects and 
Initiatives'' funded with Pittman-Robertson and Dingell-Johnson 
funds were relocation costs. However, the Federal Aid Program's 
disproportionately large contribution to FWS-wide 
Administrative Support (overhead, rent, telephones) for the 
whole FWS allowed the FWS to pay for ``projects and 
initiatives'' conducted at the direction of the Director from 
FWS-wide Administrative Support. GAO described the FWS's use of 
Administrative Support funds as ``a shell game'' or an 
``accounting game,'' which is an accurate assessment.
    At the conclusion of each year the Service has had a 
balance remaining for the FWS-wide Administrative Support 
Funds. The balance remaining ranges from a high of $1,718,546 
in FY 1994 to a low of $100,864 in FY 1998. The remaining 
balance was not taken into account when determining funding for 
the next year--the Federal Aid programs continued to be 
assessed at the highest possible amount even though the Service 
did not use all of the funds it had at its disposal for 
overhead expenses.
    Since the Committee's investigation, the FWS agreed to use 
a direct cost analysis to determine the overhead costs 
throughout the FWS. This is the approach required in the bill. 
It only authorizes expenditures for ``direct costs'' and 
guarantees that the programs will not be overcharged in the 
future. Any costs that are unable to be determined through a 
direct cost approach are only authorized to the lowest level 
charged or assessed other FWS divisions.

Travel Abuses

    Federal Aid Program administrative funds were used to pay 
for foreign travel that was unrelated to the administration of 
the Acts. One example is an individual who made multiple trips 
to Japan. The purposes listed for these trips included: (1) 
encourage the use of the Federal Aid in Sport Fish Restoration 
Program Logo on products exported into the United States, (2) 
Federal Aid Program may serve as a model for Japan to consider 
as they develop funded support for sport fish restoration in 
Japan; and (3) make contacts with officials from Japanese Trade 
groups and their interest in a ``user pay'' concept. Whether or 
not the logo is placed on tackle, the tax is still collected. 
The two Japanese tackle manufacturers that export into the U.S. 
each have offices in the United States. Any discussions 
regarding the placement of the logo on merchandise could have 
taken place over the phone, or at least at the U.S. offices of 
these Japanese manufacturers. However, the Act does not provide 
administrative funds for international travel to promote such 
causes. Numerous other examples of unnecessary, costly, and 
extravagant travel were uncovered by the Committee 
investigation.
    H.R. 3671 restricts travel to employees who administer the 
Acts on a full-time basis. It was reported to the Committee 
that it may be necessary for travel to Canada and Mexico 
regarding issues related to administration of the Acts. It was 
also reported that there have been occasions in the past when 
it was necessary to send Federal Aid Program staff to other 
countries related to administration of the Acts. Because of the 
past abuses in this area, the Committee was reluctant to 
provide that such travel would be authorized. However, by 
requiring that the Assistant Secretary for Fish and Wildlife 
and Parks to directly approve such travel, more control will be 
exerted to prevent this type of abuse in the future.

Poor Records and Bookkeeping Abuses: Mismanagement

    According to GAO, while individually the problems 
identified in each of the areas where administrative funds are 
spent may not appear too significant, collectively the problems 
suggest a lack of attention to detail that erodes the Division 
of Federal Aid's ability to effectively manage and oversee the 
administrative aspects of the programs. In each area where 
administrative funds are used, there are problems. These 
include ineffective management oversight, inadequate internal 
controls, and inadequate policies and procedures for reviewing 
and approving administrative expenditures. GAO testified at 
both hearings that these conditions have spawned a culture of 
permissive spending that raises significant questions about 
whether the Division is meeting its management 
responsibilities.
    This culture finds its roots in the FWS. Federal Aid 
Program employees in the Regions answer to the Regional 
Directors, and the Chief of Federal Aid in Washington answers 
to the Assistant Director of External Affairs. These are the 
individuals making decisions as to how much, where, and how the 
administrative funds are spent. They were just carrying out the 
policies of the Director.
    Because the Program funding does not have to be 
appropriated and no routine audits are performed, the Federal 
Aid Program has had very little oversight. First, unlike most 
other federal programs, Federal Aid Program receives dedicated 
tax revenues each year to administer its programs. As a result, 
Program officials do not have to publicly justify the Programs' 
spending levels before Congress each year. Second, although 
Federal Aid Program provides bi-annual reports on its programs 
to the public, it does not fully disclose all of its spending, 
as the Committee's work has shown. For example, the spending 
associated with the use of administrative funds by the 
Director's Conservation Fund and the FWS's Regional offices is 
not discussed in these reports. Third, only three audits of the 
administrative funds have been performed over the past 20 
years, each of which has identified some significant management 
problems.

Poor Records and Bookkeeping Abuses: Lack of Internal Audits/
        Recordkeeping

    It is good management for an agency to keep accurate 
records and perform internal audits to ensure that programmatic 
and funding requirements are met. This was not the case with 
the Federal Aid Program. This systemic problem with lack of 
record keeping for the Federal Aid Program developed over the 
years.
    GAO and Committee staff findings indicate that there was a 
careless disregard for how the Federal Aid Program was managed. 
GAO audited the Sport Fish Restoration program in 1993 and 
found the same internal record keeping and auditing 
deficiencies existed then--nearly seven years ago.
    Very little was done to remedy the problems, particularly 
concerning the ``administration and execution'' record-keeping. 
State audits were initiated and there is an attempt to 
implement a new computer management system. In doing so, the 
cost of true administration of the Federal Aid Program 
increased leading to less funds for other purposes. As a 
result, the FWS instructed Federal Aid Program to cut funding 
of true administrative expenses to make more funds available to 
the Director for funding of other divisions of the FWS.
    To prevent the management and fiscal abuses in the future, 
H.R. 3671 establishes certification requirements. H.R. 3671 
establishes a series of certifications to ensure that funds 
used for administration of the programs are being used of this 
purpose and that they are used responsibly. It was revealed 
that no budgetary process existed that ensured that funds for 
administration were used for administration and that if funds 
were used as required, that they were done so responsibly. 
Committee staff has been unable to obtain from the FWS accurate 
and completed information explaining how the up to eight 
percent and up to six percent funds have been used in the past.
    Beginning at the time the apportionment amounts are made 
available to the States, the Secretary of the Interior and the 
Assistant Director for Wildlife and Sport Fish Restoration 
Programs are required to provide a series of certifications to 
the House Committee on Resources, the Senate Committee on 
Environment and Public Works, each State game and fish 
department or publish in the Federal Register an accounting of 
the funds used for administration. The certifications in H.R. 
3671 ``forces'' the Service to account for the expenses they 
have when administering the programs. A criticism in the past 
has been that it was difficult from the information provided 
and maintained by the Service to determine how the funds were 
used. In addition, it requires that the Secretary, Assistant 
Secretary for Fish and Wildlife and Parks, the Director of the 
Fish and Wildlife Service and the Assistant Director of the 
Wildlife and Sport Fish Restoration Programs all certify within 
30 days of the end of each fiscal year that they each properly 
discharged their duties under the Acts.

Poor Oversight and Regional Office Control

    Poor oversight and regional office control of 
administration and execution funds contributed to the 
mismanagement of the Federal Aid program. The Federal Aid 
Program and the funds apportioned to the States account for 
over one-third of the Service's budget. Divisions within the 
Service with smaller budgets have representation at the 
Directorate level of the FWS. The decision to use Federal Aid 
Program administrative funds for expenses unrelated to the 
administration of the programs made at the Directorate level 
would have been less likely if the Federal Aid Program had an 
advocate at the Directorate level.
    Under the current structure, the FWS has not provided the 
necessary tools for the Chief of Federal Aid to administer the 
program--it is obvious that the Program needs to be 
administered at a higher level within the FWS. The current 
structure of the Federal Aid Program does not provide for line 
authority of the Chief of Federal Aid to the Federal Aid staff 
in the Regions. Under the current structure, Federal Aid 
Program staff in the Region report to the Regional Directors. 
The Regional Directors make the final decisions regarding the 
Federal Aid budget in the Regions, not the Regional Federal Aid 
staff, and this arrangement has allowed for the opportunity of 
Regional Directors to supplement their Region's budgets with 
Federal Aid Program administrative funds.
    There is no consistency between Regions as to how they 
develop Federal Aid budgets or assess the Federal Aid Program 
for common Regional costs. Again this allows for the 
opportunity of taking advantage of the Federal Aid 
administrative funds. The FWS has recently proposed a 
reorganization. The proposed structure places the Federal Aid 
Program under the same Assistant Director who will be 
responsible for Migratory Birds. This will create a temptation 
for the Assistant Director, who is tied to the appropriations 
process for obtaining funding for the Migratory Bird program, 
while not having the same restraints for the Federal Aid 
Program. It is important that funds from Federal Aid Program 
are not used by other programs to supplement their budgets.
    The Assistant Director will raise the stature of this 
important conservation program and help to prevent other parts 
of the FWS from tapping Federal Aid Program funds. The 
Assistant Director will be responsible only for the 
administration, management and oversight of the programs. This 
will allow the Federal Aid Program to get the management 
attention it has not gotten in the past. Federal Aid is a 
mechanism for passing excise tax revenues to the States. The 
Federal Aid program is not a vehicle for the FWS to carry out 
other missions.

                            Committee Action

    H.R. 3671 was introduced on February 16, 2000, by 
Congressman Don Young (R-AK). The bill was referred to the 
Committee on Resources. Although no hearings were held on the 
bill, the bill was developed as a result of three oversight 
hearings held in 1999 on the Federal Aid Program administered 
by the FWS. On March 15, 2000, the Full Resources Committee met 
to consider the bill. Chairman Young offered an amendment in 
the nature of a substitute to make technical corrections to the 
bill and to clarify that the Firearm and Bow Hunting grants 
were to enhance existing grants used by States for these 
purposes, and to remove the designation of the Assistant 
Secretary for Fish and Wildlife and Parks as being ultimately 
responsible for the administration, management and oversight of 
the Wildlife and Sport Fish Restoration Programs (the Acts 
allow the Secretary of the Interior to delegate these 
responsibilities to the Assistant Secretary for Fish and 
Wildlife and Parks). The amendment was adopted by voice vote. 
The bill as amended was then ordered favorably reported by a 
roll call vote of 36 to 0 to the House of Representatives, as 
follows:


                      Section-by-Section Analysis


Section 1. Short title

    The short title of H.R. 3671 is the Wildlife and Sport Fish 
Restoration Programs Improvement Act of 2000.

