May 1st, 2000

The Premiere OnLine Magazine for the Fly Fishing Enthusiast.
This is where our readers tell their stories . . .

Bound for a new destination, the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service is hijacking our fisheries and leaving us behind.

By Jon Storm

The U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service (USFWS) was once one of sportfishing's strongest allies. With dedicated field employees, a National Fish Hatchery System unrivaled in scope, and a reliable flow of money from Congress, its friendly hands touched the farthest reaches of our sportfisheries-from the smallest farm pond to the largest reservoir. The USFWS was America's strongest example of what good government can, and should, accomplish.

Today, our nation's 50 million recreational anglers appear to have lost the critical support of this vital federal agency.

Last May, North American Fisherman began an in-depth investigation into allegations that the USFWS is not only quietly abandoning its original, mandated primary responsibility to "maintain" and "increase" our nation's opportunities for recreational fishing, it was diverting the angler-financed Sport Fish Restoration fund to pay for activities unrelated to sportfishing. What's more, a desire to abandon responsibilities related to sportfishing is the sentiment du jour among a growing number of USFWS employees.

The investigation amassed a wealth of evidence that there indeed have been profound changes in USFWS philosophy and direction, changes that have the potential to seriously impact some of our nation's best fisheries.


    * USFWS Director Jamie Rappaport Clark, aware of critical funding problems in the Fisheries division, still refuses to make the Fisheries program one of the USFWS' four "Director's Priorities." Some speculate the entire Fisheries division may cease to exist.

    * The USFWS plans to redirect monies formerly used for recreational fish stocking to fund restoration of endangered native species. What impact this will have on established non-native fisheries is unknown.

    * The USFWS is essentially ignoring President Clinton's Executive Order 12962 on Recreational Fisheries, calling it an "unfunded mandate."

    * The USFWS' once world-leading National Fish Hatchery System stands on the brink of insolvency.

    * The USFWS solicited, then ignored, public, state and tribal input in deciding its new direction.

    * Key grass roots fishing programs once supported by Federal Grant in Aid dollars administered by the USFWS had their funding disappear after alleged USFWS mismanagement.

    * An employee of the USFWS was allegedly harassed, threatened and eventually terminated for refusing to fund an animal rights organization with tax money paid by sportsmen and women.

What follows is a maddening, discouraging, disturbing and even frightening tale of changing priorities, shifting values and the gross abandonment of legal responsibilities.

Why The Concern?

The USFWS was created by the Fish & Wildlife Act of 1956. Originally known as the "Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife," today's USFWS has evolved considerably, but is still legally bound to draw its focus, framework and priorities from the original act.

The USFWS is charged with "maintaining" and "increasing" public opportunities for recreational use of our fish and wildlife resources, but its menagerie of responsibilities also covers everything from managing the more than 500 National Wildlife Refuges, to operating 66 National Fish Hatcheries, to administering the Endangered Species Act.

Today's USFWS is composed of several divisions, four of which play key roles in fish and wildlife management. The Division of Federal Aid is responsible for administering Sport Fish and Wildlife Restoration programs while the Division of Fisheries oversees the federal role in managing inland and migratory fisheries. The Division of Wildlife and Refuges manages and maintains the National Wildlife Refuge System, and the Division of Ecological Services is a regulatory division that manages the restoration and recovery of endangered species.

Director Clark outlined her four priorities for fiscal year 1999/2000. According to Clark, the four key areas where the USFWS will focus its energies in the coming year, are:

    "1. Strengthening the ecosystem approach to fish and wildlife conservation;

    2. Lifting the conservation of migratory birds to a higher level;

    3. Leading efforts to prevent the introduction and spread of invasive species; and

    4. Setting the course for the future of the Refuge System."

Sportfishing is conspicuously absent from Director Clark's stated priorities, but that's not surprising. While the Wildlife and Refuges and Ecological Services divisions have seen 15 percent annual budget increases over the past decade, the Division of Fisheries budget has never been raised during that time. In fact, when adjustments are made for inflation, the Fisheries budget has actually decreased 18 percent over the same time period.

Before being appointed USFWS Director in July 1997, Clark was Assistant Director of Ecological Services. Her priorities are still there. She has forced the Fisheries Division to change its emphasis from sportfish production to recovery and restoration of native and endangered species.

