LEXIS-NEXIS® Congressional Universe-Document

Search Terms: "Conservation and Reinvestment Act", House or Senate or Joint

Document 3 of 92.

View Related Topics

JULY 20, 1999, TUESDAY

SECTION: IN THE NEWS

LENGTH: 797 words

HEADLINE: PREPARED TESTIMONY OF
CHAIRMAN DON YOUNG
BEFORE THE HOUSE COMMITTEE ON RESOURCES
SUBJECT - FEDERAL AID PROGRAMS
FOR CONSERVATION OF FISH AND WILDLIFE

BODY:

Congress placed trust in the Secretary of Interior and in the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and in the Division of Federal Aid. We gave the Fish and Wildlife Service the responsibility of administering conservation dollars.
They manage hundreds of millions of dollars--S453 million in FY 98 alone-for the two very good federal conservation Acts: (1) The Dingell-Johnson Act which established a program to support the conservation of sport fish and (2) the Pittman-Robertson Act program established a program designed to support the conservation of wildlife.
The entire $453 million in the Sport Fish Restoration and Wildlife Conservation programs last year came from excise taxes paid by hunters, fishermen, and recreationists. Each time a hunter buys a box of shells or a six year old buys his first Zebco fishing rod, the purchase is taxed. Those tax dollars are held in reserve. Under the law, at least 92 percent of wildlife conservation dollars and 94 percent of sport fish dollars are for actual conservation projects selected by STATES. The Division of Federal Aid makes grants for individual state conservation projects and also for broad state conservation programs. This hearing is NOT, I repeat NOT, about the grants to the states for conservation projects.
This hearing is about funds allowed to be retained by the Secretary for "administration and execution"of the law. Under the law up to 8% of wildlife money and up to 6% of sport fish money may be used for administering and executing the Federal Aid programs. This means it is spent to approve grants for projects recommended by states. In FY 1998, administration and execution funds amounted to nearly $31 million.
With respect to the $31 million, the trust responsibility given to the Secretary, to the Service, and to Federal Aid by the Congress has been badly breached.
GAO and our investigative staff found big abuses. And they found small abuses. The abuses total millions of dollars over the years.
This hearing IS about the funds that SHOULD be used for grants to states for fish and wildlife conservation projects, but are not used as required by law. This hearing is about stealing conservation dollars to float the Fish and Wildlife Service. This heating is about slush funds. This hearing is about wasted conservation dollars. We have just scratched the surface of these abuses.
We learned that 61% of the general expenses for the entire Fish and Wildlife Service-like unemployment compensation, postage, and phone service-are paid for with Federal Aid money. Federal Aid has just 2% of the total Fish and Wildlife Service personnel-just 2%-yet they pay 61% of the general expenses. The Federal Aid program that should support conservation projects floats the entire Service. In FY 1998, this single abuse amounted to $4.7 million of conservation money being spent in ways that are not authorized by the law.
We learned of at least two and possibly three slush funds-a Director's Conservation Fund, an Administrative Grant Fund, and a Mystery Grant Program-NONE of which are authorized by the law! There are minimal or no controls and no accounting for these funds. Repeatedly our investigators asked questions and repeatedly information dribbled in about the existence of these funds.
Instead of conservation dollars being spent through the states on useful wildlife projects as Congress mandated in law, they are being stolen--for other purposes.
We found Regional Office slush accounts, travel abuses, relocation expense abuses, no internal audits, past recommendations by GAO ignored, and a ream of other improper, imprudent, irresponsible expenditures.
I am very disappointed. I did not set out to find these problems, as we were simply conducting the programmatic oversight. The timing is appropriate as I have introduced H.R. 701, the Conservation and Reinvestment Act of 1999, known as CARA. Currently, CARA has 106 Congressional cosponsors and would utilize!
Pittman-Robertson to deliver hundreds of millions of dollars for state-based conservation programs. It also will provide tens of millions to be used for administrative purposes - what we are discussing today. I have been troubled by what this Committee and the GAO have discovered. While Pittman-Robertson has been of great benefit to the sporting community for over 60 years, a "spring cleaning" is long overdue. I am leery of providing additional funds for Federal Aid, we need to be sure that they will be spent to the benefit of wildlife and the Americans who enjoy their abundance.
I look forward to the testimony from our witnesses today. We will lead off with GAO. I know, Mr. Hill, that your staff has worked very hard on the audit I requested. Please thank them for me. You may proceed Mr. Hill.
END

LOAD-DATE: July 22, 1999

Document 3 of 92.


Search Terms: "Conservation and Reinvestment Act", House or Senate or Joint
To narrow your search, please enter a word or phrase: