39–006 

113TH CONGRESS REPT. 113–250 " ! HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 1st Session Part 1 

TARGET PRACTICE AND MARKSMANSHIP TRAINING 

SUPPORT ACT 

OCTOBER 22, 2013.—Committed to the Committee of 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. 2463] 

[Including cost estimate of the Congressional Budget Office] 

The Committee on Natural Resources, to whom was referred the 

bill (H.R. 2463) 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. 2463 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

This federal program commonly known as the Pittman-Robertson 

Act was enacted in 1937. This is an unusual federal program in 

that the money used to finance projects are 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 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 


ehiers on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
2 

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. And finally, 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: making funds permanent and indefinite; increasing the excise tax from 10 to 11 percent; directing 

that money apportioned to states would be based on population; 

stipulating that half of the revenue from the tax on arrows and 

archery accessories, bows, pistols and revolvers may be used on 

hunter education grants; and setting aside $8 million per year to 

enhance hunter education and shooting range development; and exempting manufacturers of less than 50 firearms per year from having to pay the excise taxes. 

Since its enactment, the Pittman-Robertson Program has distrib- uted $6.7 billion to the 50 states and territories. A key activity that 

is funded is the National Survey of Fishing, Hunting, and WildlifeAssociated Recreation. Since 1955, there have been 12 surveys 

which are conducted every five years as a tool to measure the importance of wildlife-based recreation to the American people. In the 

2011 survey, it was reported that 13.7 million people 16 years and 

older enjoyed hunting for a variety of animals within the United 

States. These individuals hunted 282 million days and took 257 

million trips. Hunting expenditures totaled $33.7 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. 

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 is 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 his 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. 

Pittman-Robertson funds can only be used to pay 75 percent of 

the cost of building or operating a public target range. H.R. 2463 

would amend the law to encourage states to develop shooting 

ranges by increasing that amount to 90 percent and allowing a 

state to retain those funds for five years to build target ranges and 

maintain them. Under this measure, a state could pay for the cost 

of acquiring land, expanding existing facilities, or constructing a 


ehiers on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
3 

new public target range. While this would provide additional capability to states, this should not result in 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. 2463 was introduced on June 20, 2013, by Congressman 

Duncan Hunter (R–CA). The bill was referred to the Committee on 

Natural Resources, and within the Committee to the Subcommittee 

on Fisheries, Wildlife, Oceans and Insular Affairs. In addition, the 

bill was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary. On July 25, 

2013, the Subcommittee held a hearing on the bill. On July 31, 

2013, the full Natural 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 then 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. 2463—Target Practice and Marksmanship Training Support 

Act 

CBO estimates that enacting H.R. 2463 could affect direct spending; therefore, pay-as-you-go procedures apply. However, CBO estimates that any such effects would be minimal over the 2014–2023 

period. We also estimate that implementing the legislation would 

have no significant impact on discretionary spending. Enacting 

H.R. 2463 would not affect revenues. 

H.R. 2463 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 archery accessories are apportioned to states 

as grants for hunter education programs and for the construction 

and development of target ranges. Funds awarded under that act 

currently can be used to cover 75 percent of the costs of such proVerDate Mar 15 2010 11:04 Oct 23, 2013 Jkt 039006 PO 00000 Frm 00003 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR250P1.XXX HR250P1

ehiers on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
4 

grams. 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 significant effect on the federal budget. 

The bill also would allow states to retain their shares of PittmanRobertson 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 significant effect on the federal budget. 

Finally, H.R. 2463 would limit the federal government’s liability 

for certain incidents that occur on target ranges that are either 

constructed with 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 2014–2023 period. 

H.R. 2463 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 those 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 ($150 million in 

2013, adjusted annually for inflation). 

The CBO staff contacts for this estimate are Jeff LaFave (for federal costs) and Amy Petz (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 implementing the legislation 

would have no significant impact on discretionary spending. H.R. 

2463 could affect direct spending, but CBO estimates that any such 

effects would be minimal. 

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), 


ehiers on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
5 

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. 

COMPLIANCE WITH H. RES. 5 

Directed Rule Making. The Chairman does not believe that this 

bill directs any executive branch official to conduct any specific 

rule-making proceedings. 