No one can argue against this mission. Bringing fish and other aquatic species back from the brink of extinction, and restoring populations of native fish is a noble, proper and necessary task. What is objectionable, however, are Clark's plans to cut or eliminate recreational fish stocking programs, and use those funds for endangered species work and native fish restoration.

Sources within the USFWS, including employees close to the Director, believe the lack of priority given to Fisheries and the trend to route funds to endangered species work and native fish restoration, are simply precursors to the ultimate goal, which is the eventual merger of the Fisheries and Ecological Services divisions.

Perhaps more telling is Director Clark's appointment of Cathleen Short as Assistant Director of Fisheries in July. Short holds degrees in zoology and has worked mainly with habitat conservation, wetlands inventory, impact assessments and environmental legislation. Nothing in her background indicates that she has the expertise to manage fisheries.

At press time, Director Clark was on maternity leave and unavailable for comment, but employees within the USFWS, and sportfishing watchdog groups outside it agree-if the Fisheries Division is merged with Ecological Services, it would signify the end of the USFWS' ever-diminishing dedication to sportfishing.

Ecological Services is notorious for its anti-consumptive sentiment. Activities like hunting and fishing are seen as contrary to Ecological Services' goal, and the division regularly frowns on any management principle that emphasizes maintaining healthy game and gamefish populations for the benefit of recreation.

USFWS employees who wish to remain anonymous for fear of losing their jobs, complain that gamefish research and presentations are subject to ridicule; that open support for fishing, hunting and gamefish stocking draws the ire of many USFWS colleagues, and in some cases, they are told to hide truths for the sake of easing the USFWS shift to a native fish focus.

Most of the Fisheries program employees are the utmost examples of professionalism. They express disappointment in the present Director's policy shift, moral outrage at the growing anti-sportfishing sentiment in the USFWS, and a discouraging, often hostile work environment. There's more.

Abusing Angler Funds

The USFWS oversees the Federal Aid in Sport Fish and Wildlife Restoration programs that use excise taxes paid on fishing and hunting equipment to fund sportfish and wildlife conservation projects nationwide. To help administer the programs, the USFWS is allowed a yearly administrative cut of up to 6 percent for sportfish and 8 percent for wildlife.

A portion of this administrative cut is used to fund the special Federal Grant in Aid program that awards monies to qualified conservation programs. In addition, Director Clark is allowed a $1 million "discretionary" Conservation Fund for similar purposes.

Earlier this year, the General Accounting Office (GAO), which audits and oversees spending and accounting practices in government agencies, found gross instances of impropriety in the way the program is administered.

In testimony given July 20, 1999 before the House Resources Committee, a GAO official involved in the audit said, "In our opinion, there was a lack of effort and commitment to following basic management principles for controlling and overseeing the expenditure of the $30 million administrative cut. Six years ago we identified major problems with the Sport Fish Restoration Fund and recommended changes. But in most cases, none were made."

The abuses start with Director Clark's $1 million Conservation Fund. Not only were her fund files incomplete, out of date and disorganized, but four grants authorized by Director Clark allegedly failed to meet proper requirements under the Office of Management and Budget guidelines.

The GAO also found abuses in general fund administration. Glaring instances include using Sport Fish Restoration dollars to pay for regional director salaries, employee relocation costs, salaries of employees in human resources and external affairs, and equipment maintenance. None are proper expenditures because they are not directly related to fund administration.

More disturbing, perhaps, is the case of Jim Beers, an employee of the USFWS Division of Federal Aid. Beers was responsible for reviewing and approving grants under the Federal Grant in Aid program. In that capacity, Beers refused to fund a grant proposed by the Fund For Animals - an animal rights group.

In his testimony given before the House Resources Committee, Beers described the USFWS work atmosphere after refusing to fund the grant. "In November, the roof fell in on me. I was curtly told I would be moved to a non-existent, lower graded job in Massachusetts! No responsible person in USFWS would openly even greet me, much less offer any explanation or help . . . I was locked out of my office, the police came to the building to keep me from entering, and I was threatened in an unmarked envelope left in my front door on a Sunday morning with the loss of retirement for five years and the loss of my health coverage forever if I did not retire immediately."

The USFWS disavowed any wrongdoing, but did provide Beers $150,000 compensation, plus legal fees, back leave, full retirement and a letter of apology.

