Congressional Membership and Appointment Authority to Advisory Commissions, Boards, and Groups

Summary: Over the past several decades, Congress, by statute, has established a wide array of commissions, boards, and advisory bodies to provide it with assistance in meeting various legislative, investigative, and administrative responsibilities. Some of these entities are temporary and created to serve specific functions, such as studying a discrete policy area or performing one-time tasks. Others are permanent, serving an ongoing purpose, such as overseeing an institution or performing a regular administrative function.

Summary: The majority of these congressional bodies provide that Members of Congress, particularly the leadership, be intimately involved in the appointment process, either through direct service on a commission, or by appointing or recommending candidates for membership.

Summary: The choice of a particular mechanism for membership appointment may have implications for the ability of these entities to fulfill their congressional mandates. Examination of the statutory language creating these bodies reveals several common approaches to membership selection. Each alternative schema has its advantages.

Summary: For example, a commission or board composed entirely of Members permits a high degree of congressional control over the entity's operations. Bodies composed mainly of qualified private citizens or executive branch appointees may provide a broader expertise than Member-only bodies. Assemblages of mixed membership provide some of the advantages of both Member and citizen-only appointment schemes.

Summary: This report contains a compilation of existing commissions and boards that demonstrates the range of alternative membership-appointment structures. It includes any statutorily created advisory entity (e.g., boards, advisory panels, task forces) whose membership scheme mandates the participation of Members of Congress either as potential members or as participants in the process of appointing the membership. For each entity, information on the purpose, duration, appointment structure, and term of appointment is provided. Finally, information on the involvement of Members of Congress in the appointment process is presented in a series of tables.

Congress has created a wide array of advisory bodies, separate from each chamber's committees and officers, in order to better exercise its legislative, oversight, and investigative mandates, and to attend to both temporary and ongoing administrative tasks and responsibilities. During the past two decades, Congress has established or renewed the existence of hundreds of statutory entities to study, advise on, coordinate, or monitor matters of particular interest to Congress. These entities vary in several dimensions, including their official designation, purpose, lifespan, membership, and mechanism by which members are appointed.

Many of these bodies are expressly identified as commissions, but others are designated as boards, advisory committees, or other terms. In this report, they are referred to generically as "congressional advisory bodies." These groups are sometimes created to address a single purpose—to study a discrete policy issue or to attend to one-time or recurring administrative functions. Often, they have a well-defined mandate, which typically includes the submission of a final report to Congress with detailed findings and recommendations. Although some have a specific lifespan, others have been created to provide ongoing support and advice (e.g., the boards of visitors for the U.S. military service academies, or the Commission to Recommend Individuals to the President for Appointment to the Office of Architect of the Capitol).

The statutory provisions creating a substantial proportion of congressional advisory bodies provide for a membership that, either entirely or in part, (1) includes, (2) is chosen by, or (3) is recommended by Members of Congress. This report addresses only those statutory groups whose membership involves congressional participation in one or more of these forms. It provides selected background information on these groups and specific information relating to the role of Members of Congress in the appointment process.

This report is intended to inform Members of Congress of their specific appointment responsibilities and to make them aware of their opportunities to serve as members of congressional advisory bodies. Additionally, observations regarding the rationale and effects for the many variations in the appointment schemes for existing bodies are intended to provide some alternatives to legislators to facilitate the drafting of membership language in potential future statutes.

Following an examination of the appointment schemes to various congressional advisory bodies, this compilation attempts to identify all congressional advisory bodies currently in existence on which Members of Congress serve directly, or for which they make appointments or recommend potential members to another appointing authority (e.g., the President). It includes any statutorily created advisory entity (e.g., boards, advisory panels, task forces) whose membership scheme mandates the participation of Members of Congress, either as potential members or as participants in the process of appointing the membership. Entities created by Congress that have neither congressional membership nor congressional involvement in the appointment process have been omitted. Boards and commissions for which the Senate has "advise and consent" authority are also omitted, unless Members of Congress otherwise participate in the appointment process.

Also excluded are ad-hoc commissions and advisory groups empaneled by individual congressional committees under their general authority to procure the "temporary services" of consultants to "make studies and advise the committee with respect to any matter within its jurisdiction," pursuant to 2 U.S.C. §72a or under chamber rules or resolutions. The membership of these entities, such as the Advisory Commission to Study the Consumer Price Index, might be selected by the chairman and ranking minority member of the committee concerned, and these bodies are generally empaneled for short durations. This report also does not include caucuses, observer groups, or working groups created by means other than statute.

