Wildlife Restoration Act, popularly known as the Pittman-Robert- 

 son Act after its sponsors, Senator Key Pittman of Nevada and 

 Representative A. Willis Robertson of Virginia. The primary pur- 

 pose of the law is to provide a stable and secure funding source for 

 states to manage and restore wildlife resources. 



The Act authorizes funds for the program to be derived from Fed- 

 eral excise taxes on sporting arms and ammunitions, pistols, and 

 revolvers, and certain archery equipment. The total amount of 

 funds collected are apportioned to the states based on the geo- 

 graphic area and number of hunting license holders in each State. 



Responsibility for selection, planning, and execution of wildlife 

 restoration projects rests with the states through their designated 

 wildlife management agency. Project proposals are submitted by 

 the State agencies to the regional directors of the Fish and Wildlife 

 Service who have authority to approve or disapprove projects. 



About $202 million was allocated to states in fiscal year 1996 

 under this program, and of that amount, about $42 million was 

 made available to help states finance hunter education programs. 



In the more than 50 years since Pittman-Robertson was created, 

 over $3 billion in Federal excise taxes have been matched by more 

 than $1 billion in State funds, mostly from hunting license fees. All 

 of these amounts have gone to wildlife restoration projects. Benefits 

 to the economy have been impressive. National surveys show that 

 hunters alone now spend some $12 billion every year on equipment 

 and trips. Literally thousands of jobs have been created. 



On August 9, 1950, Congress passed the Federal Aid in Sport 

 Fish Restoration Act, modeling that legislation after the highly suc- 

 cessful Pittman-Robertson Act. The new Act was known as Dingell- 

 Johnson after its sponsors. Representative John Dingell, Sr., of 

 Michigan, and Senator Edwin Johnson of Colorado. Following en- 

 actment in 1984 of substantial changes to that Act, the program 

 began to be called the Wallop-Breaux program after Senator Mal- 

 colm Wallop of Wyoming and Senator John Breaux of Louisiana, 

 the visionary sponsors of those new provisions. 



The Sport Fish Program is funded by revenues collect'^d from the 

 manufacturers of fishing rods, reels, creels, lures, flies, and artifi- 

 cial baits who pay an excise tax on these items to the U.S. Treas- 

 ury. Funds are also received from import duties on sport fishing 

 equipment, pleasure boats, and yachts. One other major source of 

 revenue is an excise tax from the sale of motorboat fuels. 



These taxes are transferred to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

 for distribution among the states and territories. Each State's 

 share is based on the number of licensed fishermen and the area 

 of land and water in the State. 



For fiscal year 1996, the sum of $197 million was apportioned to 

 the states and territories. As in the case of the P-R Program, the 

 Service ensures adherence to the law, provides technical assistance, 

 sets standards for performance, and monitors progress, but each 

 State selects, plans, and performs the management work. 



These two great conservation programs touch every man, woman, 

 and child in the United States, making it possible for State wildlife 

 agencies to undertake conservation efforts quite literally in commu- 

 nities all across America. When you see a flock of geese or ducks 