Six days after the hearing ended, the USFWS announced cancellation of all Grant in Aid programs for fiscal year 2000, claiming "insufficient funding" as the reason for cancellation. Director Clark's discretionary Conservation Fund was also eliminated.

There was a one-time unforeseen shortfall in 1999 Sport Fish Restoration dollars due to problems with reauthorization of the Wallop-Breaux amendment. However, sloppy bookkeeping, glaring misappropriations and accusations of gross negligence certainly influenced the decision.

The cancellations put the futures of key grass roots angling programs like Get Hooked On Fishing-Not On Drugs, the Fishing Tackle Loaner Program and 1-800 ASK FISH in jeopardy. It also leaves the National Fishing Week steering committee, which helps introduce hundreds of thousands of children to sportfishing every year, scrambling to secure alternative funding.

Native Hatchery System?

Last May, Director Clark distributed an internal memo to USFWS employees stating, "In order to be as effective as possible with available funding, the [USFWS] will focus our hatchery system on the restoration and recovery of native species."

Historically, the National Fish Hatchery System had a number of priorities, including stocking trout, walleyes, bass and other gamefish to reduce the negative impacts of federal water projects. The hatcheries also help restore interjurisdictional fish species-those species that cross state lines. Examples include Great Lakes lake trout and Atlantic striped bass.

Other hatchery responsibilities include restoration and recovery of threatened or endangered species (Apache trout, greenback cutthroat trout and pallid sturgeon), and stocking and maintaining fisheries on tribal and federal lands, such as National Forests and National Wildlife Refuges.

As Director Clark explains, the National Fish Hatchery System's new highest priority is the restoration and recovery of native fish species, with the stocking of sportfish clearly a "lower priority."

Assistant Director of Fisheries Short claims, "It's not a matter of deprioritizing anything," but other internal documents clearly refer to the stocking of recreationally desirable species as "lower priority work."

Of the 66 facilities that comprise the National Fish Hatchery System, a full 40 percent of their activities are currently focused on the rearing and stocking of sportfish in reservoirs and tailwaters. In fact, most National Fish Hatcheries were built for the purpose of stocking and maintaining recreational fisheries in areas impacted by federal water projects.

This practice is called mitigation; to mitigate means "to alleviate" or "lessen." When federal flood control and hydropower dams were built, fish hatcheries were likewise built and maintained by the USFWS to replace fish populations lost in the project.

The Chattahoochee National Fish Hatchery in Georgia, for example, raises and stocks trout to replace smallmouth bass fisheries that were lost when some southern rivers were dammed. The Garrison Dam National Fish Hatchery in North Dakota annually stocks 2.1 million walleyes, 200,000 chinook salmon and 150,000 lake trout into Lake Sakakawea. The hatchery also produces saugeyes, northern pike, smallmouth bass and paddlefish. Without any state-run facilities, National Fish Hatcheries are the only source of hatchery fish for North Dakota's vast stretches of Missouri River reservoirs.

Under its new focus, the USFWS would stock only native fish, called "in-kind" mitigation, to fulfill some of its mitigation responsibilities. But in many instances, "in-kind" mitigation is impossible because native fish can't survive in the cold tailwaters below the dams or the reservoirs above.

As the USFWS realigns its National Fish Hatchery System to focus on native and endangered species, those hatcheries that do not align with the new focus, like Garrison Dam and Chattahoochee, will likely be closed, transferred to state control, or transformed into native and endangered fish recovery facilities.

A slim possibility remains that federal agencies such as the Army Corps of Engineers or Bureau of Reclamation, which originally built the various dams, would provide funding to keep the mitigation programs intact, but no one's counting on it.

With a $218 million dollar maintenance backlog and $75 million in unmet operational needs, many fish hatcheries are falling apart and operated by skeleton crews. Federal budgets are tight, but state budgets even tighter. Given the decrepit state of many facilities and the massive budget it takes to operate them, most states would not be able to assume control of vital National Fish Hatcheries.

But the issue really isn't about money. The core issue is one of management, specifically, the USFWS' change in philosophy toward managing for the goal of preservation, rather than conservation.

The USFWS is no longer managing fisheries for such classic goals as maximum sustainable yield, catch rates and species diversity. Instead, the USFWS seeks to preserve watersheds by placing a higher intrinsic value on native fish. It can be surmised that by the very nature of the term "preserve," many watersheds will lose naturalized populations of important sportfish, such as brook, rainbow and brown trout, even when those species don't negatively impact natives.