Section 2. Definitions

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

                     Title I--Wildlife Restoration


Section 101. Expenditures for administration

    Expenditures for administration will be spent from the 
revenues (excluding the interest accruing under section 3(b) of 
the Wildlife Restoration Act) covered into the fund each fiscal 
year. The Secretary may use up to $5,000,000 for administration 
of this program for fiscal years 2001, 2002, and 2003. Starting 
in fiscal year 2004, the Secretary may use an amount adjusted 
annually to reflect the changes in the Consumer Price Index, 
not to exceed $7,000,000. The Secretary of the Interior will 
make the apportionments to the States after deductions have 
been made for administration (section 4(a)), the apportionment 
to the States from the tax imposed on pistols, revolvers, bow 
and arrows (section 4(c)), any amount apportioned to the 
territories (section 8A), the Firearm and Bow Hunter Education 
and Safety Program Grants designated under Section 102 of this 
Act and the Multi-State Conservation Program designated under 
Section 103 of this Act.
    The funds available to the Secretary for the administration 
of the Act will be available for only one fiscal year. Within 
60 days of the end of the fiscal year, all unobligated funds 
will be returned to the States through the apportionment 
formula. In the past, the Secretary was able to carry over 
administration funds for two fiscal years. If after the two 
years, the funds were not used for administration and execution 
of the Act, any remaining funds are to be apportioned back to 
the States for their use on restoration projects. The Federal 
Aid Program has had leftover funds from previous years and has 
not been allocating all of these funds to the States. Instead, 
it has been rolling the funds over and adding them to the 
administration funds for the next fiscal year--making more 
funds available for redistribution to non-Federal Aid programs. 
For FY 1992-1998 only 18 percent of the carryover 
administrative funds were given to the States as required by 
law. In any given year, more funds are available to use in ways 
not envisioned by the Acts. For example, from FY 1992-1998 
$32,805,402 in Wildlife and Sport Fish administrative funds 
were carried over. Of this amount only $6,048,576 was given 
back to the States and $26,756,826 stayed in the FWS. The 
remainder rolled over for use during the following year. The 
FWS was unable to account for which funds were rolled over from 
one year to the next. The Committee determined that the ability 
of the FWS to carry over the funds allowed it the latitude to 
spend administration funds on expenses not related to the 
administration of the Act. This latitude, combined with the 
poor fiscal management of the administration funds created an 
environment ripe for abuse.
    Section 101 also creates a series of certifications by the 
Secretary of the Interior (who may delegate only to the 
Assistant Secretary for Fish and Wildlife and Parks) and the 
Assistant Director for Wildlife and Sport Fish Restoration 
Programs that will build in a series of checks and balances 
that will require the FWS to report on how it uses 
administration funds. The certifications are described below:
    Within 30 days after the end of each fiscal year, the 
Secretary of the Interior shall certify in writing to the 
Secretary of the Treasury and to each State fish and game 
department the amount apportioned to each State in the most 
recent apportionment and the amounts obligated by the Secretary 
of the Interior during the fiscal year for administration of 
the Act. These amounts are also to be published in the Federal 
Register.
    The Secretary shall within three months after each fiscal 
year certify in writing to the Committee on Resources of the 
House of Representatives and the Committee on Environment and 
Public Works of the Senate the following for the fiscal year: 
(1) the amount of funds used for administration and a breakdown 
of categories for which such funds were expended, (2) the 
amount of funds apportioned to States not used for 
administration, (3) the results of the audits of the funds used 
for administration of the Act, (4) that all funds expended for 
administration were necessary for administration of the Acts, 
and (5) the Secretary, the Assistant Secretary for Fish and 
Wildlife and Parks, the Director of the United States Fish and 
Wildlife Service, and the Assistant Director for Wildlife and 
Sport Fish Restoration Programs each properly discharged their 
duties under this Act. This responsibility of the Secretary of 
the Interior to make these certifications may only be delegated 
to the Assistant Secretary for Fish and Wildlife and Parks.
    Within 60 days after the start of each fiscal year, the 
Assistant Director for Wildlife and Sport Fish Restoration 
Programs shall provide to the Committee on Resources of the 
House of Representatives and the Committee on Environment and 
Public Works of the Senate and publish in the Federal Register 
the following for the fiscal year: (1) the amount of funds that 
will be expended for administration, (2) a breakdown of 
categories for which such funds will be expended, and (3) a 
description of how the funds are necessary for the 
administration of the Act.
    Within 1 month after the end of each fiscal year, the 
Assistant Director for Wildlife and Sport Fish Restoration 
Programs shall certify that: (1) all amounts expended in that 
fiscal year to administer this Act in agency headquarters and 
in regional offices of the United States Fish and Wildlife 
Service were used in accordance with the Acts, (2) that all 
such expenditures were necessary to administer the Act, (3) 
distribute such certifications to each State fish and game 
department, and (4) publish this information in the Federal 
Register.
    Use of funds to administer this Act will not be authorized 
just because the cost is not expressly prohibited by this Act. 
The FWS testified that it had broad discretionary authority 
under the law to spend the administration funds as it saw fit. 
The wording in H.R. 3671 is designed to prevent the FWS from 
using the fact that funding for an item was not prohibited as a 
reason to allow for the funding. In addition, the Secretary of 
the Interior is not authorized to use any of the administration 
funds to supplement any function for which general 
appropriations are made for the FWS or any other entity of the 
Department of the Interior.
    The Inspector General of the Department of the Interior is 
required to procure the conduct of biennial audits, in 
accordance with generally accepted accounting principles, of 
the expenditures of amounts used by the Secretary for 
administration of this Act. The auditor will be supervised by 
the Inspector General of the Department of the Interior. The 
auditor shall provide a copy of the audit findings to the 
Secretary of the Interior and to the Inspector General of the 
Department of the Interior, who will promptly report to the 
House Committee on Resources and the Committee on Environment 
and Public Works of the Senate. The audits may not be conducted 
by anyone associated in any way with the Department of the 
Interior.
    H.R. 3671 establishes a list of twelve categories of 
authorized administration costs. Each is described below:
    Personnel Costs (categories 1 and 2).--Personnel costs are 
limited to employees who directly administer the Act on a full-
time basis or on a part-time basis for at least 20 hours each 
week. The costs of part-time personnel are not to exceed the 
costs of employees who administer the Act on a full-time basis 
and the part-time hours are to be certified by the employee's 
supervisor. The Committee was concerned with the amount of 
administrative funds that were used to support the personnel 
costs of employees who were not involved in the administration 
of the Act. At both the Washington D.C. Office level and in the 
Regions, administrative funds were used to pay for personnel 
costs of employees who did not support the Act. The FWS used 
administrative funds from the Act to pay for salaries of 
employees they were unable to fund through the legitimate 
program or office of that employee. It also paid for some or 
all of the employee's personnel costs with administrative funds 
from the Act allowed funds normally used for the personnel 
costs to be used elsewhere in the organization.
    Support Costs (category 3).--Support costs are limited to 
costs directly associated with the personnel costs authorized 
by categories 1 and 2 and does not include the costs associated 
with staffing and operation of any offices of the FWS and the 
Department of the Interior other than for purposes of the Act. 
Support costs, like personnel costs, of staff not involved with 
the administration of the Act were being paid with 
administration funds. This restriction is another means to 
prevent the FWS from covering costs with administration funds 
unrelated to the administration of the Act.
    Costs Related to the Comprehensive Fish and Wildlife 
Resource Management Plans or Projects (category 4).--This 
category provides funds for the FWS to determine if 
comprehensive plans or projects are substantial in character 
and design.
    Overhead Costs (category 5).--Overhead costs are limited to 
costs that are directly attributable to the administration of 
the Act and based on actual costs as determined by a direct 
cost allocation methodology and approved by the Director of the 
Office of Management and Budget for use by federal agencies and 
for costs not able to be determined by a direct cost 
methodology, the amount charged may not exceed the amount 
charged or assessed for such costs per full-time equivalent 
employee for any other division or program of the FWS.
    As discussed earlier, the Committee discovered that the 
Service used a method to ``assess'' the Federal Aid Program 
that resulted in a disproportionally high percentage of the 
funds available for administration of the Federal Aid Program 
to make up for a shortfall in appropriated and recovered 
dollars for the funding of General Administrative Services 
overhead.
    The FWS derives funds from three sources to meet its 
service-wide administrative support expenses (overhead): 
appropriated funds, reimbursements, and cost recovery from non-
resource management programs (11 programs including Federal Aid 
Program pay into this source).
    For example, in FY 1998, the FWS used about $55.5 million 
for service-wide administrative support. About $47.8 million 
came from appropriated funds and collections on reimbursements. 
Of the remaining $7.7--million cost recovery from non-resource 
management accounts--Federal Aid Program paid $4.7 million. In 
reality, however, the Federal Aid Program's contribution to the 
FWS's overhead expenses had nothing to do with the Federal Aid 
Program's cost to the FWS.
    To put the Federal Aid Program's contribution in 
perspective, Federal Aid paid 61 percent of the cost recovery 
from non-resource management programs. While the overhead cost 
paid for each Service employee is about $7,000, the overhead 
cost paid by the Federal Aid Program for each Federal Aid 
employee is about $30,000.
    FWS had assessed the Wildlife Restoration Program and the 
Sport Fish Restoration Program the total amount of funds 
allowable under the law--the entire eight percent and six 
percent irrespective of what percentage of the funds were 
actually used for administration and execution.
    The FWS defended this practice by stating that all non-
resource management programs were ``assessed'' the same 
percentage. This method takes unfair advantage of programs that 
have the most administrative funds at their disposal and in no 
way approximates true overhead costs for the Federal Aid 
Program. At issue is that when the Federal Aid program pays 
more than its fair share of overhead, wildlife and sport fish 
conservation suffer.
    Costs of Auditing State Fish and Game Departments and the 
Use of State Apportionments (category 6).--The costs to audit 
the State Fish and Game Departments and their use of the State 
apportionment funds every five years is authorized. An 
important component of administration is the auditing of the 
States' use of the apportioned funds. This will ensure that the 
States are using the funds as intended under the Act. Another 
important component of the auditing process is the audit 
resolution process. It is necessary that once the audits are 
completed that an audit resolution process is implemented. It 
is important that if diversions of license fees or of 
apportioned funds is found, the matter is resolved. It has come 
to the attention of the Committee that under the current audit 
resolutionprocess there is an inconsistency with how the audits 
are resolved. The resolutions being promoted are not consistent from 
State to State. For example, when one State has been found to 
improperly use apportioned funds it is asked to repay the amount to the 
program. Another State, found to have also improperly used apportioned 
funds, is not asked to repay the funds to the program. It is imperative 
that the resolution to the audits are uniform throughout the United 
States and that all States are treated equally and fairly under the 
audit resolution process.
    Costs of Audits of the Administration of the Acts (category 
7).--The Inspector General of the Department of the Interior 
shall procure biennial audits of expenditures of amounts used 
by the Secretary for administration of the Act. The audit 
contract will be awarded under competitive procedures and 
performed by a person that is not associated in any way with 
the Department of the Interior. The auditor will be supervised 
by the Inspector General. The auditor shall submit a report of 
the findings to the Inspector General and the Secretary of the 
Interior. The Inspector General will then promptly report to 
the Committee on Resources of the House of Representative and 
the Committee on Environment and Public Works of the Senate on 
the results of each audit.
    The Committee was greatly concerned to discover that the 
FWS never conducted an audit of the funds used to administer 
the Act. Conducting an audit of the use of the administration 
funds would have been good fiscal management of the program. 
Had such an audit been conducted, perhaps it could have 
prevented the use of administration funds for expenses 
unrelated to administration of the Acts. It is imperative that 
these audits are conducted and that actions are taken based on 
the findings of these audits to correct any inconsistencies or 
problems.
    Costs of Necessary Training (category 8).--Training costs 
to improve administration of the Acts are allowed for federal 
and State full-time personnel who administer the Act.
    Training is important to ensure that people are properly 
trained for the jobs they are hired to perform. Training 
offered for courses that would provide better administration of 
the Federal Aid Program are permissible. The Committee 
discovered that in addition to training for appropriate 
administrative-type skills, Federal Aid Program administrative 
funds were used to provide training that clearly falls outside 
of what is necessary for the administration of the programs. 
For example, training was offered and paid for with Federal Aid 
Program administrative funds for the following: Systematic 
Development of Informed Consent, Mourning Dove Workshop, Fish 
Stock Assessment, Stream Classification and Gravel Mining 
Workshop, Citizen Participation by Objective, Fundamentals of 
Ecosystem Management, Comprehensive Accessibility Planning for 
Parks, Recreation and Tourism and Media Relations. These 
courses may have been important, but they did not improve the 
administration of the Act and it was not appropriate to fund 
them with administration funds.
    The Committee is concerned about the method the FWS will 
use to train eligible personnel. The FWS has provided to the 
Committee documentation that it plans to offer a centralized 
training program at the National Conservation Training Center 
for eligible personnel. A centralized training program is not 
what the Committee intends by necessary training. Training 
classes and workshops that provide eligible personnel with 
information and skills that will allow them to better 
administer the programs is the intent of the Committee. The 
Committee is concerned that creation of such a program will be 
not to train eligible personnel in administration, but used as 
a way to cover the costs of training unrelated to the 
administration of the Act or training of ineligible employees.
    Costs of Travel to the States, Territories and Canada 
(category 9).--Travel costs for personnel who administer the 
Acts on a full-time basis for purposes directly related to 
administration of State programs or projects or who administer 
the Firearm and Bow Hunter Education Grants Program or the 
Multi-State Conservation Grant Program. The Committee 
discovered that travel was being funded with administration 
funds that was unrelated to the administration of the programs, 
so the bill requires that all travel must directly relate to 
administration of the program or projects.
    Costs of Travel Outside of the United States (category 
10).--Travel costs that related to the administration of the 
Act by personnel who administer the Act on a full-time basis 
are authorized if travel is approved directly by the Assistant 
Secretary for Fish and Wildlife and Parks. This does however, 
not restrict the travel of Federal Aid employees to travel 
internationally to assist in issues related to wildlife or 
sport fish restoration. It only restricts the funding of that 
travel--it cannot be funded with administration funds. The 
Committee discovered many trips to international destinations 
for matters unrelated to the administration of the Acts. For 
example, trips were made to foreign countries to encourage them 
to develop their own Sport Fish Restoration Program. Although 
it maybe important that other countries develop similar 
programs, it is not a function that should be funded with 
administration funds. Such travel costs clearly fall within the 
responsibility of the FWS's International Affairs Office.
    Relocation Expenses (category 11).--Relocation expenses for 
personnel who, after they relocate will administer the Act on a 
full-time basis for at least one year. At the time the 
relocation expenses are incurred, the Director of the FWS will 
have to certify that the employee will administer the Act on a 
full-time basis for a least one year. The Committee discovered 
that administration funds were being used to relocate personnel 
who did not administer the programs. Again, the FWS was using 
administration funds to pay for other expenses within the 
agency. For example, in one Region, administration funds were 
used to relocate the Deputy Regional Director. This type of 
expense will not be authorized under H.R. 3671.
    Costs to Administer Grants (category 12).--Costs to audit, 
evaluate, approve, disapprove, and advise concerning grants to 
the States under the State apportionments, Firearm and Bow 
Hunter Education Grants and Multi-State Conservation Grants. 
The intent of the Committee is not to add any new authorized 
functions. Rather, it is to capture what the Division now 
undertakes when it processes grant applications. This language 
describes the responsibility of the Secretary of the Interior 
and the process of review the Secretary engages in before 
apportioning funds to each State, as an eligible expenditure of 
the funds available under his or her discretion. The process 
for approval does not include a programmatic review of the 
grants. The role of the FWS is not to make programmatic 
determinations regarding the grants, but instead whether they 
are substantial in character and design.
    In the course of streamlining the process for administering 
the Wildlife and Sport Fish Trust funds in the Regions, the 
Committee grew increasingly concerned about allegations that 
the staff responsible for administering the apportionments to 
the States used their ability to control the time ittook for 
projects or plans to be approved as a means of retribution for actions 
States may or may not have taken that were not considered by the FWS to 
be appropriate. The allegations were not limited to actions States took 
with regard to the Wildlife or Sport Fish Restoration Trust Funds. In 
some cases, actions taken by States regarding land use, wildlife or 
sport fish management unrelated to the Wildlife and Sport Fish Trust 
Funds, for example, were seen to be the catalyst for actions taken by 
the FWS related to the length of time it took to process grant 
applications or approve grant applications. Additional allegations have 
surfaced of the FWS using the approval process for State apportionments 
to advance the restoration and conservation goals of the FWS on the 
States. The Act was not designed as a tool for the FWS to further its 
mission for or in the States. Instead, it was established to provide 
States with funding for State wildlife restoration projects that are 
necessary from the States' perspective for the effective management of 
wildlife.
    The administration of the Wildlife and Sport Fish Trust 
Funds should not to be used by the FWS to further an 
independant agenda. Instead, the States are to decide, within 
the requirements of the Act, how to spend the apportioned 
funds. Interference by the FWS in any way to negatively impact 
the timing or approval of any project or plan that falls within 
the bounds of the requirements of the law is an obstruction to 
the implementation of the law.