Duplication of Existing Programs. This bill does not establish a 

program of the federal government known to be duplicative of another program. This bill does not reauthorize a program of the federal government as expenditures for the underlying program 

amended by the bill is permanent law. However, this bill does 

amend a program of the federal government known to be duplicative of another federal program. Such program was identified in 

the most recent Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance published 

pursuant to the Federal Program Information Act (Public Law 95– 

220, as amended by Public Law 98–169) as relating to other programs. Specifically, the Enhanced Hunter Education and Safety 

Program under the Pittman-Robertson Wildlife Restoration Act of 

1937 operated by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is related to 

the Wildlife Restoration Program and Basic Hunter Education also 

operated by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service under the same 

statute, as well as the Dingell-Johnson Sport Fish Restoration Act. 

However, this bill only affects a portion of this program—the use 

of funds by states to acquire or operate a public target range under 

the Hunter Education Program—and not the portions affecting 

wildlife restoration or obviously those affecting sport fish restoration. In addition, this bill does not expand the cost of the hunter 

education program but merely adjusts the percentage of the federal 

portion of the cost of target ranges if a state so choses to build or 

operate a public target range. The total amount of federal excise 

tax on hunting and fishing equipment distributed to the states remains the same. In addition, it allows states to retain these funds 

for target ranges for five years rather than one to allow sufficient 

time for land acquisition or easements and appropriate environmental review. If the funds are not expended by that time, they are 

reapportioned among the states and spent on other related activities. 

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): 


ehiers on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
6 

PITTMAN-ROBERTSON WILDLIFE RESTORATION ACT 

* * * * * * * 

SEC. 2. DEFINITIONS. 

As used in this Act— 

(1) the term ‘‘conservation’’ means the use of methods and 

procedures necessary or desirable to sustain healthy populations of wildlife, including all activities associated with scientific resources management such as research, census, monitoring of populations, acquisition, improvement and management of habitat, live trapping and transplantation, wildlife 

damage management, and periodic or total protection of a species or population, as well as the taking of individuals within 

wildlife stock or population if permitted by applicable State 

and Federal law; 

(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; 

ø(2)¿ (3) the term ‘‘Secretary’’ means the Secretary of the Interior; 

ø(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. 

ø(4)¿ (5) the term ‘‘wildlife’’ means any species of wild, freeranging 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; 

ø(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; 

ø(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; 


ehiers on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
7 

ø(7)¿ (8) the term ‘‘wildlife conservation education’’ means 

projects, including public outreach, intended to foster responsible natural resource stewardship; and 

ø(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) Maintenance of wildlife-restoration projects established under the provisions of this Act shall be the duty of the 

State in accordance with their respective laws. Beginning July 1, 

1945, the term ‘‘wildlife-restoration project’’, as defined in section 

2 of this Act, shall include maintenance of completed projects. Notwithstanding any other provisions of this Act, funds apportioned to 

a State under this Act may be expended by the State for management (exclusive of law enforcement and public relations) of wildlife 

areas and resources. Funds from the Wildlife Conservation and 

Restoration Account may be used for a wildlife conservation education program, except that no such funds may be used for education efforts, projects, or programs that promote or encourage opposition to the regulated taking of wildlife. 

ø(b) Each State¿ (b) EXPENDITURES FOR MANAGEMENT OF WILD- LIFE 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 øconstruction, operation,¿ operation and maintenance of public target ranges, as a part of such program. øThe 

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. øThe 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.— 


ehiers on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
8 

(1) GRANTS.—Of the revenues covered into the fund, 

$7,500,000 for each of fiscal years 2001 and 2002, and 

$8,000,000 for fiscal year 2003 and each fiscal year thereafter, 

shall be apportioned among the States in the manner specified 

in section 4(c) by the Secretary of the Interior and used to 

make grants to the States to be used for— 

(A) in the case of a State that has not used all of the 

funds apportioned to the State under section 4(c) for the 

fiscal year in the manner described in section 8(b)— 

(i) the enhancement of hunter education programs, 

hunter and sporting firearm safety programs, and 

hunter development programs; 

(ii) the enhancement of interstate coordination and 

development of hunter education and shooting range 

programs; 

(iii) the enhancement of bow hunter and archery 

education, safety, and development programs; and 

(iv) the enhancement of construction or development 

of firearm shooting ranges and archery ranges, and 

the updating of safety features of firearm shooting 

ranges and archery ranges; and 

(B) in the case of a State that has used all of the funds 

apportioned to the State under section 4(c) for the fiscal 

year in the manner described in section 8(b), any use authorized by this Act (including hunter safety programs and 

the construction, operation, and maintenance of public target ranges). 