Furthermore, as the hatcheries are refocused, expect traditional staffs to be expanded to include ecologists, vertebrate biologists, botanists and planners from other divisions within the USFWS. Where money will come from to fund these proposed hirings, and how the USFWS plans to justify the cost of researching and raising new species at a time when critical programs are being cut because of budget shortfalls, remains a mystery.

Communication Breakdown

In the winter of 1996-'97, the USFWS conducted a series of stakeholder meetings so those with a stake in America's aquatic resources (states, tribes, fishing industry, etc.) could provide input and help the USFWS determine its future policy.

Stakeholders were asked to rate the priority of USFWS programs. While the results varied from region to region, stakeholders consistently rated mitigation responsibilities and support for recreational fishing as top priorities.

Knowing that states, tribes and the angling public would object squarely to its new native fish focus, the USFWS has made a marked attempt to keep the policy shift as quiet as possible. As this issue went to press, states, tribes and anglers-those stakeholders who will be impacted most by the change-still had not been informed of the shift in focus.

The states and tribes have heard whisperings of the change, in some cases, from concerned USFWS employees who notified them of impending change, but as yet, neither Director Clark nor Assistant Director Short has issued a formal policy statement or involved outside groups in the final decision process.

The communication breakdown has reached such an unnerving level, Max Peterson, Executive Vice President of the International Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies, sent a letter in June to Director Clark which states, "We are troubled by the Service's apparent lack of commitment to its historically important and very popular fish hatchery program . . . While we recognize the importance of fish restoration and species recovery programs, we believe the fish hatchery program should give increased emphasis on recreational fishing."

Director Clark also received a letter signed by 10 members of Congress asking the USFWS to include partners such as states, tribes and anglers in the decision process. To date, the request has not been honored.

Director Clark also received a letter from Kelsey Begaye, President of the Navajo Nation, stating, "The arbitrary decision to prioritize native fisheries at the expense of recreational fisheries should not be a burden to the Navajo Nation."

Ralph Morganweck, USFWS Director of Region 6, explains, "As far as I'm concerned, the native fish focus is policy. I don't know if we have some sort of official documentation. Ask Cathy Short why no documents have been sent to the states."

The lack of communication is creating tension between the USFWS and its traditional allies-states, tribes and anglers. In the worst case, the tension is conflicting with the USFWS' new highest priority-the recovery of threatened or endangered species.

Kim Erickson, Chief of Fisheries for the Oklahoma Department of Wildlife Conservation, explains, "When I got word back the USFWS wasn't going to give us any of the catfish we asked for, I told them to cease and desist collecting endangered paddlefish until we get this worked out. Subsequently, we did have discussions so I let them continue with paddlefish, but I don't really have an answer as to what to expect next year."

Many other states, as well as tribes, revealed plans to deny the USFWS access to populations of endangered species within their borders if responsibilities for recreational fish stocking are dropped.

The growing conflict is in direct violation of President Clinton's Executive Order on Recreational Fisheries, part of which instructs federal agencies to, "aggressively work to identify and minimize conflicts between recreational fisheries and their respective responsibilities under the Endangered Species Act of 1973."

The Executive Order On Recreational Fisheries
During National Fishing Week in 1995, President Clinton signed Executive Order 12962 on Recreational Fisheries.

Recognizing that recreational angling contributes over $69 billion every year to the national economy, and to help support the interests of more than 50 million U.S. anglers, the Executive Order declares that, "Federal Agencies shall, to the extent permitted by law and where practicable, and in cooperation with states and tribes, improve the quantity, function, sustainable productivity and distribution of U.S. aquatic resources for increased recreational fishing opportunities."

What was once heralded as landmark in the history of sportfishing has since lost considerable steam, especially within the USFWS.

Jaime Geiger, USFWS Assistant Regional Director of Fisheries for Region 5, agrees the USFWS has not met the provisions of Clinton's Order, stating, "There is no simple answer as to why we haven't met the goals and objectives of the Executive Order. Part of it is that we have too few people chasing after too many issues with too short a time frame."

Those who wield power within the USFWS have chosen the restoration of threatened and endangered native species as their primary focus. If USFWS support for stocking recreational gamefish is dropped, or if responsibility is transferred to other parties, the actions are in direct violation of Clinton's Executive Order. Not only is the USFWS failing to manage fisheries for "increased recreational opportunities," but the new native fish focus is not being implemented "in cooperation with states and tribes."