Tracking the provisions of law that create congressional advisory bodies is an inherently inexact exercise. Although many such bodies are created in easily identifiable freestanding statutes, others are contained within the statutory language of lengthy omnibus legislation. It is also sometimes difficult to determine when such bodies have ceased to operate, as termination dates are not always included in the organic statute, or may be tied to ambiguous conditions.

When making appointments to congressional advisory bodies, Members of Congress may be empowered to act independently or in concert with other Members. Structurally, variations in the authority of appointment officials fall within several common patterns.

The statutory scheme may mandate that membership of a congressional advisory body be made up in whole or in part by specifically designated Members of Congress, typically members of the leadership or of specified committees.

In most such cases, leadership service is limited to bodies concerned with the internal administrative functions of the House and Senate. For example, membership of the Commission to Recommend Individuals to the President for Appointment to the Office of Architect of the Capitol includes the Speaker of the House, the President pro tempore of the Senate, the majority and minority leaders of the House and the Senate, and the chairmen and the ranking minority members of the Committee on House Administration of the House of Representatives, the Committee on Rules and Administration of the Senate, the Committee on Appropriations of the House of Representatives, and the Committee on Appropriations of the Senate.

Selected leaders, often with balance between the parties, may appoint congressional advisory body members, who may or may not be Members of Congress. For appointments made by congressional leaders, the statutory scheme generally mandates that appointments be made by leaders of both parties. The members of some congressional advisory bodies are selected by majority and minority party leaders in equal numbers. In other instances, the majority party appoints a greater number. In a few cases, the majority/minority ratio of appointments to a commission varies, depending upon whether the President is of the same party as the majority in the House or the Senate.

One common component of statutory appointment schemes for certain congressional advisory bodies is the requirement that Members of Congress serve on these panels. Certain bodies, such as the British American Parliamentary Group, are composed entirely of Members of Congress. In other instances, a statute may require that a certain specified number of Senators or Representatives be selected, or may prohibit Members of Congress from serving.

For appointments made by the President pro tempore of the Senate, 2 U.S.C. §199 specifies involvement of the majority and minority leaders of the Senate.

Selected leaders, again often with balance between the parties, may be authorized to recommend members, who may or may not be Members of Congress, for appointment to a congressional advisory body. They may do so either in parallel or jointly, and the recommendations may be made to other congressional leaders, such as the Speaker of the House and President pro tempore of the Senate, to the President, or to a cabinet official.

Some statutory provisos may have the effect of limiting the degree of autonomy a Member has in appointing or making recommendations of individuals for congressional advisory body membership. For example, the appointing official may be required by law to select members who are specifically qualified by virtue of their education, knowledge, training, experience, expertise, distinguished service, or recognized eminence in a particular field or fields. In other instances, appointments are expressly limited to individuals occupying specific federal, state, or local government positions, representing a particular occupation, or serving as head of a particular public or private sector institution or organization.

In many instances, the authority to appoint members to the entities covered in this report is shared by the executive and legislative branches. When the appointment authority set out in a statute creating a congressional advisory body is shared by the President (or other executive branch officials) and Members of Congress, questions about implementation of the appointment scheme have sometimes prompted the President to comment on separation-of-powers issues raised under the Appointments Clause of the Constitution. Some statutes instruct the President to appoint congressional advisory body members from a list provided by congressional leadership. For example, the appointment scheme for the Commission on Interoperable Data Sharing provides for nine members, one member appointed by the President to serve as chairman, and eight members appointed by the President "from a list of nominees jointly provided by the Speaker of the House of Representatives, the minority leader of the House of Representatives, the majority leader of the Senate, and the minority leader of the Senate."

In the signing statement accompanying the law, President George W. Bush noted that methods of selection included in the Appointment Clause of the Constitution include "appointment by the President with Senate consent, or by the President alone," but not by the President "from a pool of persons selected by congressional leadership." Similarly, in a statement accompanying the signing of legislation creating the Brown v. Board of Education 50 th Anniversary Commission, President Bush made it clear that he would not be bound by the membership recommendations of House and Senate leadership required by the statute, but would rather "welcome, as a matter of comity, the suggestions of the congressional leadership for those positions."