(2) LIMITATION ON USE.—Under paragraph (1), a State shall 

not be required to use more than the amount described in section 8(b) for hunter safety programs and the construction, operation, and maintenance of public target ranges. 

(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. 

ø(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.—øAmounts made¿ 

(A) IN GENERAL.—Except as provided in subparagraph 

(B), amounts made available and apportioned for grants 


ehiers on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
9 

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. 

(2) REAPPORTIONMENT.—At the end of the period of availability under paragraph (1), the Secretary of the Interior shall 

apportion amounts made available that have not been used to 

make grants under this section among the States described in 

subsection (a)(1)(B) for use by those States in accordance with 

this Act. 

* * * * * * * 


ehiers on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
10 


ehiers on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with REPORTSInsert offset folio 12 here HR250P1.001

EXCHANGE OF LETTERS 

ONE HUNDRED TH!RTEENTH CONGRESS 

[ongress of the ilnitcd ~tates 

t'lousc of lZcprcscntatiucs 

The Honorable Doc Hastings 

Chairman 

Committee on Natural Resources 

COMMITIEE ON THE JUDICIARY 

2138 RAYBURN HOUSE OFFICE BUILDING 

WASHINGTON, DC 20515-6216 

225-3951 

September 13,2013 

1324 Longworth House Office Building 

Washington, DC 20515 

Dear Chairman Hastings, 

I am writing with respect to H.R. 2463, the "Target Practice and Marksmanship Training 

Support Act," which the Committee on Natural Resources ordered reported favorably. As a 

result of your having consulted with us on provisions in H.R. 2463 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. 

Thc Judiciary Committee takes this action with our mutual understanding that by 

foregoing considcration of H.R. 2463 at this time, we do not waive any jurisdiction ovcr 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. 2463, and would ask that a copy of our exchange ofletters on this mattcr be included in the 

Congressional Record during Floor consideration of H.R. 2463. 

Bob Goodlatte 

Chairman 
11 


ehiers on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with REPORTSInsert offset folio 13 here HR250P1.002

lion. Doc Hastings 

September 13. 2013 

Page 2 

ce: The Honorable John Conyers, Jr. 

The Honorable Peter DeFazio 

The Honorable John Bochner 

Mr. Thomas J. Wickham, Jr. 
12 


ehiers on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with REPORTSInsert offset folio 14 here HR250P1.003

1tl.~. 1l0Ulll! of i!tI!prl!lll!ntattUl!ll 

Qrommitttl! on Natnral iRtllOUrttll 

Ballqingtllll.ll1Qr 20515 

Honorable Bob Goodlatte 

Chairman 

Committee on the Judiciary 

2138 Rayburn HOB 

Washington, D.C. 20515 

Dear Mr. Chairman: 

October 10, 2013 

l'!:NNYDOOGE 

(J~MOCIlATlC$rAFF Oil/ECTOR 

Thank you for your letter regarding H.R. 2463, the Target Practice and Marksmanship 

Training Support Act. As you know, the Committee on Natural Resources ordered reported the 

bill by unanimous consent on July 31, 2013. 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 ofH.R. 2463 at this time, the Committee on the Judiciary does not waive 

any juIisdiction 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 duIing floor consideration, to 

memoIialize our understanding. 

Thank you for your cooperation. 

Doc Hastings 

Chairman 

cc: The Honorable John A. Boehner, Speaker 

The Honorable Peter A. DeFazio 

The Honorable John Conyers, Jr. 

The Honorable Thomas J. Wickham, Parliamentarian 

httrJrnahlfalmsOlHces.houSfl gov 

o