I appreciate the invitation extended to the National Rifle Association to testify before you today. The subject of this hearing, which is the performance of the Fish and Wildlife Service in the management of the Federal Aid Program, is of extreme importance to each and every one of our 3.8 million members. Even though the Federal Aid Program is responsible for managing both the Federal Aid in Wildlife Restoration Act and the Federal Aid in Sport Fish Restoration Act, my remarks are directed to the Wildlife Restoration Act also known as Pittman-Robertson since the products taxed under that law are products bought by our members.
Because the purchase price of every rifle, every shotgun, every handgun and every box of ammunition includes the excise tax passed along to the consumer by the manufacturer, it makes every firearm owner, hunter and recreational shooter a stakeholder in how the Pittman-Robertson trust fund is managed. However, it has only been in the last year when Congressional investigations were conducted, hearings were held, and legislation was developed that these stakeholders have ever had a seat at the table to discuss the management of the trust fund that they have willingly financed for over sixty years.
Much has been said and will be said here today about the visionary concept that was launched in the 1930's to raise funds for fledgling state agencies to manage wildlife within their borders. And that dedicated stream of funding came none too soon. At the time, only a handful of people recognized the progressive loss of wildlife and habitat that was occurring as a result of unregulated hunting and poor land management and utilization practices. Those who sounded the alarm were hunters and it was hunters who looked to themselves and not to the federal government in search of a solution.
Given citizens' general disdain of taxes, it is nothing short of remarkable that in an era of great economic upheaval and misery, legislation was introduced to impose an excise tax on the common man's products for the needs of wildlife, not humans. The Pittman-Robertson legislation as it came to be called was carried through Congress on the shoulders of those who would be paying the tax, the sportsmen of this country. While a number of landmark laws were passed prior to the Pittman-Robertson Act, such as the Lacey Act and the Migratory Bird Treaty Act, the trust fund legislation was unique because it provided dollars, rather than imposed penalties, in an effort to save wildlife. The law gave the state fish and wildlife agencies the boost they needed to launch the science of wildlife conservation.
Because of the incredible achievements of the states in restoring wildlife and habitat coupled with the faith and trust in the government to manage the trust fund wisely, sportsmen were willing to accept an extension of the tax to handguns and archery equipment in the 1970's. Mr. Chairman, I don't think it would be farfetched to suggest that if the tax proposal were suggested today, the response would be a resounding "No." The faith and trust of our members and millions of other gun owners across the country has been eroded by the findings of the investigations conducted by the General Accounting Office and the House Committee on Resources into the Fish and Wildlife Service's management of the Federal Aid Program.
For decades, the Fish and Wildlife Service had enjoyed a reputation for its frugal use of the funds provided by Pittman-Robertson to cover administrative costs of managing the trust fund. However, in recent years, certain events drew the NRA's attention to how these funds were being used. The first event was the creation of an Administrative Grant Program. The Program used administrative funds, in excess of that needed to cover management costs, to fund projects that benefitted multiple states. Although the NRA had no argument with the concept, we saw no authority for it in law and at no time were the stakeholders who pay the tax consulted about the creation of such a program.
In 1998, the Service attempted to restructure how the Administrative Grant Program would be managed, but it chose to address the issue only with the states. The states are the recipients of the funds; they do not generate the funds and neither does the Service. Those who should have been invited to the table, the taxpayers, were absent from the discussions. Even though the management options were published for public comment, the review was informal. It was not conducted as a formal rulemaking. Either the agency did not see the importance of public review or did not believe there was concrete authority in law to provide the foundation for formal rulemaking. Regardless of the reason, it became increasingly clear that the Service had lost sight of who serves as the backbone of the trust fund.
The second alarm was set off when a Director's Conservation Fund was created. The fund was designed for the personal use of the Director. It funded projects that did not have to receive the approval of the Federal Aid Program office nor approval through the Administrative Grant process that had been created by the Service and the states. In this case, the NRA did take issue with the concept of a Director's pet-project account and decidedly saw no authority in law for its creation.
Following the creation of the Administrative Grant Program and the Conservation Fund was information coming out of the Service that Pittman-Robertson funds were being used to pay for foreign travel of Federal Aid Program employees. The NRA had concerns with the appearance of "mission creep" on the part of the Service since the funds are to benefit state fish and wildlife agencies, not foreign governments. Then came information about the creative use of the funds for covering the costs of opening regional offices, funding personal positions external to the Federal Aid Program office and other expenses that left the impression that the administrative funds were being "raided" for Service-related purposes, not for the trust fund's established purposes.