Section 102. Firearm and Bow Hunter Education and Safety Program grants

    In 1970 and 1972, Congress added handgun and archery 
equipment respectively to the list of items taxed under the 
Pittman-Robertson program. At that time, Congress recognized 
the need to invest in the future of hunting and shooting and 
included language that allowed States to use up to 50 percent 
of the revenues collected from handgun and archery equipment 
for hunter education and shooting range development. While 
Congress recognizes that States have used a portion of the 
available money for these purposes, both hunter education and 
shooting range development are in need of additional 
investments if they are to meet the challenges of the 21st 
Century.
    In making reforms to the administration of the Pittman-
Robertson program in this legislation, the Committee recognized 
an opportunity to re-invest the savings realized by these 
reforms in hunter education, including bowhunter education, as 
well as shooting ranges, including archery ranges. As a result, 
the Committee included language that earmarks $15 million minus 
the amount used for administration and the multi-state grant 
program to enhance both hunter education and shooting range 
construction, which constitute some of the savings achieved by 
the reforms in the bill.
    The Committee has reviewed the December 1996 ``Review of 
the National Hunter Education Program with Recommendations for 
Improvement'' and supports the conclusions of this report. In 
providing this additional money, the Committee intends for 
States to implement relevant recommendations from this report. 
In particular, the Committee suggests that this money be used 
by States to: hire additional staff for the hunter education 
program; provide additional materials for hunter education 
courses; enhance and modernize materials as needed; investigate 
new technologies and delivery methods; develop and evaluate 
home study courses; create advanced hunter education courses; 
perform programmatic evaluations and monitoring of hunter 
education classes; improve and enhance training for hunter 
education instructors; and provide controlled and supervised 
facilities for hands-on live firing experiences.
    In addition, the Committee intends that this money will be 
used by States to provide convenient opportunities for 
recreational shooting. Accordingly, the Committee urges States 
to construct new firearms and archery ranges and enhance and 
modernize existing ranges with the additional funding.
    It is the Committee's intent that this money will be used 
to enhance existing hunter education and shooting range 
programs, and expects States to use this money as a supplement 
to the Pittman-Robertson program dollars under Section 8(b) and 
other current sources of funding for both hunter education and 
shooting ranges. The Committee does not intend for this money 
to be used as a replacement for money already being spent on 
hunter education and shooting ranges under Section 8(b). The 
Committee intends to monitor the use of this money by States to 
ensure that they are following with Congressional intent.
    In drafting this section of the legislation, the Committee 
specifically provided that the 25 percent match that is 
required for eligibility come from a non-federal source. In so 
doing, it is the Committee's intent that States will actively 
seek private partners from the conservation community, 
sportsmen's and hunting organizations, and the firearms and 
archery industry to provide all or part of this match and work 
in concert with these groups and organizations to meet the 
goals and challenges of hunter education and shooting range 
development in the 21st Century.
    Under Section 102, a new Section 10(a)(B) of the Pittman-
Robertson Wildlife Restoration Act would make eligible the 
Hunter and Bow Hunter Education and Safety Program grants for 
interstate coordination and development of hunter education 
programs.
    In the course of resolving current concerns with the former 
administrative grants program, the Committee grew increasingly 
concerned about the condition of hunter education and sporting 
firearm safety programs authorized under the existing Act. The 
Committee found broad sentiment from sportsmen's organizations 
that current state programs are under funded and have not 
received adequate attention from State agencies. As a result, 
many sportsmen's organizations believe that State hunter 
education programs have not delivered a consistent level of 
effort, with some State programs inadequate in content, format, 
accessibility and meaning.
    The Committee shares these concerns, but was concerned 
about the lack of quantifiable data that would better identify 
gaps in hunter education efforts among and within the States 
that receive Pittman-Robertson dollars. There appears at this 
time to be no consistent set of data or evaluations that reveal 
which States' programs are meeting expectations, exceeding 
expectation, or falling short of expectations.
    The partnership bond with sportsmen's organizations has 
helped make the Pittman-Robertson program a success for more 
than six decades. It is very important that these organizations 
and the states reinvigorate their efforts to work together 
using the monies provided under Sections 102 and 103.
    The Committee reiterates that the public uses and benefits 
arising from Pittman-Robertson Act projects and programs remain 
important. Just like wildlife dependent recreation is now a 
priority public use of National Wildlife Refuge system lands, 
similar activities including hunting, fishing, field trials 
with dogs, hunter education, and improvement of hunting skills 
on lands and interests acquired or administered with wildlife 
restoration funds are an important beneficial feature of the 
program. Guidance that sets clear and reasonable standards and 
recognizes the long and consistent uses of wildlife management 
areas for activities such as trialing may be useful.

