Explore The NRA Universe Of Websites

APPEARS IN News

Letter To NRA Members Concerning The Pittman-Robertson Trust Fund

Wednesday, April 26, 2000

In March we sent our members a letter informing them of an issue involving the abuse of funds by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service in its management of the Pittman-Robertson trust fund (see also the article in ILA`s "The Hunter`s Interest" webpage). In response to our letter, the Service received tens of thousands of postcards expressing outrage over the funding abuses. In reply, the Director posted a letter on the Service`s website claiming that what we had written was inaccurate. Our rebuttal is printed below along with a link to the Director`s letter. (The letter has been removed from the FWS web site so we no longer have a link to it.)

Dear NRA Member:

In March I mailed a letter to many NRA members concerning the scandal over how the Fish and Wildlife Service was managing the two cherished conservation trust funds that sportsmen helped to create. The trust funds are the Federal Aid in Wildlife Restoration fund (known as the Pittman-Robertson fund) and the Federal Aid in Sport Fish Restoration fund (known as the Dingell-Johnson or Wallop-Breaux fund) both of which channel revenue collected from excise taxes on firearms, ammunition, archery equipment, and fishing tackle to state fish and wildlife agencies for conservation projects. By law, the Service is allowed to use a percentage of those funds to cover overhead costs incurred by its Federal Aid office in managing the two trust funds for the states.

Earlier, the March issue of our magazines carried an article entitled "Betrayal of Trust" that discussed the outcome of Congressional investigations over the Service`s use of these "administrative funds" and the Congressional hearings that were held by NRA Board Member, Congressman Don Young (R-AK) who also chairs the House Committee on Resources. Additionally, the NRA-ILA website under the title "In the Hunter`s Interest" has been carrying an updated story about this issue.

The Director of the Service wrote a letter dated April 10 and has posted it on the Service`s website in response to the tens of thousands of postcards you mailed expressing outrage over how the Service was using the money. There are numerous statements in that letter contradicting what I wrote to you. I have posted a link to Director Clark`s letter on our website along with this response.

The Director`s letter notes that the Government [sic] Accounting Office audited the Service`s Federal Aid program and found management shortcomings, but the letter objects to allegations that these funds were "diverted, abused, stolen, or that any illegality has occurred." What the letter does not tell you is how the General Accounting Office (GAO) characterized those shortcomings in testimony before Congress.

GAO labeled the Federal Aid program, in terms of basic accounting practices to track expenditures, "one of the worst managed programs we have ever encountered." GAO testified that in each area where administrative funds were used, there were problems. These included ineffective management oversight, inadequate internal controls, and inadequate policies and procedures. GAO told the House Resources Committee that these conditions spawned "a culture of permissive spending."

GAO uncovered a system by which the Service used administrative funds to support its own projects. Calling it a "shell game," GAO said that the Service charged the Federal Aid program a disproportionate amount to pay for Service-wide overhead costs (phones, electricity, rent) which freed up money in other departments to pay for projects that the Service could not fund with dollars Congress appropriated. The last bullet point of the Director`s letter states that no trust fund money was used to fund endangered species projects. However, GAO`s testimony revealed that some of the money freed up in this "shell game" was used for the reintroduction of the gray wolf.

The Director`s letter takes offense with my use of the term"slush fund" to describe the Director`s Conservation Fund and the Administrative Grant Program. While I would like to take credit for that term, it was first used by the Chairman and other members of the House Resources Committee to describe the Conservation Fund that was created without Congressional authorization. By law, funds in excess of administrative overhead are to be made available to the states. Early in the Clinton Administration, the then-Director created the Conservation Fund that used excess administrative funds to pay for conservation-related projects at the Director`s discretion, without input from the states or the sportsmen whose money it is.

Another program called the Administrative Grant Program was created in the previous administration to fund projects that would benefit the majority of the states, but was allowed to continue in spite of objections raised by organizations like the NRA over the legality of the program. Furthermore, the GAO testified that the administrative funds had been used to pay for relocation costs of employees, foreign travel, and other expenses not attributed to the cost of directly managing the funds as the law requires.

