129 



WDI dollars. If the initiative is to be true to its stated objective, then the states should be required 

 to find new sources of revenue to fund their match. Hunters and shooters who pay into PR should 

 be guaranteed a dedicated source of funds for the states' match of PR dollars. To suggest that the 

 state fish and wildlife agencies have full discretion on how this revenue is allocated does not 

 provide needed assurances that the revenue will not be diverted to match WDI funds, especially 

 in those states where alternative sources of funds are not available at this time. 



We also share the views of Members of Congress who expressed concern over how lands 

 acquired by WDI will be managed for public benefits, such as recreation. We want to be sure that 

 it is made crystal clear to all the stakeholders in WDI that the initiative is not designed to foreclose 

 hunting opportunities. We recommend that language be incorporated in legislation which ensures 

 that these lands will be opened to hunting unless special public safety and wildlife protection 

 considerations disallow such access and use. 



The last issue we would like to bring to your attention, Mr. Chairman, relates to the 

 accounting of monies expended under PR. The Resolution adopted by our Board of Directors this 

 past January (attached) recommends that the Department of the Interior be required to provide an 

 annual accounting for the monies expended with a brief description of the projects for which 

 funding was approved. Having had discussions with Fish and Wildlife Service's Federal Aid 

 Division subsequent to the adoption of the Resolution, we are pleased with the steps that the 

 Division is taking to enhance oversight of the account and to provide meaningful information to 

 the public on an armual basis. 



However, on a related front, we draw the Chairman's attention to the administrative 

 expense account of PR. The administrative expense provision of PR, contained in Section 669c, 

 states: 



So much, not to exceed 8 per centum, of the revenues covered into said fund in each fiscal year as 

 the Secretary of the Interior may estunate to be necessary for his expenses in the administration and 

 execution of this chapter and the Migratory Bird Conservation Act ... shall be deducted for that 

 purpose ... [and] the Secretary of the Interior shall apponion such pan thereof as remains 

 unexpended by him ... to the State fish and game departments on the same basis and in the same 

 manner as provided ... by this chapter. 



Since the 1980's, some of the administrative funds in excess of the FWS's needs for administering 

 PR and the Migratory Bird Conservation Act are held by the Service, rather than apportioned to 

 the states, in order to fund regional and national projects that have multi-state benefits. For FY 

 1997, the FWS is making available Si. 6 million from PR administrative funds for funding these 

 multi-state projects. Appendix A of this statement is an overview of the funding allocations that 

 have been made through PR's administrative expense account for the past several years. 



It does not appear that the intent of Congress when enacting PR was that regional or national 

 programs and projects, no matter how beneficial or important, would be funded as administrative 

 expenses under this section. Further, some of the projects highlighted in Appendix A do not 

 relate to the subject of wildlife restoration or migratory birds. This is not say that the NRA would 

 support the elimination of project funding from the administrative expense account. We agree that 