Section 103. Multi-State Conservation Grant Program

    HR 3671 establishes a Multi-State Conservation Grant 
Program (MSCGP) for the Secretary of the Interior to make 
grants of up to $2.5 million from the revenues covered into the 
fund. The funds for the grants will be available for two fiscal 
years, after which all unobligated funds are to be approtioned 
to the States according to the apportionment formula. A project 
is eligible for funding if: (1) benefits at least 26 states, or 
(2) benefits a majority of the States in a region of the United 
States Fish and Wildlife Service or (3) a majority of the 
States in a regional association of State fish and game 
departments. The Secretary may award grants only based on a 
priority list of wildlife restoration projects prepared and 
submitted by State fish and game departments acting through the 
International Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies (IAFWA) 
each fiscal year. The IAFWA shall prepare each prioirty list 
through a committee comprised of the heads of State fish and 
game departments (or their designees). Once the list is 
developed, it must be approved by a majority of the heads of 
all State fish and game deaprtments (or their designees) and 
submitted not later than Ocotber 1 of each fiscal year to the 
Assistant Director for Wildlife and Sport Fish Restoration 
Programs, who shall accept the list on behalf of the Secretary 
of the Interior. The Assistant Director for Wildlife and Sport 
Fish Restoration Programs shall publish in the Federal Register 
each priority list submitted. In preparing the list, the IAFWA 
shall consult with nongovernmental organizations that represent 
conservation organizations, sportsmen organizations, and 
industries that support or pormote hunting, trapping, 
recreational shooting, bow hunting, or archery.
    The Secretary may make a grant only to a State or a group 
of States or a nongovernmental organziation (NGO) subject to 
the following restrictions. Any NGO applying for a grant must 
submit with their grant application to the IAFWA a 
certification that the organization does not promote or 
encourage oppostion to regulated hunting or trapping of 
wildlife. The funds may not be used for education, activities, 
projects, or promgrams that promote or encourage opposition to 
regulated hunting or trapping of wildlife. Any NGO that is 
found to promote or encourage opposition to regulated hunting 
or trapping of wildlife or does not use the funds in compliance 
with the section shall return all funds received and be subject 
to any other penalties under law. No activities undertaken by 
the personnel of State fish and game departments shall 
constitute advice or recommendations for one or more agencies 
or officers of the federal government.

Section 104. Miscellaneous provisions

    Section 5 of the Act is amended so that for each fiscal 
year the Secretary of the Interior shall certify to the 
Secretary of the Treasury and to each State fish and game 
department the sum which he has estimated to be necessary for 
administration and the sum he has apportioned to each State at 
the time such deduction or apportionment is made.