I leave it to you, the NRA member, to decide if GAO`s testimony before the House Resources Committee revealed spending by the Service that can accurately be characterized as diversion, abuse, theft and use of a "slush fund.".

Although the Director`s letter states that the Service is working diligently with its partners in the "States and conservation community to address these" shortcomings, no organization including the NRA was invited to the table when the Service organized a review team with the state wildlife agencies to look at reform measures. It was only after the NRA and other organizations like the National Wildlife Federation took issue with the closed-door approach of the Service that conservation organizations were invited by the states, not by the Service, to provide comments on the proposed reforms.

With respect to the issue of using the Administrative Grant Program to fund an animal rights project, the Service is correct in that no funds were awarded for such a purpose and no employee was fired for refusing to approve such a grant. What I did say, which is true, is that there were attempts by high ranking Service employees to pressure a Federal Aid employee to find such a proposal eligible for funding and upon refusal to do so, the employee was subjected to an adverse personnel action. The information in my letter to you was taken directly from the testimony presented to the House Resources Committee by the affected employee.

The Director`s letter is correct in stating that no Duck Stamp money was spent to buy a remote Pacific Island. What the letter does not say is that it was the Service`s intent to do so until Congressman John Dingell (D-Mich) stepped in to stop the wasteful expenditure of sportsmen`s dollars. That issue, including the letter Congressman Dingell sent to the Secretary of the Interior warning that "he and other Democrats" would "vigorously oppose" the purchase, was mentioned in my "Betrayal of Trust" article. Just because the proposal later failed, does not exonerate the Service from attempting to misuse the sportsmen`s funds.

The Director challenges the statement that millions of administrative fund dollars are unaccounted for because the amount diverted is "0." The GAO testified that there were millions of dollars that could not be accounted for. The Service`s response before the House Resources Committee was that the problem was not in money lost, but in the reconciliation of records due to a change in the accounting system. The Service advised Chairman Young that it would have the accounts reconciled by the end of the calendar year, 1999. To date, there has been no report from the Service that the remaining "lost" money has been reduced to "0."

The NRA is in agreement with the Director that the trust funds are highly successful and that it is important to address these issues with constructive solutions. At no time has the NRA suggested that its members withdraw their support from the trust funds or that the laws be abolished. Rather, we all recognize the tremendous support that these excise tax dollars have provided to wildlife and fish conservation at the state level. That is why we threw our support wholeheartedly behind Congressman Young`s bill, H.R. 3671, which makes reforms in the way the Service manages the trust funds.

The Wildlife and Sport Fish Restoration Programs Improvement Act passed the House April 5 by a vote of 423 to 2. The overwhelming bipartisan support for the bill validates the findings of GAO`s audit and other investigations and voices strong approval for reforms to be made through the legislative process. Unfortunately, the Department of the Interior (DOI) has offered only lukewarm support to the bill, despite the Director`s comment that the Service was working with Congressman Young on passing this legislation.

In summary, the Director`s letter indicates that the DOI and FWS remain in denial over many aspects of the issues raised by the Congressional hearings and the GAO audit and continue to defend the indefensible -- truly an ongoing "betrayal of trust."

Sincerely,

James Jay Baker
ILA Executive Director

(Link no longer active)U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Director Jamie Rappaport Clark`s Letter to NRA members

For more information see the article written by ILA Executive Director Jim Baker entitled "Betrayal of Trust"that appeared in the March issue of the American Hunter.

For copies of testimony from the hearings and for Committee press releases, log on to the House Resources Committeewebsite.

For a copy of the bill log onto the Library of Congress web site and search for H.R. 3671.

IN THIS ARTICLE
Hunting/Conservation
TRENDING NOW
Keep Telling Your Members of Congress to Oppose “Universal” Background Check Bills

News  

Friday, January 18, 2019

Keep Telling Your Members of Congress to Oppose “Universal” Background Check Bills

On January 8, two bills were introduced in Congress to impose so-called "universal" background checks. The bills, H.R. 8 and S. 42, are being misleadingly described as simply requiring background checks on all sales of firearms, but this is ...

