```
[House Report 112-529]
[From the U.S. Government Printing 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.

                                  

```