                    Title II--Sport Fish Restoration


Section 201. Expenditures for administration

    Expenditures for administration will be made after the 
distribution and use under Section 4 subsections (a) for the 
Coastal Wetlands Planning, Protection and Restoration Act, 
subsection (b) for projects under the Clean Vessel Act of 1992 
and for projects under the Sportfishing and Boating Safety Act 
of 1998, recreational boating and safety programs, subsection 
(c) for funds for National Outreach and Communications Program, 
and grants under the Multi-State Conservation Program and 
Funding for the Marine Fisheries Commissions under Section 14. 
The Secretary may use up to $5,000,000 for administration of 
this program for fiscal years 2001, 2002, and 2003. Starting in 
fiscal year 2004, the Secretary may use an amount adjusted 
annually to reflect the changes in the Consumer Price Index, 
not to exceed $7,000,000.
    The funds available to the Secretary for the administration 
of the Act will be available for only one fiscal year. Within 
sixty days of the end of the fiscal year, all unobligated funds 
will be returned to the States through the apportionment 
formula. In the past, the Secretary was able to carry over 
administration funds for two fiscal years. If after the two 
years, the funds were not used for administration and execution 
of the Acts, any remaining funds are to be apportioned back to 
the States for their use on restoration projects. The Federal 
Aid Program has had left over funds from previous years and has 
not been allocating all of these funds to the states. Instead, 
they have been rolling the funds over and adding them to the 
administration funds for the next fiscal year--making more 
funds available for redistribution to non-Federal Aid Programs. 
For FY 1992-1998 only 18 percent of the carryover 
administrative funds were given to the States as required by 
law. In any given year, more funds are available to use in ways 
not envisioned by the Acts. For example: From FY 1992-1998 
$32,805,402 in Wildlife and Sport Fish administrative funds 
were carried over. Of this amount only $6,048,576 was given 
back to the States and $26,756,826 stayed in the FWS. The 
remainder rolled over for use during the following year. The 
FWS was unable to account for which funds were rolled-over from 
one year to the next.
    The Committee determined that the ability of the FWS to 
carry over the funds allowed them the latitude to spend 
administration funds on expenses not related to the 
administration of the Act. This latitude, combined with the 
poor fiscal management of the administration funds created an 
environment ripe for abuse.
    HR 3671 creates a series of certifications by the Secretary 
of the Interior (who may delegate only to the Assistant 
Secretary for Fish and Wildlife and Parks) and the Assistant 
Director for Wildlife and Sport Fish Restoration Programs that 
will build in a series of checks and balances that will require 
the Fish and Wildlife Service to report on how they use 
administration funds. The certifications are described below:
    The Secretary shall within 3 months after each fiscal year 
certify in writing to the Committee on Resources of the House 
of Representatives, and the Committee on Environment and Public 
Works of the Senate the following for the fiscal year: (1) the 
amount of funds used for administration and a breakdown of 
categories for which such funds were expended, (2) the amount 
of funds apportioned to States not used for administration, (3) 
the results of the audits of the funds used for administration 
of the Act, (4) that all funds expended for administration were 
necessary for administration of the Act, and (5) the Secretary, 
the Assistant Secretary for Fish and Wildlife and Parks, the 
Director of the United States Fish and Wildlife Service, and 
the Assistant Director for Wildlife and Sport Fish Restoration 
Programs each properly discharged their duties under the Act. 
This responsibility of the Secretary of the Interior to make 
these certifications may only be delegated to the Assistant 
Secretary for Fish and Wildlife and Parks.
    Within 1 month after the end of each fiscal year, the 
Assistant Director for Wildlife and Sport Fish Restoration 
Programs shall certify that: (1) all amounts expended in that 
fiscal year to administer this Act in agency headquarters and 
in regional offices of the FWS were used in accordance with the 
Act, (2) that all such expenditures were necessary to 
administer the Act, (3) distribute such certifications to each 
State fish and game department, and (4) publish this 
information in the Federal Register.
    Use of funds to administer this Act will not be authorized 
just because the cost is not expressly prohibited by this Act. 
The FWS testified to the Committee that it has had broad 
discretionary authority under the law to spend the 
administration funds as it saw fit. This working is designed to 
prevent the FWS using the fact that funding for an item was not 
prohibited as a reason to allow for the funding. In addition, 
the Secretary of the Interior is not allowed to use any of the 
administration funds to supplement any function for which 
general appropriations are made for the FWS or any other entity 
of the Department of the Interior.
    The Inspector General of the Department of the Interior is 
required to procure the conduct of biennial audits, in 
accordance with generally accepted accounting principles, of 
the expenditures of amounts used by the Secretary for 
administration of this Act. The auditor will be supervised by 
the Inspector General of the Department of the Interior. The 
auditor shall provide a copy of the audit findings to the 
Secretary of the Interior and to the Inspector General of the 
Department of the Interior, who will promptly report to the 
House Committee on Resources and the Committee on Environment 
and Public Works of the Senate. The audits may not be conducted 
by anyone associated in any way with the Department of the 
Interior.
    H.R. 3671 establishes a list of twelve categories of 
authorized administration costs. Each is described below:
    Personnel Costs (categories 1 and 2).--Personnel costs are 
limited to employees who directly administer the Acts on a 
full-time basis or on a part-time basis for at least 20 hours 
each week. The costs of part-time personnel are not to exceed 
the costs of employees who administer the Act on a full-time 
basis and the part-time hours are to be certified by the 
employee's supervisor. The Committee was concerned with the 
amount of administrative funds that were used to support the 
personnel costs of employees who were not involved in the 
administration of the Act. At both the Washington D.C. Office 
level and in the Regions, administrative funds were used to pay 
for personnel costs of employees who did not support the Act. 
The FWS used administrative funds from the Act to pay for 
salaries of employees they were unable to fund through the 
legitimate program or office of that employee, or by paying for 
some or all of the employee's personnel costs with 
administrative funds from the Act allowed funds normally used 
for the personnel costs to be used elsewhere in the 
organization.
    Support Costs (category 3).--Support costs are limited to 
costs directly associated with the personnel costs authorized 
by categories 1 and 2 and does not include the costs associated 
with staffing and operation of any offices of the FWS and the 
Department of the Interior other than for purposes of the Act. 
Support costs, like personnel costs, of staff not involved with 
the administration of the Act were being paid with 
administration funds. This restriction is another means to 
prevent the FWS from covering costs with administration funds 
unrelated to the administration of the Act.
    Costs Related to the Comprehensive Fish and Wildlife 
Resource Management Plans or Projects (category 4).--This 
category provides funds for the FWS to determine if 
comprehensive plans or projects are substantial in character 
and design.
    Overhead Costs (category 5).--Overhead costs are limited to 
costs that are directly attributable to the administration of 
the Act and based on actual costs as determined by a direct 
cost allocation methodology and approved by the Director of the 
Office of Management and Budget for use by federal agencies and 
for costs not able to be determined by a direct cost 
methodology, the amount charged may not exceed the amount 
charged or assessed for such costs per full-time equivalent 
employee for any other division or program of the FWS.
    The Committee discovered that the FWS used a method to 
``assess'' the Federal Aid Program that resulted in a 
disproportionally high percentage of the funds available for 
administration of the Federal Aid Program to make up for a 
shortfall in appropriated and recovered dollars for the funding 
of General Administrative Services overhead.
    The FWS derives funds from three sources to meet its 
service-wide administrative support expenses (overhead): 
appropriated funds, reimbursements, and cost recovery from non-
resource management programs (11 programs including the Federal 
Aid Program pay into this source).
    For example, in fiscal year 1998, the FWS received about 
$55.5 million for service-wide administrative support. About 
$47.8 million came from appropriated funds and collections on 
reimbursements. Of the remaining $7.7 million--cost recovery 
from non-resource management accounts--the Federal Aid Program 
paid $4.7 million. In reality, however, Federal Aid's 
contribution to the FWS's overhead expenses had nothing to do 
with the Federal Aid Programs' cost to the FWS.
    To put the Federal Aid Program's contribution in 
perspective, Federal Aid paid 61 percent of the cost recovery 
from non-resource management programs. While the overhead cost 
paid for each FWS employee is about $7,000, the overhead cost 
paid by Federal Aid for each Federal Aid employee is about 
$30,000.
    The FWS had assessed the Wildlife Restoration Program and 
the Sport Fish Restoration Program on the total amount of funds 
allowable under the law--the entire eight percent and six 
percent irrespective of what percentage of the funds were 
actually used for administration and execution. So, for 
example, in the years that administration and execution funds 
were only five percent of the Wildlife Restoration Program and 
five percent of the Sport Fish Restoration Program, the FWS 
still based its assessment on the entire eight percent and six 
percent. This allowed the FWS to use this money on non-
conservation, non-authorized projects and programs.
    The FWS defended this practice by stating that all non-
resource management programs were ``assessed'' the same 
percentage. This method takes unfair advantage of programs that 
have the most administrative funds at their disposal and in no 
way approximates true overhead costs for the Federal Aid 
Program. At issue is that when the Federal Aid program pays 
more than its fair share of overhead, wildlife and sport fish 
conservation suffer.
    Costs of Auditing State Fish and Game Departments and the 
Use of State Apportionments (category 6).--The costs to audit 
the State Fish and Game Departments and their use of the State 
apportionment funds every five years is allowable. An important 
component of administration is the auditing of the States' use 
of the apportioned funds. This will ensure that the States are 
using the funds as intended under the Acts. Another important 
component of the auditing process is the audit resolution 
process. It is necessary that once the audits are completed 
that an audit resolution process is implemented. It is 
important that if diversions of license fees or of apportioned 
funds is found, the matter is resolved. It has come to the 
attention of the Committee that under the current audit 
resolution process there is an inconsistency with how the 
audits are resolved. The resolutions being promoted are not 
consistent from State to State. For example, when one State was 
been found to improperly use apportioned funds, it was asked to 
repay the amount to the program. Another State, found to have 
also improperly used apportioned funds, was not asked to repay 
the funds to the program. It is imperative that the resolution 
to the audits are uniform throughout the United States and that 
all States are treated equally and fairly under the audit 
resolution process.
    Costs of Audits of the Administration of the Acts (category 
7).--The Inspector General of the Department of the Interior 
shall procure biennial audits of expenditures of amounts used 
by the Secretary for administration of the Act. The audit 
contract will be awarded under competitive procedures and 
performed by a person that is not associated in any way with 
the Department of the Interior. The auditor will be supervised 
by the Inspector General. The auditor shall submit a report of 
the findings to the Inspector General and the Secretary of the 
Interior. The Inspector General will then promptly report to 
the Committee on Resources of the House of Representative and 
the Committee on Environment and Public Works of the Senate on 
the results of each audit.
    The Committee was greatly concerned to discover that the 
FWS never conducted an audit of the funds used to administer 
the Act. Conducting an audit of the use of the administration 
funds would have been good fiscal management of the program. 
Had such an audit been conducted, perhaps it could have 
prevented the use of administration funds for expenses 
unrelated to administration of the Act. It is the opinion of 
the Committee that it is imperative that these audits are 
conducted and that actions are taken based on the findings of 
these audits to correct any inconsistencies or problems.
    Costs of Necessary Training (category 8).--Training costs 
to improve administration of the Act are allowed for federal 
and State full-time personnel who administer the Act.
    Training is important to ensure that people are properly 
trained for the jobs they are hired to perform. Training 
offered for courses that would provide better administration of 
the Federal Aid Program are permissible. The Committee 
discovered that in addition to training for appropriate 
administrative-type skills, Federal Aid administrative funds 
were used to provide training that clearly falls outside of 
what is necessary for the administration of the Program. For 
example, training was offered and paid for with Federal Aid 
Program administrative funds for the following: Systematic 
Development of Informed Consent, Mourning Dove Workshop, Fish 
Stock Assessment, Stream Classification and Gravel Mining 
Workshop, Citizen Participation by Objective, Fundamentals of 
Ecosystem Management, Comprehensive Accessibility Planning for 
Parks, Recreation and Tourism and Media Relations. These 
courses may have been important, but they did not improve the 
administration of the Act and it was not appropriate to fund 
them with administration funds.
    The Committee is concerned about the method the Fish and 
Wildlife Service will use to train eligible personnel. The FWS 
has provided to the Committee documentation that it plans to 
offer a centralized training program at the National 
Conservation Training Center for eligible personnel. A 
centralized training program is not what the Committee intends 
by necessary training. Training classes and workshops that 
provide eligible personnel with information and skills that 
will allow them to better administer the programs is the intent 
of the Committee. The Committee is concerned that creation of 
such a program will be not to train eligible personnel in 
administration, but used as a way to cover the costs of 
training unrelated to the administration of the Act or training 
of ineligible employees.
    Costs of Travel to the States, Territories and Canada 
(category 9).--Travel costs for personnel who administer the 
Act on a full-time basis for purposes directly related to 
administration of State programs or projects or who administer 
the Firearm and Bow Hunter Education Grants Program or the 
Multi-State Conservation Grant Program. The Committee 
discovered that travel was being funded with administration 
funds that was unrelated to the administration of the programs.
    Costs of Travel Outside of the United States (category 
10).--Travel costs that related to the administration of the 
Acts by personnel who administer the Acts on a full-time basis 
are allowed if it is approved directly by the Assistant 
Secretary for Fish and Wildlife and Parks. This does however, 
not restrict the travel of Federal Aid Program employees to 
travel internationally to assist in issues related to sport 
fish restoration. It only restricts the funding of that 
travel--it cannot be funded with administration funds. The 
Committee discovered many trips to international destinations 
for matters unrelated to the administration of the Act. For 
example, trips were made to foreign countries to encourage them 
to develop their own Sport Fish Restoration Program. Although 
it is important that other countries develop similar programs, 
it is not a function that should be funded with administration 
funds. Such travel costs clearly fall within the responsibility 
of the FWS's International Affairs Office.
    Relocation Expenses (category 11).--Relocation expenses for 
personnel who, after they relocate will administer the Act on a 
full-time basis for at least one year. At the time the 
relocation expenses are incurred, the Director of the FWS will 
have to certify that the employee will administer the Act on a 
full-time basis for a least one year. The Committee discovered 
that administration funds were being used to relocate personnel 
who did not administer the programs. Again, the FWS was using 
administration funds to pay for other expenses within the 
agency. For example, in one Region, administration funds were 
used to relocate the Deputy Regional Director.
    Costs to Administer Grants (category 12).--Costs to audit, 
evaluate, approve, disapprove, and advise concerning grants to 
the States under the State apportionments, Marine Fisheries 
Commission Grants and Multi-State Conservation Grants. The 
intent of the Committee is that funds are used to determine 
whether or not the grants fit within the criteria established 
under the Act and that the proper fiscal management and 
accountability of the grants is maintained. The process for 
approval does not include a programmatic review of the grants. 
The role of the FWS is not to make programmatic determinations 
regarding the grants, but instead whether they are substantial 
in character and design.
    In the course of streamlining the process for administering 
the Sport Fish Trust funds in the Regions, the Committee grew 
increasingly concerned about allegations that the staff 
responsible for administering the apportionments to the States 
used their ability to control the time it took for projects or 
plans to be approved as a means of retribution for actions 
States may or may not have taken that were not considered by 
the Service to be appropriate. The allegations were not limited 
to actions States took with regard to the Sport Fish 
Restoration Trust Funds. In some cases, actions taken by States 
regarding land use, wildlife or sport fish management unrelated 
to the Sport Fish Trust Funds, for example, were seen to be the 
catalyst for actions taken by the FWS related to the length of 
time it took to process grant applications or approve grant 
applications. Additional allegations have surfaced of the FWS 
using the approval process for State apportionments to advance 
the restoration and conservation goals of the FWS on the 
States. The Act was not designed as a tool for the FWS to 
further its mission for or in the States. Instead, it was 
established to provide States with funding for State sport fish 
restoration projects that are necessary from the States' 
perspective for the effective management of sport fish.
    The administration of the Sport Fish Trust Fund should not 
be used by the FWS to further an independent agenda. Instead, 
the States are to decide, within the requirements of the Act, 
how to spend the apportioned funds. Interference by the FWS in 
any way to negatively impact the timing or approval of any 
project or plan that falls within the bounds of the 
requirements of the law is an obstruction to the implementation 
of the laws.

Section 202. Multi-State Conservation Grant Program

    H.R. 3671 establishes a Multi-State Conservation Grant 
Program (MSCGP) for the Secretary of the Interior to make 
grants of up to $2.5 million from the revenues covered into the 
fund. The funds for the grants will be available for two fiscal 
years, after which all unobligated funds are to be apportioned 
to the States according to the apportionment formula. A project 
is eligible for funding if: (1) benefits at least 26 states, or 
(2) benefits a majority of the States in a region of the United 
States Fish and Wildlife Service or (3) a majority of the 
States in a regional association of State fish and game 
departments. The Secretary may award grants only based on a 
priority list of sport fish restoration projects prepared and 
submitted by State fish and game departments acting through the 
International Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies (IAFWA) 
each fiscal year. The IAFWA shall prepare each priority list 
through a committee comprised of the heads of State fish and 
game departments (or their designees). Once the list is 
developed, it must be approved by a majority of the heads of 
all State fish and game departments (or their designees) and 
submitted not later than October 1 of each fiscal year to the 
Assistant Director for Wildlife and Sport Fish Restoration 
Programs, who shall accept the list on behalf of the Secretary 
of the Interior. The Assistant Director for Wildlife and Sport 
Fish Restoration Programs shall publish in the Federal Register 
each priority list submitted. In preparing the list, the IAFWA 
shall consult with nongovernmental organizations that represent 
conservation organizations, sportsmen organizations, and 
industries that fund the Sport Fish Restoration Programs.
    The Secretary may make a grant only to a State or a group 
of States or a nongovernmental organization (NGO) subject to 
the following restrictions. Any NGO applying for a grant must 
submit with their grant application to the IAFWA a 
certification that the organization does not promote or 
encourage opposition to regulated taking of fish. The funds may 
not be used for education, activities, projects, or programs 
that promote or encourage opposition to regulated taking of 
fish. Any NGO that is found to promote or encourage opposition 
to the regulated taking of fish does not use the funds in 
compliance with the section shall return all funds received and 
be subject to any other penalties under law. No activities 
undertaken by the personnel of State fish and game departments 
shall constitute advice or recommendations for 1 or more 
agencies or officers of the federal government.
    The aiding in the formulation of, adoption and or 
administration of any compact between two or more States for 
the conservation and management of migratory fishes in marine 
or freshwaters was established in Dingell-Johnson. H.R. 3671 
eliminates that broad language and establishes a funding level 
of $200,000 for each of the following: the Atlantic Marine 
Fisheries Commission, the Gulf States Marine Fisheries 
Commission and the Pacific States Marine Fisheries Commission 
and the Great Lakes Fisheries Commission. It is the intention 
of the Committee that all funds received by these Commissions 
will be used for expenses related to conservation and 
management of migratory fishes in marine or freshwaters between 
States and not for use with other countries. The FWS began to 
fund the Atlantic Marine Fisheries Commission, the Gulf States 
Marine Fisheries Commission and the Pacific States Marine 
Fisheries Commission at a level of $200,000 a year. The 
Committee discovered that as the administration funds became 
scarce (due to the use by the FWS for expenses unrelated to the 
administration of the Program), the FWS began to cut back on 
the funding to the Commissions. To preserve the funding of 
compacts between two or more States, H.R. 3671 has detailed the 
funding to the Commissions.