The final shock wave came over a proposal submitted by an animal rights group for use of Administrative Grant funds to pay for anti-hunting propaganda. Even though the proposal was rejected because it did not meet the Pittman-Robertson criteria, word came out that the Federal Aid Program employee who made the decision was being pressured to reverse it and that because of what may have been perceived as insubordination, the Service attempted to transfer that employee from the Federal Aid Program office. The NRA will not delve into that incident in this testimony because the issue is addressed in the House Resources Committee hearing record. Suffice it to say, the NRA had reason to believe the Service was progressively distancing itself from its core constituency in executing its management responsibilities for the Pittman-Robertsons trust fund.
What brought all of NRA's concerns to the surface was the introduction of the Conservation and Reinvestment Act (CARA). Title III of that Act amends the Pittman-Robertson Act to provide a conduit to the state fish and wildlife agencies for a portion of the outercontinnental shelf (OCS) oil and gas lease revenue. The original bill allowed (as does the Pittman-Robertson Act) a percentage of the total revenue to be used by the Fish and Wildlife Service to cover administrative costs. First, to be clear, the NRA supports CARA because Title III is in the bill. However, in light of our concerns over the Service's increasingly creative use of administrative funds, we questioned the wisdom of providing millions more dollars to the Service absent a performance evaluation over its use of the administrative funds already being provided. The NRA owes a debt of gratitude to House Resources Committee Chairman Don Young, who introduced the CARA bill on the House side, for responding to the sportsmen's concerns by launching the first audit of the Pittman-Robertson fund in its sixty year history.
It is not necessary in this testimony to address the findings of the audit conducted by the General Accounting Office and the information provided by the witnesses called to testify at the House oversight hearings last year. All of that is public record. What I do want to focus on today is not the problems that were uncovered, but the solutions to those problems.
The NRA participated alongside a number of organizations last year in discussions on what those solutions should be. All of the taxpayers were represented -- the industry, the hunters, the recreational shooters, the archers, the anglers and the boaters. What emerged from those discussions was H.R. 3671.
There were those in the wildlife conservation community who feared that the revelations from the GAO audit and other investigations would create a groundswell of dissidents who would call for the dismantling of the trust fund and the removal of the excise tax. Mr. Chairman, not a single NRA member that I am aware of has contacted the Association asking that we call for an abolishment of the Act. All of our members support sound wildlife conservation and firearm safety programs and are willing to put their money on the line to ensure the future of these programs. What they want are the problems to be fixed so that everyone can go about their individual pursuits in the knowledge that their funds are being well managed for the benefit of wildlife conservation, hunting and the shooting sports.
Mr. Chairman, from the time issues over trust fund management emerged, the NRA has fully supported the continuation of the Pittman-Robertson trust fund and its excise taxes. Our concerns have centered on the use of the administrative funds, not on the fundamental purposes of the Act. Even though we have publicly chastised the agency for its mismanagement and abuses of the administrative funds, we have supported keeping the management of the trust fund within the Service so long as the identified problems are solved and solved quickly.
Though this hearing is an oversight hearing, my remaining comments are directed to the House and Senate reform bills, H.R. 3671 and S. 2609 respectively, titled Pittman-Robertson Wildlife Restoration Act and the Dingell-Johnson Sport Fish Restoration Act. The following is a brief discussion of the legislative provisions of importance to the NRA.
Administrative Funds
Both bills have as their core provision a list of administrative costs that are authorized for coverage by the administrative funds. This provision is crucial as it has been made clear by the investigative hearings and testimony before the House Resources Committee that the Service engaged in permissive spending and extremely liberal interpretations of the law for its own benefit. This provision makes clear what are and are not allowable costs. It is crucial that any bill adopted by Congress contain a list of allowable costs as well as language specifically prohibiting the coverage of any cost not specifically authorized by the bill.
Audit Requirements
Both bills contain a requirement for periodic audits and a detailed reporting system for submitting those findings to the Congress and to the states. This is a critical aspect of any reform legislation. Once the initial problems have been solved, a mechanism is needed to ensure the taxpayer-sportsman that his dollars are truly being held by the Service "in trust." The audit process should be transparent; that is, have reporting requirements so all stakeholders (like shareholders) are informed about the financial management of their trust fund. It is also a way to make small course corrections when needed which will prevent a crisis situation from developing that requires reform legislation to resolve.
Authorized Administrative Costs
The NRA has not weighed in on the debate between the Fish and Wildlife Service and authors of the House and Senate bills over how much administrative funds the Service should be allowed and whether that amount should be a flat figure or a reduced percentage of what is allowed in current law. It is clear, however, that the percentage of funds that Pittman-Robertson provides is generous, too generous. The Federal Aid Program can effectively and efficiently manage the trust fund on less. The Service should be able to document to the Congress, to the states, and to the taxpayer-sportsman its needs for the program. The NRA could support a change to the bills regarding the annual set-aside for administration as long as the alternative approach can be justified.
