[House Report 112-529]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
112th Congress Rept. 112-529
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
2d Session Part 1
======================================================================
TARGET PRACTICE AND MARKSMANSHIP TRAINING SUPPORT ACT
_______
June 15, 2012.--Committed to the Committee on the Whole House on the
State of the Union and ordered to be printed
_______
Mr. Hastings of Washington, from the Committee on Natural Resources,
submitted the following
R E P O R T
[To accompany H.R. 3065]
[Including cost estimate of the Congressional Budget Office]
The Committee on Natural Resources, to whom was referred
the bill (H.R. 3065) to amend the Pittman-Robertson Wildlife
Restoration Act to facilitate the establishment of additional
or expanded public target ranges in certain States, having
considered the same, report favorably thereon without amendment
and recommend that the bill do pass.
Purpose of the Bill
The purpose of H.R. 3065 is to amend the Pittman-Robertson
Wildlife Restoration Act to facilitate the establishment of
additional or expanded public target ranges in certain States.
Background and Need for Legislation
The federal program commonly known as the Pittman-Robertson
Act was enacted in 1937. This is an unusual federal aid program
in that the money used to finance projects is not drawn from
taxpayer funds or other miscellaneous receipts but are the
direct result of excise taxes on ammunition and firearms. This
tax was established at the request of sportsmen, state wildlife
agencies and ammunition manufacturers. Funding under the
program can be used for the acquisition of wildlife habitat,
hunter education, reintroduction of declining wildlife species,
species research, wildlife population surveys and public target
ranges.
These funds are distributed to the states under a formula
that takes into consideration the size of the state and the
number of hunting license holders. The procedures for receiving
and using this money include several requirements. First,
individual states must match the federal money at a rate of one
state dollar for every three federal dollars. Second, the state
must prepare grant proposals describing the projects that will
be funded with these federal dollars. Third, a state must
assure the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service that it will comply
with a host of federal laws including the Americans with
Disabilities Act, the Endangered Species Act and the National
Environmental Policy Act.
Over the past 75 years, Congress has approved modifications
to this law. These changes included: funds were made permanent
and indefinite; the excise tax was increased from 10 to 11
percent; money was apportioned to states based on population;
one half of the revenue from the tax on arrows and archery
accessories, bows, pistols and revolvers could be used on
hunter education grants; set aside of $8 million per year to
enhance hunter education and shooting range development; and
exempted manufacturers of less than 50 firearms per year from
having to pay the excise taxes.
Since its enactment, the Pittman-Robertson Program has
distributed $6.7 billion to the 50 states and territories. A
key activity that is funded is the National Survey of Fishing,
Hunting, and Wildlife-Associated Recreation that are conducted
every five years as a tool to measure the importance of
wildlife-based recreation to the American people. In the 2006
survey, it was reported that 12.5 million people 16 years of
age and older enjoyed hunting for a variety of animals within
the United States. These individuals hunted 220 million days
and took 185 million trips. Hunting expenditures totaled $22.9
billion.
As a result of Pittman-Robertson expenditures, a number of
wildlife populations have been rebuilt. Among the more
prominent are American elk, black bears, Canada geese, desert
bighorn sheep, Pronghorn antelope, wild turkeys, white-tailed
deer and wood ducks. In addition, 62 percent of this funding
buys, develops, maintains and operates wildlife areas. Four
million acres have been purchased and 40 million acres are
managed under agreements with landowners.
Also under this program, the interest earned on the
Wildlife Restoration Fund is transferred to the North American
Wetlands Conservation Fund. Import duties on ammunition and
firearms are deposited into the Migratory Bird Conservation
Fund which are used to purchase lands for inclusion within the
National Wildlife Refuge System. This unique federal program,
based on the premise that the user pays and benefits from the
expenditure of their money, has been successful. In terms of
accomplishments, between 2004 and 2009, 42,500 animals were
stocked, 3 million students received hunter education, 173,000
landowners were assisted and 900 shooting ranges were either
constructed or placed in operation.
Despite the construction of these shooting ranges, it is
clear that hunters are finding it increasingly difficult to
participate in this cherished tradition because of a lack of
suitable open public lands and public target ranges. During the
Subcommittee on Fisheries, Wildlife, Oceans, and Insular
Affairs hearing on H.R. 3065, the National Association of Fish
and Wildlife Agencies, which represents all fifty states and
the territories, testified that, ``There is a shortage of
shooting ranges in this country. More and more governmental
lands are being closed, and fewer and fewer outdoor ranges are
being built.''