Section 203. Certifications

    Section 5 of the Dingell-Johnson Sport Fish Restoration Act 
is amended so that for each fiscal year the Secretary of the 
Interior shall certify to the Secretary of the Treasury and to 
each State fish and game department the sum which the Secretary 
has estimated to be necessary for administration and the sum he 
or she has apportioned to each State at the time such deduction 
or apportionment is made.
    Within 30 days after the end of each fiscal year, the 
Secretary of the Interior shall certify in writing to the 
Secretary of the Treasury and to each State fish and game 
department the amount apportioned to each State in the most 
recent apportionment and the amounts obligated by the Secretary 
of the Interior during the fiscal year for administration of 
the Act. These amounts are also to be published in the Federal 
Register.
    Within 60 days after the start of each fiscal year, the 
Assistant Director for Wildlife and Sport Fish Restoration 
Programs shall provide to the Committee on Resources of the 
House of Representatives, and the Committee on Environment and 
Public Works of the Senate and publish in the Federal Register 
the following for the fiscal year: (1) the amount of funds that 
will be expended for administration, (2) a breakdown of 
categories for which such funds will be expended, and (3) a 
description of how the funds are necessary for the 
administration of the Acts.

Section 204. Period of availability

    Section 4(f) is amended by removing the authority of the 
Secretary to use any unexpended sum available for expenditure 
by the Secretary of the Interior in carrying out the research 
program of the FWS in respect to fish of material value for 
sport or recreation.

        Title III--Wildlife and Sport Fish Restoration Programs


Section 301. Designation of programs

    H.R. 3671 designated that the programs established under 
the Wildlife Restoration Act and the Sport Fish Restoration Act 
are to be collectively referred to as the Federal Assistance 
Program for State Wildlife and Sport Fish Restoration Programs. 
The reference to the programs as the Federal Aid Program has 
supported a culture within the FWS that the revenues collected 
for Wildlife and Sport Fish Restoration belong to the FWS. 
There is a misconception regarding whose money it is. The 
revenues collected are from excise taxes placed on ammunition, 
firearms, archery equipment and fishing equipment paid for by 
sportsmen and women. These monies are paid so that State game 
and fish departments could use it for wildlife and sport fish 
restoration projects.

Section 302. Assistant Director for Wildlife and Sport Fish Restoration 
        Programs

    H.R. 3671 establishes an Assistant Director for Wildlife 
and Sport Fish Restoration Programs (Assistant Director). The 
lack of representation at the Directorate level of the FWS 
added to the environment that allowed the administration funds 
to be spent on expenses not related to the administration of 
the programs. The Assistant Director will report directly to 
the Director. In addition, the individuals in the Regional 
offices who are responsible for administering the Wildlife and 
Sport Fish Restoration Programs will also report to the 
Assistant Director. The Assistant Director will only be 
responsible for the administration, management and oversight of 
the Federal Assistance Program for State Wildlife and Sport 
Fish Restoration Programs.

Section 303. Chief of the Division of Federal Aid

    The Chief of the Division of Federal Aid or any similar 
position is abolished and all duties shall be the 
responsibility of the Assistant Director for Wildlife and Sport 
Fish Restoration Programs (Assistant Director). By creating an 
Assistant Director whose sole responsibility is the Federal 
Assistance Program for State Wildlife and Sport Fish 
Restoration Programs, the position of the Chief is unnecessary.

            Committee Oversight Findings and Recommendations

    Regarding clause 2(b)(1) of rule X and clause 3(c)(1) of 
rule XIII of the Rules of the House of Representatives, the 
Committee on Resources' oversight findings and recommendations 
are reflected in the body of this report.

                   Constitutional Authority Statement

    Article I, section 8 of the Constitution of the United 
States grants Congress the authority to enact this bill.

                    Compliance With House Rule XIII

    1. Cost of Legislation.--Clause 3(d)(2) of rule XIII of the 
Rules of the House of Representatives requires an estimate and 
a comparison by the Committee of the costs which would be 
incurred in carrying out this bill. However, clause 3(d)(3)(B) 
of that Rule provides that this requirement does not apply when 
the Committee has included in its report a timely submitted 
cost estimate of the bill prepared by the Director of the 
Congressional Budget Office under section 402 of the 
Congressional Budget Act of 1974.
    2. Congressional Budget Act.--As required by clause 3(c)(2) 
of rule XIII of the Rules of the House of Representatives and 
section 308(a) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, this 
bill does not contain any new budget authority, credit 
authority, or an increase or decrease in revenues or tax 
expenditures. According to the Congressional Budget Office, 
enactment of this bill could affect the timing of outlays from 
direct spending authority but the net impact on the federal 
budget would not be significant in any year.
    3. Government Reform Oversight Findings.--Under clause 
3(c)(4) of rule XIII of the Rules of the House of 
Representatives, the Committee has received no report of 
oversight findings and recommendations from the Committee on 
Government Reform on this bill.
    4. Congressional Budget Office Cost Estimate.--Under clause 
3(c)(3) of rule XIII of the Rules of the House of 
Representatives and section 403 of the Congressional Budget Act 
of 1974, the Committee has received the following cost estimate 
for this bill from the Director of the Congressional Budget 
Office:

                                     U.S. Congress,
                               Congressional Budget Office,
                                    Washington, DC, March 23, 2000.
Hon. Don Young,
Chairman, Committee on Resources,
House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
    Dear Mr. Chairman: The Congressional Budget Office has 
prepared the enclosed cost estimate for H.R. 3671, the Wildlife 
and Sport Fish Restoration Programs Improvement Act of 2000.
    If you wish further details on this estimate, we will be 
pleased to provide them. The CBO staff contacts are Deborah 
Reis (for federal costs) and Keith Mattrick (for the private-
sector impact).
            Sincerely,
                                          Barry B. Anderson
                                    (For Dan L. Crippen, Director).
    Enclosure.

H.R. 3671--Wildlife and Sport Fish Restoration Programs Improvement Act 
        of 2000

    CBO estimates that enacting H.R. 3671 would have no net 
impact on the federal budget. Because the bill 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 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 impose a new private-sector mandate on the 
International Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies. Based 
on information provided by the association and the U.S. Fish 
and Wildlife Service, CBO estimates that the direct costs of 
complying with the new mandate would fall well below the 
threshold established in UMRA ($100 million in 1996, adjusted 
annually for inflation).
    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 or fish and wildlife restoration. Specifically, for each 
of the two grant programs carried out under these acts, the 
bill would limit spending for administrative expenses to $5 
million annually through fiscal year 2003, and $7 million 
annually, adjusted for inflation, 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, spends 8 percent annually to 
administer the federal aid-wildlife program ($14 million in 
1999) and 6 percent to administer the sport fish program ($17 
million in 1999). By capping administrative costs, the bill 
would reduce such costs in the future, however, this savings 
would be offset by an equal amount of additional grant 
expenditures.
    The bill 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 
$2.5 million from each of the two funds for multi-state 
conservation grants. Finally, H.R. 3671 would establish within 
the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service an assistant director for 
wildlife and sport fish restoration programs. The salary of the 
assistant director, who would directly administer these 
programs on a full-time basis, would be paid from the two 
funds. These new authorized expenditures would not increase the 
total amount of spending for fish and wildlife restoration.
    The bill would impose a private-sector mandate by requiring 
that the International Association of Fish and Wildlife 
Agencies prepare and submit priority lists for projects to be 
funded by the new multi-state conservation grant program. As 
the association has voluntarily performed a similar role for 
the Department of the Interior in the past, however, CBO 
estimates that the direct costs imposed by that mandate would 
not be significant.
    The CBO staff contacts are Deborah Reis (for federal costs) 
and Keith Mattrick (for the private-sector impacts). This 
estimate was approved by Peter H. Fontaine, Deputy Assistant 
Director for Budget Analysis.

                    Compliance With Public Law 104-4

    This bill contains no unfunded mandates, as defined under 
Public Law 104-4.

                Preemption of State, Local or Tribal Law

    This bill is not intended to preempt any State, local or 
tribal law.