Jumping Track

The USFWS focus on native species could likely turn the tide on stocking, a controversial topic in fish management. Resource management has come a long way. Many fisheries have been restored to the point that natural reproduction can sustain fishable populations of sportfish species. Yet, for all the fisheries that can sustain natural reproduction, many cannot, and never will. The need for captive propagation and aggressive stocking will never disappear.

Should native fish maintain an inherently superior value? If you ask the USFWS the answer is yes. Anglers don't necessarily agree. Whether it's striped bass in Tennessee, salmon and steelhead in the Great Lakes, Florida-strain largemouths in California, tiger muskies in Illinois, rainbow trout in Arkansas, walleyes in Colorado, catfish in Arizona or brown trout in waters everywhere, non-native gamefish continue to produce world-class fisheries with million - and billion-dollar economies surrounding them.

The USFWS decision to place a superior value on fish that are native to a particular system, even when a system has been so altered as to preclude any possibility of restoring its original condition, raises dangerous possibilities.

In Montana, the U.S. Forest Service, the Montana Department of Fish, Wildlife and Parks and the Turner Endangered Species Fund are joining forces to poison 77 miles of Cherry Creek, a premier trout fishery populated by wild brook, rainbow and Yellowstone cutthroat trout, to create a native westslope cutthroat trout fishery (see sidebar: The Changing Role Of Hatcheries). The state of Washington conducts poisonings with frightening regularity to eradicate smallmouth bass from various waters within the state. At some point, one must raise the question, is it worth it?

Changing Role of Hatcheries
With the devastating outbreak of whirling disease and a growing national focus on Pacific Northwest salmon recovery, traditional cold-water fisheries management has come under fire. The most controversial practice is using hatchery fish to bolster wild populations. In some cases, stocking fish does deserve a closer look.

Some fisheries, like western trout and salmon streams, need habitat improvement more than propagated fish. Simply dumping fish into these rivers is not going to rebuild the fishery and new management plans stress genetic diversity, habitat improvement and disease control as means to further natural reproduction.

The economics of creating a self-sustaining fishery make sense, too - natural reproduction saves money down the road.

Yet, hatcheries continue to play a significant, even vital, role in fisheries management. Hatcheries are tools that must be used effectively and the need for hatcheries will not disappear anytime soon. Bill Knapp, USFWS Chief of Hatcheries, explains, "People will tell you the road to success in natural resource management depends exclusively on habitat conservation, and that is simply not true. Realistically speaking, aquatic resource management through the next century will depend upon captive propagation."

For all the fisheries that can sustain natural reproduction, there are many that cannot, and never will. Blue-ribbon tailwaters in Arkansas and Missouri depend almost exclusively upon trout hatcheries. Other recreational fisheries, like county park ponds and urban streams, rely on hatchery fish to provide angling opportunity.

Hatcheries also create important niche fisheries. Striped bass in reservoirs, for example, are stocked to utilize the vast stretches of open water that would otherwise go unused by fish. And although not supported by federal stocking, the Great Lakes salmon fishery is an immensely important niche fishery sustained almost exclusively through stocking.

Clearly, in the ongoing debate over the importance of hatcheries and habitat improvement, a balance must be struck. Improving fisheries takes many forms and managing different types of fisheries for diverse angling experiences should be determined on a region-by-region, case-by-case basis.

As the USFWS sets national policy and decides to place an arbitrarily higher value on native fish, there comes a fundamental shift in ideology from the historic practice of conservation, to a new philosophy of preservation. While conservation implies managing a system for its maximum sustainable yield and its greatest benefit to anglers, preservation implies keeping that system at, or returning that system to, its original state, before human influence.

What's particularly dangerous is when the preservation ethic culminates in the destruction of an already healthy, vibrant fishery. The 1999 Summer issue of Outdoor Life draws attention to the frightening preservation project on Cherry Creek, a premier trout stream in Montana. To return the system to its original state, an astonishing 77 miles of the Cherry Creek drainage will be poisoned to eradicate brook, rainbow and "imperiled" Yellowstone cutthroat trout. The system will then be replanted with westslope cutthroat trout.