Now With More Banning! Dianne Feinstein Introduces “Updated” Federal “Assault Weapons” Ban (S. 66)

News  

Friday, January 11, 2019

Now With More Banning! Dianne Feinstein Introduces “Updated” Federal “Assault Weapons” Ban (S. 66)

On Wednesday, longtime gun control extremist Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) introduced the latest version of her perennial bid to rid America of its most popular types of rifles, as well as the standard capacity magazines that ...

Law for Thee But Not for Me: Pittsburgh Officials Defy DA’s Legal Advice in Gun Control Push

News  

Friday, January 18, 2019

Law for Thee But Not for Me: Pittsburgh Officials Defy DA’s Legal Advice in Gun Control Push

Pittsburgh City Council member Corey O’Connor wants local residents to relinquish important aspects of their Second Amendment rights. If they refuse, he would have it cost them their liberty and treasure. But O’Connor himself apparently ...

Who Are the Real Extremists?

News  

Friday, January 18, 2019

Who Are the Real Extremists?

NRA is often vilified by the gun-ban community and its supporters in the mainstream, legacy media as an “extremist” organization because of its steadfast defense of our Right to Keep and Bear Arms. A simple ...

Washington: Committee Hearings Scheduled on Anti-Gun Bills

Wednesday, January 16, 2019

Washington: Committee Hearings Scheduled on Anti-Gun Bills

Anti-gun bills will be heard on January 21st at 10:00AM by the Washington state Senate Committee on Law & Justice and by the House Committee on Civil Rights & Judiciary on January 22nd at 10:00AM.

Illinois: Gov. Pritzker Signs Firearm Registration & Dealer Licensing Bill

Thursday, January 17, 2019

Illinois: Gov. Pritzker Signs Firearm Registration & Dealer Licensing Bill

Today, Governor J.B. Pritzker signed Senate Bill 337 into law.  Passed by the previous legislature in 2018, SB 337 will establish a firearm registry and shut down your local gun stores with government red tape.  Senate ...

New Mexico: Governor Lujan Grisham Highlights Gun Control In Opening Day Speech

Thursday, January 17, 2019

New Mexico: Governor Lujan Grisham Highlights Gun Control In Opening Day Speech

In her opening day speech to state lawmakers, New Mexico Governor Michelle Lujan Grisham called on them to pass various gun control proposals that she supported on the campaign trail and which have been filed in the ...

Washington: Attorney General Introduces Additional Gun Ban Legislation

Saturday, January 19, 2019

Washington: Attorney General Introduces Additional Gun Ban Legislation

Just months after pushing for the passage of Initiative 1639 to impose severe regulations on purchasing and possessing semi-automatic firearms, Attorney General Bob Ferguson has now introduced legislation that would outright ban commonly owned semi-automatic ...

Wisconsin: Governor Evers Starts Session with Gun Control Push

Monday, January 14, 2019

Wisconsin: Governor Evers Starts Session with Gun Control Push

With the 2019 Wisconsin Legislative Session convened, Governor Tony Evers and Attorney General Josh Kaul are already working with legislators to pass sweeping gun control.

Canada’s Gun Control Advocates Boast Handgun Ban is “Within Reach”

News  

Friday, January 11, 2019

Canada’s Gun Control Advocates Boast Handgun Ban is “Within Reach”

On August 28, 2018, Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau instructed Bill Blair, his minister of Border Security and Organized Crime Reduction, to examine the feasibility of “a full ban on handguns and assault weapons in ...

MORE TRENDING +
LESS TRENDING -

More Like This From Around The NRA

NRA ILA

Established in 1975, the Institute for Legislative Action (ILA) is the "lobbying" arm of the National Rifle Association of America. ILA is responsible for preserving the right of all law-abiding individuals in the legislative, political, and legal arenas, to purchase, possess and use firearms for legitimate purposes as guaranteed by the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.