         Changes in Existing Law Made by the Bill, as Reported

  In compliance with clause 3(e) of rule XIII of the Rules of 
the House of Representatives, 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


(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.]


           allocation and apportionment of available amounts


  Sec. 4. (a) Set-Aside for Administration.--(1) Of the 
revenues (excluding interest accruing under section 3(b)) 
covered into the fund in each fiscal year, up to $5,000,000 may 
be used by the Secretary for expenses to administer this Act, 
in accordance with this subsection and section 9 in each of the 
fiscal years 2001, 2002, and 2003. Of the revenues (excluding 
interest accruing under section 3(b)) covered into the fund in 
each fiscal year, beginning in fiscal year 2004, such amount, 
adjusted annually to reflect the changes in the Consumer Price 
Index, not to exceed $7,000,000, may be used by the Secretary 
for expenses to administer this Act, in accordance with this 
subsection and section 9.
  (2)(A) The amount authorized to be used by the Secretary 
under paragraph (1) each fiscal year shall remain available for 
obligation for such use until the expiration of that fiscal 
year. Within 60 days after that fiscal year, the Secretary 
shall apportion among the States any of the amount that remains 
unobligated at the end of the fiscal year, on the same basis 
and in the same manner as other amounts authorized by this Act 
are apportioned among the States for the fiscal year in which 
the apportionment is made.
  (B) Within 30 days after the end of each fiscal year, the 
Secretary shall--
          (i) certify in writing to the Secretary of the 
        Treasury and to each State fish and game department--
                  (I) the amount apportioned under subparagraph 
                (A) to each State in the most recent 
                apportionment under that subparagraph; and
                  (II) amounts obligated by the Secretary 
                during the fiscal year for administration of 
                this Act; and
          (ii) publish in the Federal Register the amounts so 
        certified.
  (b) Apportionment to States.--The Secretary of the Interior, 
[after making the aforesaid deduction, shall apportion, except 
as provided in subsection (b) of this section,] after deducting 
the amount authorized to be used under subsection (a), the 
amount apportioned under subsection (c), any amount apportioned 
under section 8A, and amounts provided as grants under sections 
10 and 11, shall apportion 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.
  [(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. 5. For each fiscal year, the Secretary of the Interior 
shall certify to the Secretary of the Treasury and to each 
State fish and game department the sum which he has estimated 
to be deducted for administering and executing this Act and the 
Migratory Bird Conservation Act and the sum which he has 
apportioned to each State, at the time such deduction or 
apportionment is made. Any State desiring to avail itself of 
the benefits of this Act shall notify the Secretary of the 
Interior to this effect within sixty days after it has received 
the certification referred to in this section. The sum 
apportioned to any State which fails to notify the Secretary of 
theInterior as herein provided is authorized to be made 
available for expenditure by the Secretary of the Interior in carrying 
out the provisions of the Migratory Bird Conservation Act.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

  [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.]


      requirements and restrictions regarding use of amounts for 
                             administration


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


       firearm and bow hunter education and safety program grants


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


                 multi-state conservation grant program


  Sec. 11. (a) In General.--(1) Up to $2,500,000 of the 
revenues covered into the fund each fiscal year shall be 
available to the Secretary for making multi-State conservation 
grants in accordance with this section.
  (2) Amounts available under this subsection shall remain 
available for two fiscal years, after which all unobligated 
balances shall be apportioned in the manner specified in 
section 4(b).
  (b) Selection of Projects.--(1) A project shall not be 
eligible for a grant under this section unless it will benefit 
at least 26 States, a majority of the States in a region of the 
United States Fish and Wildlife Service, or a regional 
association of State fish and game departments.
  (2) The Secretary may award grants under this section based 
only on a priority list of wildlife restoration projects 
prepared and submitted by State fish and game departments 
acting through the International Association of Fish and 
Wildlife Agencies each fiscal year in accordance with paragraph 
(3).
  (3)(A) The International Association of Fish and Wildlife 
Agencies shall--
          (i) prepare each priority list through a committee 
        comprised of the heads of State fish and game 
        departments (or their designees);
          (ii) approve each priority list by a majority of the 
        heads of all State fish and game departments (or their 
        designees); and
          (iii) submit each priority list by not later than 
        October 1 of each fiscal year to the Assistant Director 
        for Wildlife and Sport Fish Restoration Programs, who 
        shall accept such list on behalf of the Secretary.
  (B) In preparing any priority list under this paragraph, the 
International Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies shall 
consult with nongovernmental organizations that represent 
conservation organizations, sportsmen organizations, and 
industries that support or promote hunting, trapping, 
recreational shooting, bow hunting, or archery.
  (4) The Assistant Director for Wildlife and Sport Fish 
Restoration Programs shall publish in the Federal Register each 
priority list submitted under this subsection.
  (c) Eligible Grantees.--(1) The Secretary may make a grant 
under this section only to--
          (A) a State or group of States; or
          (B) subject to paragraph (2), a nongovernmental 
        organization.
  (2) Any nongovernmental organization applying for a grant 
under this section shall submit with the application to the 
International Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies a 
certification that the organization does not promote or 
encourage opposition to regulated hunting or trapping of 
regulated wildlife, and will use any funds awarded pursuant to 
this section in compliance with subsection (d).
  (3) Any nongovernmental organization that is found to promote 
or encourage opposition to regulated hunting or trapping of 
regulated wildlife or does not use funds in compliance with 
subsection (d) shall return all funds received and be subject 
to any other penalties under law.
  (d) Use of Grants.--Amounts provided as a grant under this 
section may not be used for education, activities, projects, or 
programs that promote or encourage opposition to regulated 
hunting or trapping of regulated wildlife.
  (e) Clarification.--No activities undertaken by the personnel 
of State fish and game departments under this section shall 
constitute advice or recommendations for 1 or more agencies or 
officers of the Federal Government.
  Sec. [10.] 12. The Secretary of Agriculture is authorized to 
make rules and regulations for carrying out the provisions of 
this Act.
                              ----------                              


                         ACT OF AUGUST 9, 1950

 (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 sumis 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)(1) Of the balance of each such annual appropriation 
remaining after the distribution and use under subsections (a), 
(b), and (c) of this section and section 14, up to $5,000,000 
may be used by the Secretary of the Interior for expenses in 
accordance with this subsection and section 9 in each of the 
fiscal years 2001, 2002, and 2003. Of the balance of each such 
annual appropriation remaining after the distribution and use 
under subsections (a), (b), and (c) of this section and section 
14, beginning in fiscal year 2004, such amount, adjusted 
annually to reflect the changes in the Consumer Price Index, 
not to exceed $7,000,000, may be used by the Secretary of the 
Interior for expenses in accordance with this subsection and 
section 9.
  (2) The amount authorized to be used by the Secretary under 
paragraph (1) each fiscal year shall remain available for 
obligation for such use until the expiration of that fiscal 
year. Within 60 days after the end of that fiscal year, the 
Secretary shall apportion any of the amount that remains 
unobligated at the end of the fiscal year on the same basis and 
in the same manner as other amounts authorized by this Act are 
apportioned among the States under section 4(e) for the fiscal 
year in which the apportionment is made.
  (e) The Secretary of the Interior, after the distribution, 
transfer, use, and deduction under subsections (a), (b), (c), 
and (d) of this section and section 14, respectively, 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.
  (f) [So much of any sum not allocated under the provisions of 
this section for any fiscal year is hereby authorized to be 
made available for expenditure to carry out the purposes of 
this Act until the close of the succeeding fiscal year, and if 
unexpended or unobligated at the end of such year, such sum is 
hereby authorized to be made available for expenditure by the 
Secretary of the Interior in carrying on the research program 
of the Fish and Wildlife Service in respect to fish of material 
value for sport or recreation.] The term fiscal year as used in 
this section shall be a period of twelve consecutive months 
from October 1 through the succeeding September 30, except that 
the period for enumeration of persons holding licenses to fish 
shall be a State's fiscal or license year.
  [Sec. 5.]


                             certifications


  Sec. 5. (a) Administrative Deduction and State 
Apportionments.--For each fiscal year beginning with the fiscal 
year ending June 30, 1951, the Secretary of the Interior shall 
certify to the Secretary of the Treasury, and to each State 
fish and game department, the sum which he has estimated to be 
deducted for administering and executing this Act and the sum 
which he has apportioned to each State for such fiscal year, at 
the time such deduction or apportionment is made.
  (b) Fiscal Yearend Certification by Secretary.--Within 30 
days after the end of each fiscal year, the Secretary of the 
Interior shall--
          (1) certify in writing to the Secretary of the 
        Treasury and to each State fish and game department--
                  (A) the amount apportioned under section 
                4(d)(2) to each State in the most recent 
                apportionment under that section for that 
                fiscal year; and
                  (B) amounts obligated by the Secretary during 
                the fiscal year for administration of this Act; 
                and
          (2) publish in the Federal Register the amounts so 
        certified.
  (c) Certification by Assistant Director.--(1) Within 60 days 
after the start of each fiscal year, the Assistant Director for 
Wildlife and Sport Fish Restoration Programs shall provide to 
the Committee on Resources of the House of Representatives and 
the Committee on Environment and Public Works of the Senate the 
following for the fiscal year:
          (A) The amount of funds that will be expended in the 
        fiscal year under section 4(d)(2) and a breakdown of 
        categories for which such funds will be expended.
          (B) A description of how the funds to be expended are 
        necessary for administration of this Act.
  (2) The Secretary of the Interior shall promptly publish in 
the Federal Register each certification under this subsection.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

  [Sec. 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.]


      requirements and restrictions regarding use of amounts for 
                             administration