Under current law, Pittman-Robertson funds can only be used
to pay 75 percent of the cost of building or operating a public
target range. The Target Practice and Marksmanship Training
Support Act would encourage states to develop additional
shooting ranges by increasing that amount to 90 percent and
allowing a state to retain those funds for five years instead
of just two to build and maintain them. Under this measure, a
state could pay for the cost of acquiring land, expanding
existing facilities, or constructing a new public target range.
This change should provide additional capability and
flexibility to the states. However, it should not result in any
increased federal spending because it does not alter either the
formula or the amount of money allocated to each state or
territory on an annual basis.
Committee Action
H.R. 3065 was introduced on September 23, 2011, by
Congressman Heath Shuler (D-NC). The bill was referred
primarily to the Committee on Natural Resources, and in
addition to the Committee on the Judiciary. Within the
Committee on Natural Resources, the bill was referred to the
Subcommittee on Fisheries, Wildlife, Oceans, and Insular
Affairs. On May 17, 2012, the Subcommittee held a hearing on
the bill. On June 7, 2012, the Full Resources Committee met to
consider the bill. The Subcommittee on Fisheries, Wildlife,
Oceans, and Insular Affairs was discharged by unanimous
consent. No amendments were offered, and the bill was adopted
and ordered favorably reported to the House of Representatives
by unanimous consent.
Committee Oversight Findings and Recommendations
Regarding clause 2(b)(1) of rule X and clause 3(c)(1) of
rule XIII of the Rules of the House of Representatives, the
Committee on Natural Resources' oversight findings and
recommendations are reflected in the body of this report.
Compliance With House Rule XIII
1. Cost of Legislation. Clause 3(d)(1) of rule XIII of the
Rules of the House of Representatives requires an estimate and
a comparison by the Committee of the costs which would be
incurred in carrying out this bill. However, clause 3(d)(2)(B)
of that rule provides that this requirement does not apply when
the Committee has included in its report a timely submitted
cost estimate of the bill prepared by the Director of the
Congressional Budget Office under section 402 of the
Congressional Budget Act of 1974. Under clause 3(c)(3) of rule
XIII of the Rules of the House of Representatives and section
403 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, the Committee has
received the following cost estimate for this bill from the
Director of the Congressional Budget Office:
H.R. 3065--Target Practice and Marksmanship Training Support Act
CBO estimates that enacting H.R. 3065 could affect direct
spending; therefore, pay-as-you-go procedures apply. However,
CBO estimates that any such effects would be minimal over the
2013-2022 period. We also estimate that implementing the
legislation would have no significant impact on discretionary
spending. Enacting H.R. 3065 would not affect revenues.
H.R. 3065 would allow states to use grants awarded under
the Pittman-Robertson Wildlife Restoration Act to fund up to 90
percent of the cost of building or operating public target
ranges. Under that act, half of all federal excise taxes
collected on pistols, revolvers, bows, arrows, and archer
accessories are apportioned to states as grants for hunter
education programs, including the construction and development
of target ranges. Under current law, funds awarded under that
act can be used to cover 75 percent of the costs of such
programs. Because the provision of the bill authorizing federal
funds to be used for up to 90 percent of such costs would not
affect the total amount of Pittman-Robertson funds that could
be spent, CBO estimates that enacting the provision would have
no effect on the federal budget.
The bill also would allow states to retain their shares of
Pittman-Robertson funds for up to five years to acquire or
construct target ranges. After five years those funds would be
reapportioned for other uses by the Secretary of the Interior.
Because, under current law, any such funds that are not spent
in two years are reapportioned and spent on other activities,
CBO estimates that implementing this provision would have no
effect on the federal budget.
Finally, H.R. 3065 would limit the federal government's
liability for certain incidents that occur on target ranges
paid for using Pittman-Robertson funds or located on federal
lands. Federal payments resulting from such lawsuits appear to
be minimal, and we estimate that this provision would have a
minor effect on the federal budget over the 2013-2022 period.
H.R. 3065 contains no intergovernmental mandates as defined
in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA).
H.R. 3065 would impose a private-sector mandate as defined
in UMRA by eliminating an individual's existing right to seek
compensation from the federal government for damages occurring
at a public target range supported by federal funds. The cost
of the mandate would be the forgone value of awards and
settlements in such claims. Information from the Department of
the Interior indicates that few, if any, of these types of
lawsuits are brought against the U.S. government. Because such
claims would probably be uncommon in the future, CBO estimates
that the cost of the mandate would be small, and fall well
below the annual threshold established in UMRA for private-
sector mandates ($146 million in 2012, adjusted annually for
inflation).
The CBO staff contacts for this estimate are Jeff LaFave
(for federal costs) and Amy Petz and Danielle Parnass (for the
private-sector impact). The estimate was approved by Theresa
Gullo, Deputy Assistant Director for Budget Analysis.
