|
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.
Consider:
* 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
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
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
|