  Sec. 9. (a) Authorized Administration Costs.--The Secretary 
of the Interior may use amounts under section 4(d) only for 
administration expenses that directly support the 
implementation of this Act and that consist of any of the 
following:
          (1) Personnel costs of any employee who directly 
        administers this Act on a full-time basis.
          (2) Personnel costs of any employee who directly 
        administers this Act on a part-time basis for at least 
        20 hours each week, not to exceed the portion of such 
        costs incurred with respect to the work hours of such 
        employee during which the employee directly administers 
        this Act, as such hours are certified by the supervisor 
        of the employee.
          (3) Support costs directly associated with personnel 
        costs authorized under paragraphs (1) and (2).
          (4) Costs to evaluate, approve, disapprove, and 
        advise concerning comprehensive fish and wildlife 
        resource management plans under section 6(a)(1) and 
        fish restoration and management projects under section 
        6(a)(2).
          (5) Overhead costs, including general administrative 
        services, that are directly attributable to 
        administration of this Act based on--
                  (A) actual costs, as determined by a direct 
                cost allocation methodology approved by the 
                Director of the Office of Management and Budget 
                for use by Federal agencies; and
                  (B) for those costs not determinable pursuant 
                to subparagraph (A), an amount per full-time 
                equivalent employee authorized pursuant to 
                paragraphs (1) and (2) that does not exceed the 
                amount charged or assessed for such costs per 
                full-time equivalent employee for any other 
                division or program of the United States Fish 
                and Wildlife Service.
          (6) Costs incurred in auditing the wildlife and sport 
        fish activities of each State fish and game department 
        and the use of funds under section 6 by each State fish 
        and game department every 5 years.
          (7) Costs of audits under subsection (d).
          (8) Costs of necessary training of Federal and State 
        full-time personnel who administer this Act to improve 
        administration of this Act.
          (9) Costs of travel to the States, territories, and 
        Canada by personnel who administer this Act on a full-
        time basis for purposes directly related to 
        administration of State programs or projects, or who 
        administer grants under section 6 or section 14.
          (10) Costs of travel outside of the United States 
        (except travel to Canada) that relates to 
        administration of this Act and that is approved directly 
        by the Assistant Secretary for Fish and Wildlife and Parks.
          (11) Relocation expenses for personnel who, after 
        relocation, will administer this Act on a full-time 
        basis for at least 1 year, as certified by the Director 
        of the United States Fish and Wildlife Service at the 
        time such relocation expenses are incurred.
          (12) Costs to audit, evaluate, approve, disapprove, 
        and advise concerning grants under section 6 and 
        section 14.
  (b) Unauthorized Costs.--Use of funds for a cost to 
administer this Act shall not be authorized because the cost is 
not expressly prohibited by this Act.
  (c) Restriction on Use To Supplement General 
Appropriations.--The Secretary may not use amounts under 
section 4(d) to supplement any function for which general 
appropriations are made for the United States Fish and Wildlife 
Service or any other entity of the Department of the Interior.
  (d) Audit Requirement.--(1) The Inspector General of the 
Department of the Interior shall procure the conduct of 
biennial audits, in accordance with generally accepted 
accounting principles, of expenditures of amounts used by the 
Secretary for administration of this Act.
  (2) Audits under this subsection shall be performed under 
contracts that are awarded under competitive procedures (as 
that term is defined in section 4 of the Office of Federal 
Procurement Policy Act (41 U.S.C. 403)), by a person that is 
not associated in any way with the Department of the Interior.
  (3) The auditor selected pursuant to paragraph (1) shall 
report to, and be supervised by, the Inspector General of the 
Department of the Interior, except that the auditor shall 
submit a copy of the biennial audit findings to the Secretary 
of the Interior at the time such findings are submitted to the 
Inspector General of the Department of the Interior.
  (4) The Inspector General of the Department of the Interior 
shall promptly report to the Committee on Resources of the 
House of Representatives and the Committee on Environment and 
Public Works of the Senate on the results of each such audit.
  (e) Certification by Secretary.--(1) The Secretary of the 
Interior shall within 3 months after each fiscal year certify 
in writing to the Committee on Resources of the House of 
Representatives and the Committee on Environment and Public 
Works of the Senate the following for the fiscal year:
          (A) The amount of funds used under section 4(d) and a 
        breakdown of categories for which such funds were 
        expended.
          (B) The amount of funds apportioned to States under 
        section 4(d)(2)(A).
          (C) The results of the audits performed pursuant to 
        subsection (d).
          (D) That all funds expended under section 4(d) were 
        necessary for administration of this Act.
          (E) The Secretary, Assistant Secretary for Fish and 
        Wildlife and Parks, the Director of the United States 
        Fish and Wildlife Service, and the Assistant Director 
        for Wildlife and Sport Fish Restoration Programs each 
        properly discharged their duties under this Act.
  (2) The Secretary may not delegate the responsibility to make 
certifications under paragraph (1) except to the Assistant 
Secretary for Fish and Wildlife and Parks.
  (3) The Secretary shall promptly publish in the Federal 
Register each certification under this subsection.
  (f) Certification by Assistant Director for Wildlife and 
Sport Fish Restoration Programs.--Within 1 month after the end 
of each fiscal year, the Assistant Director for Wildlife and 
Sport Fish Restoration Programs shall--
          (1) certify that--
                  (A) all amounts expended in that fiscal year 
                to administer this Act in agency headquarters 
                and in regional offices of the United States 
                Fish and Wildlife Service were used in 
                accordance with this Act; and
                  (B) all such expenditures were necessary to 
                administer this Act; and
          (2) distribute such certifications to each State fish 
        and game department.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

  [Sec. 13. The effective date of this Act shall be July 1, 
1950.]


                 multi-state conservation grant program


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

                            ADDITIONAL VIEWS

    The general intent of this legislation is to improve the 
financial management and accountability of the Office of 
Federal Aid within the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 
(Service). We do not oppose this broad objective. However, the 
Majority has proposed in this legislation an inter-locking set 
of funding caps, spending controls and redundant reports and 
certifications which, when taken together, provide insufficient 
funds and administrative flexibility to allow the Service to 
adequately implement reforms. These measures are overly 
excessive, and we contend that the legislation should be made 
less prescriptive to ensure that the Service can actually 
improve performance and ensure accountability.
    Evidence documented by the General Accounting Office (GAO) 
investigation and by the Majority's own parallel investigation 
demonstrated that the administration and financial oversight of 
the Federal Aid in Wildlife and Sport Fish Restoration Program 
was lax, if not abysmal. We believe it is appropriate for 
Congress to address these deficiencies with reasonable, 
targeted reforms. That said, we do challenge the necessity and 
practically of the entire menu of prescriptive reforms 
developed by the Majority in this legislation. In its present 
form, we are concerned that the cumulative affects of the 
proposed reform strategy might be counterproductive. Moreover, 
we are concerned this bill might ultimately erode the 
capabilities of the Service to effectively administer the 
program, and also frustrate--if not prevent--the Service from 
achieving the worthy goal of this legislation.
    Currently under Pittman-Robertson and Dingell-Johnson, the 
Service is authorized to withhold 8 percent and 6 percent of 
funds, respectively, to ``administer and execute'' the Federal 
Aid Program. This percent allowance has generally provided 
approximately $30 million annually to administer the Program. 
The GAO investigation did reveal some highly questionable, if 
not wholly inappropriate, Federal Aid administrative 
expenditures under the broad authority to ``administer and 
execute'' the Program. Nevertheless, the Majority has chosen to 
assume that virtually all spending to administer the program is 
suspect. They assume that a new budget for administrative 
expenses should be zero-based regardless of the existing fixed 
costs of the current program or the real consequences of 
drastically reducing the operating budget for administration.
    The legislation imposes a rigid budget framework to clearly 
delineate authorized administrative expenses, purportedly to 
prevent future indiscretions in the spending, accounting and 
reporting of Federal Aid administrative funds. On balance, we 
believe the twelve specific budget categories for 
administrative expenses to be reasonable and inclusive. 
Additionally, we concur with the Majority that the Federal Aid 
program could learn to make do with less without sacrificing 
efficiency or service to the States. In this respect, we agree 
that $30 million to administer the program is an excessive 
amount, especially when past expenses for administrative 
grants, operational grants, and other centralized program 
activities (e.g., the Management Assistance Team (MAT), the 
National Survey of Fishing, Hunting, and Wildlife Associated 
Recreation, etc.) are removed from the budget.
    However, the caps and restrictions contained in the 
language are unrealistic and have the very real potential to 
severely damage the Service's ability to manage the program. 
For example, the bill contains a fixed funding cap of $10 ($5 
million each from Pittman-Robertson and Dingell-Johnson) 
thatwould limit administrative funding to $10 million per year, also 
allowing for minimal Consumer Price Index (CPI) increases. The Majority 
has resisted increasing the cap, or alternatively, decreasing the 
existing 8 percent and 6 percent allowances to smaller percentages 
despite documentation provided by the Service demonstrating that the 
caps, if applied, would force the termination of approximately 60 FTEs, 
or roughly one-half of all Federal Aid employees. These caps would also 
reduce funding for important accountability functions such as State 
audits, budget monitoring and training. We are not alone in expressing 
this concern. In correspondence received by the Committee on Resources 
from the Wildlife Management Institute, the International Association 
of Fish and Wildlife Agencies, and the National Wildlife Federation, 
each organization has expressed their preference for a percent 
allowance instead of a fixed cap.
    It is our understanding that a uniform 4 percent allowance 
would provide roughly $19 to $20 million per year for 
administration; approximately the amount the Service has 
estimated it would spend on administration based upon the 
Majority's own budget framework. We contend that a 4 percent 
allowance is a fair approach to provide the Service with 
sufficient administrative funds without imposing draconian cuts 
that will only undermine effective financial management and 
oversight of the States.
    The problem created by the caps is exacerbated by other 
spending controls, certifications, and reporting requirements 
in the legislation. In fact, were the caps to be imposed, the 
need for these other controls would be obviated. For instance, 
this legislation would require all funds not expended by the 
Service for administration to be reapportioned to the States. 
In addition, the Service would be prohibited from spending 
funds on activities not expressly prohibited by the bill, and 
the Service would be prohibited also from transferring any 
Federal Aid funds to other programs or activities that receive 
appropriations within the Department of the Interior. 
Separately, any one of these controls would be reasonable. But 
cumulatively, we find them contrary to the expressed goal of 
effective reform.
    Furthermore, the bill would require redundant 
certifications by the Secretary of the Interior, the Assistant 
Secretary for Fish and Wildlife and Parks, the Director of the 
Fish and Wildlife Service, and a newly created Assistant 
Director for Wildlife and Sport Fish Restoration Programs, 
affirming that they have properly discharged their duties. The 
bill would also require separate annual certifications and 
reports specifying first, how all Federal Aid funds have been 
spent in the preceding fiscal year, and second, how Federal Aid 
funds will be apportioned and spent by the States and the 
Service in the upcoming year. These requirements should be 
streamlined into one annual certification or report to be filed 
by the Secretary of the Interior.
    The cumulative effect of these spending controls is to 
reduce, if not eliminate, any discretion or administrative 
flexibility to allow the Service to address unexpected or 
unbudgeted expenses. As an example, just last year the Federal 
Government had to spend additional funds to prepare for 
possible exigencies related to the Year 2000 computer problem. 
More relevant, current legislation reported by the Committee on 
Resources (H.R. 701, The Conservation and Reinvestment Act) 
would, if enacted, require the Fish and Wildlife Service to 
administer an additional $300 million directed to Pittman-
Robertson. The Majority assumes that they have perfectly 
predicted the future and that unforeseen events simply will not 
happen. This scenario would leave the Service with no 
administrative recourse to address unforeseen expenses other 
than for the Service to rely on the Congress to pass a new law. 
We view this as an unreasonable departure from the normal 
discretion delegated to the Congress to the Executive Branch to 
administer a program. The addition of an administrative 
mechanism, even a provision as simple as a congressional 
certification and notification process for unauthorized 
expenses, would be a reasonable adjustment.
    The Majority has been made aware of the findings developed 
by outside auditors that identify substantial waste, fraud and 
abuse in how the States spend their Federal Aid apportionments. 
Yet this legislation focuses exclusively on the financial 
management of the $30 million Federal Aid dollars used by the 
Federal government and ignores whether the States are held 
similarly accountable for how they spend roughly $450 million 
apportioned annually to them under both Pittman-Robertson and 
Dingell-Johnson. These findings include gross abuses such as 
States spending Federal Aid funds to build prisons or motor 
pool parking lots. In the absence of an investigation, this 
legislation should be amended to at least require the States to 
annually certify that they have spent their apportioned funds 
in accordance with the law.

                                                     George Miller.