2. Section 308(a) of Congressional Budget Act. As required
by clause 3(c)(2) of rule XIII of the Rules of the House of
Representatives and section 308(a) of the Congressional Budget
Act of 1974, this bill does not contain any new budget
authority, spending authority, credit authority, or an increase
or decrease in revenues or tax expenditures. CBO estimates that
enacting H.R. 3065 could affect direct spending; therefore,
pay-as-you-go procedures apply. However, CBO estimates that any
such effects would be minimal over the 2013-2022 period. CBO
also estimates that implementing the legislation would have no
significant impact on discretionary spending.
3. General Performance Goals and Objectives. As required by
clause 3(c)(4) of rule XIII, the general performance goal or
objective of this bill is to amend the Pittman-Robertson
Wildlife Restoration Act to facilitate the establishment of
additional or expanded public target ranges in certain States.
Earmark Statement
This bill does not contain any Congressional earmarks,
limited tax benefits, or limited tariff benefits as defined
under clause 9(e), 9(f), and 9(g) of rule XXI of the Rules of
the House of Representatives.
Compliance With Public Law 104-4
This bill contains no unfunded mandates.
Preemption of State, Local or Tribal Law
This bill is not intended to preempt any State, local or
tribal law.
Changes in Existing Law Made by the Bill, as Reported
In compliance with clause 3(e) of rule XIII of the Rules of
the House of Representatives, changes in existing law made by
the bill, as reported, are shown as follows (existing law
proposed to be omitted is enclosed in black brackets, new
matter is printed in italic, existing law in which no change is
proposed is shown in roman):
PITTMAN-ROBERTSON WILDLIFE RESTORATION ACT
* * * * * * *
SEC. 2. DEFINITIONS.
As used in this Act--
(1) * * *
(2) the term ``public target range'' means a specific
location that--
(A) is identified by a governmental agency
for recreational shooting;
(B) is open to the public;
(C) may be supervised; and
(D) may accommodate archery or rifle, pistol,
or shotgun shooting;
[(2)] (3) the term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary
of the Interior;
[(3)] (4) the term ``State fish and game department''
or ``State fish and wildlife department'' means any
department or division of department of another name,
or commission, or official or officials, of a State
empowered under its laws to exercise the functions
ordinarily exercised by a State fish and game
department or State fish and wildlife department.
[(4)] (5) the term ``wildlife'' means any species of
wild, free-ranging fauna including fish, and also fauna
in captive breeding programs the object of which is to
reintroduce individuals of a depleted indigenous
species into previously occupied range;
[(5)] (6) the term ``wildlife-associated recreation''
means projects intended to meet the demand for outdoor
activities associated with wildlife including, but not
limited to, hunting and fishing, wildlife observation
and photography, such projects as construction or
restoration of wildlife viewing areas, observation
towers, blinds, platforms, land and water trails, water
access, field trialing, trail heads, and access for
such projects;
[(6)] (7) the term ``wildlife conservation and
restoration program'' means a program developed by a
State fish and wildlife department and approved by the
Secretary under section 304(d), the projects that
constitute such a program, which may be implemented in
whole or part through grants and contracts by a State
to other State, Federal, or local agencies (including
those that gather, evaluate, and disseminate
information on wildlife and their habitats), wildlife
conservation organizations, and outdoor recreation and
conservation education entities from funds apportioned
under this title, and maintenance of such projects;
[(7)] (8) the term ``wildlife conservation
education'' means projects, including public outreach,
intended to foster responsible natural resource
stewardship; and
[(8)] (9) the term ``wildlife-restoration project''
includes the wildlife conservation and restoration
program and means the selection, restoration,
rehabilitation, and improvement of areas of land or
water adaptable as feeding, resting, or breeding places
for wildlife, including acquisition of such areas or
estates or interests therein as are suitable or capable
of being made suitable therefor, and the construction
thereon or therein of such works as may be necessary to
make them available for such purposes and also
including such research into problems of wildlife
management as may be necessary to efficient
administration affecting wildlife resources, and such
preliminary or incidental costs and expenses as may be
incurred in and about such projects.
* * * * * * *
Sec. 8. (a) * * *
[(b) Each State] (b) Expenditures for Management of Wildlife
Areas and Resources.--
(1) In general.--Except as provided in paragraph (2),
each State may use the funds apportioned to it under
section 4(c) to pay up to 75 per centum of the costs of
a hunter safety program and the [construction,
operation,] operation and maintenance of public target
ranges, as a part of such program. [The non-Federal
share]
(2) Exception.--Notwithstanding the limitation
described in paragraph (1), a State may pay up to 90
percent of the cost of acquiring land for, expanding,
or constructing a public target range.