As the foregoing discussion suggests, several alternative approaches are available to legislators in drafting membership selection language. Inclusion of legislators on such panels insures that Congress will be able to exercise a certain degree of control over the operations of the entity concerned. At the same time, service by Members on congressional advisory bodies is arguably antithetical to at least one of the rationales for creating the entity in the first place, namely, to reduce the workload of Congress by delegating certain functions to temporary bodies.

Even in the absence of direct membership on a congressional advisory body, in drafting the particulars of an appointment scheme, legislators can dictate, to some degree, the measure of autonomy an entity enjoys. For example, although the legislation creating the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States (the 9-11 Commission) did not stipulate that Members of Congress be included in the commission's membership, it did call for 9 of the 10 members of the commission to be selected by congressional leaders. Attention to the proper balance between the number of members appointed by congressional leaders and by other individuals, or to the number of Members of Congress required to be among the appointees, or to the qualifications of appointees, can be significant factors in enabling an advisory body to fulfill its congressional mandate.

Each currently functioning congressional advisory body that was identified, regardless of when it was initially established, is profiled following the narrative portion of this report. For each entity, a brief summary of its purpose or role is provided, as well as the following information:

Statutory D uration of the A dvisory B ody . The termination date is provided for each advisory body, where appropriate. Occasionally, termination dates are ambiguous, due to their contingency upon an associated time line within the statute, such as the date of submission of a final report. FACA A pplicability . Advisory bodies established in the executive branch that report to the President are subject to the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA), which governs their creation, administration, and management. Advisory bodies that are appointed by Congress and report only to Congress are not specifically bound by the requirements set forth in FACA. Because many commissions involve both congressional and presidential participation, some of the entities in this report may be governed by FACA. Occasionally, statutes creating congressional advisory bodies will incorporate explicit statutory language exempting a commission from FACA requirements, in whole or in part. Membership Appointment Structure . Each entry includes the advisory body's membership appointment scheme. The particulars of congressional involvement in the appointment process are varied. The statutory language of membership appointment schemes detail a wide range of membership patterns that may be of interest to lawmakers who might be contemplating creation of advisory bodies. In the legislative branch, the individuals most commonly empowered to make appointments to commissions and similar bodies are the Speaker of the House, the President or President pro tempore of the Senate, and the majority and minority leaders of the House and Senate. The majority leader of the House is less often included in these mechanisms, since the appointment role of the minority leader may be paired with the Speaker's appointment role. For each board, the appointment structure is outlined, with the participation of Members of Congress highlighted. For Member appointments, the appointer's role is provided in (parentheses) in the left-hand column. Additionally, the role of noncongressional officials is also provided. Term of Appointment . Most ongoing congressional advisory bodies have fixed terms of appointment set by statute. Statutes creating temporary commissions often provide that appointments are for the "life of the commission."

Additionally, commissions are divided into two groups: temporary advisory commissions (e.g., those with a statutory end date) and permanent entities.

The more than 90 entries on the following pages highlight the broad diversity of matters Congress has felt deserved examination beyond the established organizational structure of Congress. Entries are arranged alphabetically. Citations to the U.S. Code and the Statutes at Large are provided where particulars relating to the scope, purpose, and composition of these bodies may be located. The internet address of the entity's website is also provided, if available.

Information on the involvement of Members of Congress in the appointment process for congressional commissions is also presented in a series of tables. Table 1 through Table 6 list the appointment responsibilities of each of these major congressional leaders. Table 7 lists other congressional leaders, namely the chair or ranking minority members of specified committees in the House and Senate who may also be granted authority to make or recommend appointments, or be designated as members of a commission.

400 Years of African-American History Commission

Advisory Committee on International Exchange Rate Policy

Alyce Spotted Bear and Walter Soboleff Commission on Native Children

Commission on Farm Transactions-Needs for 2050

Coltsville National Historical Park Advisory Commission

Creating Options for Veterans' Expedited Recovery Commission

Dwight D. Eisenhower Memorial Commission

Frederick Douglass Bicentennial Commission

National Commission on Military Aviation Safety

National Security Commission on Artificial Intelligence

Public-Private Partnership Advisory Council to End Human Trafficking

United States Semiquincentennial Commission

Western Hemisphere Drug Policy Commission

Advisory Committee on Student Financial Assistance

Advisory Committee on the Protection of Presidential and Vice-Presidential Candidates