Firearm and Bow Hunter Education and Safety Program Grants
The NRA fully supports provisions in both bills that reserve a specified amount of excise tax revenue to be apportioned among the states for hunter education and shooting range programs. This money would be in addition to what is made available by the Pittman-Robertson Act for use by the states at their discretion for those programs. The discretionary amount is one-half of the annual excise tax revenue collected from the sale of handguns and archery equipment. In the 1970's when the Pittman-Robertson Act was extended to handguns and archery equipment, sportsmen asked that some of the revenue be "earmarked" as most handgunners and archers utilize shooting ranges, not open land for hunting. However, they backed down from an earmarked amount after receiving assurances from the states that those funds would be used to benefit recreational shooting. Unfortunately, that has not played out as promised. While many states have used some of that discretionary revenue for range development, many other states have a dismal track record in the eyes of the taxpayer-shooter.
Based upon information developed by the International Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies, over half the states reported that they do not use Pittman-Robertson funds for shooting range development. One of the major reasons given for range closures is financial. Only half the states have developed an inventory of shooting ranges and just 14 states have developed a strategic plan for shooting range development. Yet, forty-five states reported that they feel there is still a significant need for additional shooting ranges in their state.
The NRA has not in the past advocated an earmarking of funds, but instead has relied upon the good faith effort of the states to live up to the agreement made in the 1970's with the taxpayer-shooters. However, H.R. 3671 and S. 2609 are perfect vehicles for providing a modest amount of dedicated funds to the states who have said financial resources are a stumbling block to range development. Dedicating such funds acts to fulfill a commitment made long ago.
Multi-State Conservation Grant Program
The NRA supports the creation, in law, of such a program. As noted above, the NRA supported the concept of an Administrative Grant Program created by the Fish and Wildlife Service and the states, but expressed concern that there was no legal authority to do it. The NRA supports the states' desire to have some amount of the dollars that would otherwise be apportioned to the states individually, instead pooled at the federal level to conduct conservation projects of mutual benefit to multiple states. The NRA supports the funding level in S. 2609 that is over and above the amount provided in H.R. 3671. However, we are not wedded to the dollar figure and could accept a higher amount so long as the states concur.
What is important to the NRA is that the funds not be used by any organization or for any project that promotes or encourages opposition to hunting or trapping. Second, the projects must benefit a majority of the states nationwide or by region. Third, organizations representing sportsmen, conservationists and industry must have a seat at the table. Both the House and Senate bills require that the International Association of Fish and Wildlife agencies consult with these organizations in preparing a priority list of projects to be funded. Forth, the International should not be precluded from being a grant recipient.
Assistant Director for Wildlife and Sport Fish Restoration Programs
The NRA supports establishing a position of Assistant Director for Wildlife and Sport Fish Restoration Programs who will report directly to the Fish and Wildlife Service Director. We recognize that the arguments against placing such a provision in law is that it would have Congress micromanaging the Service. From our perspective, however, such a position is needed. Many of the problems uncovered about the Federal Aid Program can be attributed to the fact that it was relegated to a lowly position within the Service, a backwater program. A lot of that, I am sure, is due to the fact that the states, not the Service, are the beneficiaries of the trust funds. It gave the Service leadership little incentive to make management of the Federal Aid Program a top priority among other programs and issues requiring the Director's personal attention. Elevating the Federal Aid Program to the level of an Assistant Director will change that.
Furthermore, if Congress passes CARA, hundreds of millions of dollars will flow through the Pittman-Robertson trust fund annually. Presently, the Pittman-Robertson Act and the Federal Aid in Sport Fish Restoration Act bring in nearly $400 million annually in excise tax revenue for the Service to administer. CARA will greatly increase the Service's trust fund responsibilities. That ought to be reflected in the Service's management matrix.
In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, the NRA is most anxious for this Congress to pass reform legislation. We know what the problems are and we have the solutions. Even though there may be disagreements over some of the provisions of H.R. 3671 and S. 2609, I am confident that resolution is achievable if all are committed to passing a reform bill before the end of the 106th Congress.
The Pittman-Robertson Act and its counterpart are unprecedented in the world and while the conservation dollars raised can be counted in the billions, the conservation benefits are inestimable. It is important for all of us who cherish our fish and wildlife resources to see that the sportsmen and women of this country are accorded the respect they deserve by having their trust restored in the Service's management of the Federal Aid Program. The NRA respectively requests that the Members of this Subcommittee and the full Committee act expeditiously on a reform bill.