(3) Non-Federal share.--The non-Federal share of such
costs may be derived from license fees paid by hunters,
but not from other Federal grant programs. [The
Secretary]
(4) Regulations.--The Secretary shall issue not later
than the 120th day after the effective date of this
subsection such regulations as he deems advisable
relative to the criteria for the establishment of
hunter safety programs and public target ranges under
this subsection.
* * * * * * *
SEC. 10. FIREARM AND BOW HUNTER EDUCATION AND SAFETY PROGRAM GRANTS.
(a) In General.--
(1) * * *
* * * * * * *
(3) Allocation of additional amounts.--Of the amount
apportioned to a State for any fiscal year under
section 4(b), the State may elect to allocate not more
than 10 percent, to be combined with the amount
apportioned to the State under paragraph (1) for that
fiscal year, for acquiring land for, expanding, or
constructing a public target range.
[(b) Cost Sharing.--The Federal share of the cost of any
activity carried out with a grant under this section shall not
exceed 75 percent of the total cost of the activity.]
(b) Cost Sharing.--
(1) In general.--Except as provided in paragraph (2),
the Federal share of the cost of any activity carried
out using a grant under this section shall not exceed
75 percent of the total cost of the activity.
(2) Public target range construction or expansion.--
The Federal share of the cost of acquiring land for,
expanding, or constructing a public target range in a
State on Federal or non-Federal land pursuant to this
section or section 8(b) shall not exceed 90 percent of
the cost of the activity.
(c) Period of Availability; Reapportionment.--
(1) Period of availability.--[Amounts made]
(A) In general.--Except as provided in
subparagraph (B), amounts made available and
apportioned for grants under this section shall
remain available only for the fiscal year for
which the amounts are apportioned.
(B) Exception.--Amounts provided for
acquiring land for, constructing, or expanding
a public target range shall remain available
for expenditure and obligation during the 5-
fiscal-year period beginning on October 1 of
the first fiscal year for which the amounts are
made available.
* * * * * * *
Committee on the Judiciary,
House of Representatives,
Washington, DC, June 14, 2012.
Hon. Doc Hastings,
Chairman, Committee on Natural Resources,
Longworth House Office Building, Washington, DC.
Dear Chairman Hastings: I am writing with respect to H.R.
3065, the ``Target Practice and Marksmanship Training Support
Act,'' which the Committee on Natural Resources reported
favorably on June 7, 2012. As a result of your having consulted
with us on provisions in H.R. 3065 that fall within the Rule X
jurisdiction of the Committee on the Judiciary, I agree to
discharge our Committee from further consideration of this bill
so that it may proceed expeditiously to the House floor for
consideration.
The Judiciary Committee takes this action with our mutual
understanding that by foregoing consideration of H.R. 3065 at
this time, we do not waive any jurisdiction over subject matter
contained in this or similar legislation, and that our
Committee will be appropriately consulted and involved as the
bill or similar legislation moves forward so that we may
address any remaining issues in our jurisdiction. Our Committee
also reserves the right to seek appointment of an appropriate
number of conferees to any House-Senate conference involving
this or similar legislation, and asks that you support any such
request.
I would appreciate a response to this letter confirming
this understanding with respect to H.R. 3065, and would ask
that a copy of our exchange of letters on this matter be
included in the Congressional Record during Floor consideration
of H.R. 3065.
Sincerely,
Lamar Smith,
Chairman.
------
Committee on Natural Resources,
House of Representatives,
Washington, DC, June 14, 2012.
Hon. Lamar Smith,
Chairman, Committee on the Judiciary,
Rayburn HOB, Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Chairman: Thank you for your letter regarding H.R.
3065, the Target Practice and Marksmanship Training Support
Act. As you know, the Committee on Natural Resources ordered
reported the bill by unanimous consent on June 7, 2012. I
appreciate your support in bringing this legislation before the
House of Representatives, and accordingly, understand that the
Committee on the Judiciary will forego action on the bill.
The Committee on Natural Resources concurs with the mutual
understanding that by foregoing consideration of H.R. 3065 at
this time, the Committee on the Judiciary does not waive any
jurisdiction over the subject matter contained in this or
similar legislation. In addition, should a conference on the
bill be necessary, I would support your request to have the
Committee on the Judiciary represented on the conference
committee. Finally, I would be pleased to include your letter
and this response in the bill report filed by the Committee on
Natural Resources, as well as in the Congressional Record
during floor consideration, to memorialize our understanding.
Thank you for your cooperation.
Sincerely,
Doc Hastings,
Chairman.