The success or failure of the Cherry Creek project holds great importance for future actions regarding non-native fisheries. If successful, fisheries across America may fall prey to poisoning projects. The result could be the loss of some of our most treasured resources.

With the diversity of U.S. watersheds, and the diversity of the angling public itself, fisheries managers need to look at all aspects of what a resource can provide. In many cases, the restoration of native fish can be achieved without detrimental effects to favorable populations of non-native fish already established. Likewise, non-native gamefish can, in many cases, successfully coexist with native populations. In this sense, fisheries can be conserved while, in part, preserved, and provide the greatest benefits to the widest range of users.

A more valid question is this, Why can't native fish recovery efforts coexist with the maintenance or enhancement of existing sportfisheries? Those questions, and their answers, stand at the forefront of a growing conflict in fisheries resource management.

Despite the need for input and support from all those with a stake in America's fisheries, the USFWS is jumping track and setting this course on its own.

Given its dismal lack of sportfishing support in recent years, its conduct concerning the shift to a native fish focus, its abuse of angler funds and internal culture with a strong and growing desire to detach itself from sportfishing, the USFWS is no longer capable of making this all-important decision itself.

What You Can Do

Recreational anglers have shouldered the [financial] burden of aquatic resource conservation for nearly a century, but have now lost the support of their primary federal agency.

To help convince the USFWS that it needs input from anglers before deciding the future direction of its Fisheries program, the North American Fishing Club asks its 500,000 members to draft a letter outlining a list of complaints. These complaints include:

    1. In deciding to institute its native fish focus, the USFWS has ignored and avoided input from anglers and their state management agencies.

    2. The USFWS is abandoning its responsibilities to support recreational fisheries in areas of federal water projects and on tribal lands.

    3. The USFWS has not made President Clinton's Executive Order 12962 on Recreational Fisheries a priority.

Here are some suggestions on who to contact:

Jamie Rappaport Clark - Director USFWS
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service
4401 N. Fairfax Dr., Arlington, VA 22203
(202) 208-4131

Region 1
Anne Badgley - Regional Director
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Eastside Federal Complex
911 NE 11th Ave., Portland, Oregon 97232-4181
(503) 231-6121

Region 2
Nancy Kaufman - Regional Director
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service
500 Gold Ave.
P.O. Box 1306, Albuquerque, NM 87103
(505) 248-6282

Region 3
William Hartwig - Regional Director
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service
One Federal Dr., Fort Snelling, MN 55111-4056
(612) 713-5300

Region 4
Sam Hamilton - Regional Director
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service
1875 Century Blvd., Atlanta, GA 30345
(404) 679-4000

Region 5
Ronald Lambertson - Regional Director
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service
300 Westgate Center Dr., Hadley, MA 01035-9589
(413) 253-8200

Region 6
Ralph Morganweck - Regional Director
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service
P.O. Box 25486
Denver Federal Center, Denver, CO 80225
(303) 236-7904

Region 7
Dave Allen - Regional Director
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service
1011 E. Tudor Rd., Anchorage, AK 99503
(907) 786-3309

The North American Fishing Club also suggests contacting the members of Congress who sent a letter of concern to Director Clark. Thank these legislators for their efforts on your behalf, and let them know you support their actions regarding recreational fishing.

Representative Marion Berry (D-AR)
1113 Longworth H.O.B.
Washington, DC 20515

Representative Jim Saxton (R-NJ)
339 Cannon H.O.B.
Washington, DC 20515

Representative Charles Pickering (R-MS)
427 Cannon H.O.B.
Washington, DC 20515

Representative Saxby Chambliss (R-GA)
1019 Longworth H.O.B.
Washington, DC 20515

Representative John Dingell (D-MI)
Rayburn H.O.B.
Washington, DC 20515

Representative John Tanner (D-TN)
1127 Longworth HOB
Washington, DC 20515

Representative Sherwood Boehlert (R-NY)
2246 Rayburn H.O.B.
Washington, DC 20515

Senator John Breaux (D-LA)
516 Hart S.O.B.
Washington, DC 20515

Senator Blanche Lincoln (D-AR)
359 Dirksen S.O.B.
Washington, DC 20510

Senator Fritz Hollings (D-SC)
125 Russell S.O.B.
Washington, DC 20510

You can make a difference. ~ Jon Storm

Archive of Readers Casts

[ HOME ]

[ Search ] [ Contact FAOL ] [ Media Kit ] © Notice