Advisory Committee on the Records of Congress

American Folklife Center in the Library of Congress, Board of Trustees

Barry Goldwater Scholarship and Excellence in Education Foundation, Board of Trustees

Canada-United States Interparliamentary Group

Commission for the Judiciary Office Building

Commission for the Preservation of America's Heritage Abroad

Commission on Security and Cooperation in Europe (Helsinki Commission)

Commission on Social Impact Partnerships

Congressional-Executive Commission on the People's Republic of China

Congressional Advisers for Trade Policy and Negotiations

Coordinating Council on Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention

Election Assistance Commission, Board of Advisors

Federal Judicial Center Foundation Board

Federal Law Enforcement Congressional Badge of Bravery Board

Federal Retirement Thrift Investment Board

Financial Oversight and Management Board

Harry S Truman Scholarship Foundation, Board of Trustees

Health Information Technology (HIT) Advisory Committee

Help America Vote Foundation, Board of Directors

Henry M. Jackson Foundation, Council of Directors

House Commission on Congressional Mailing Standards (Franking Commission)

House of Representatives Fine Arts Board

Human Space Flight Independent Investigation Commission

Institute of American Indian and Alaska Native Culture and Arts Development Board of Trustees

International Clean Energy Foundation, Board of Directors

James Madison Memorial Fellowship Foundation, Board of Trustees

Japan-United States Friendship Commission

John C. Stennis Center for Public Service Training and Development, Board of Trustees

John F. Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts, Board of Trustees

Medal of Valor Review Board (Public Safety Officer)

Mexico-United States Interparliamentary Group Delegation

Millennium Challenge Corporation, Board of Directors

Morris K. Udall and Stewart L. Udall Foundation, Board of Trustees

National Advisory Committee on Institutional Quality and Integrity

National Committee on Vital and Health Statistics

National Historical Publications and Records Commission

Office of Congressional Workplace Rights, Board of Directors

Open World Leadership Center, Board of Trustees

Smithsonian Institution, Board of Regents

State and Local Law Enforcement Congressional Badge of Bravery Board

United States Air Force Academy, Board of Visitors

United States Capitol Preservation Commission

United States-China Economic and Security Review Commission

United States Coast Guard Academy, Board of Visitors

United States Commission on Civil Rights

United States Commission on International Religious Freedom

United States Delegation to the Parliamentary Assembly of the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe

United States Group of the United States Senate-China Interparliamentary Group

United States Group of the United States Senate-Russia Interparliamentary Group

United States Holocaust Memorial Council

United States International Development Finance Corporation, Board of Directors

United States Merchant Marine Academy, Board of Visitors

United States Military Academy, Board of Visitors

United States Naval Academy, Board of Visitors

United States Senate Caucus on International Narcotics Control

Utah Reclamation Mitigation and Conservation Commission

Western Hemisphere Institute for Security Cooperation, Board of Visitors


Pittman-Robertson Wildlife Restoration Act: Understanding Apportionments for States and Territories

Summary: The Federal Aid in Wildlife Restoration Act (16 U.S.C. §§669 et seq.), enacted in 1937 and now known as the Pittman-Robertson Wildlife Restoration Act, provides funding for states and territories to support wildlife restoration, conservation, and hunter education and safety programs. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS), within the Department of the Interior, administers Pittman-Robertson. All 50 states (but not the District of Columbia) as well as the 5 inhabited U.S. territories receive Pittman-Robertson funds.

Summary: Funding for FWS to carry out Pittman-Robertson programs comes from excise taxes on firearms, ammunition, and archery equipment. Receipts from these excise taxes are deposited into the Federal Aid to Wildlife Restoration Fund in the Treasury, and monies from the fund are made available for FWS in the fiscal year following their collection without any further action by Congress. Between FY1939 and FY2019, FWS disbursed $18.8 billion (in 2018 dollars) for wildlife restoration and hunter education and safety activities for Pittman-Robertson programs.

Summary: FWS apportions and disburses funds to states and territories through three formula-based programs: Wildlife Restoration (known as Section 4(b)), Basic Hunter Education and Safety (Section 4(c)), and Enhanced Hunter Education and Safety Grants (Section 10). FWS also allocates nonformula funding for multistate conservation grants and program administration. State apportionments for wildlife restoration projects are based on the land and inland water area and the number of hunting licenses sold in each state. State population is used to determine apportionments for both the Basic and Enhanced Hunter Education and Safety programs. FWS also apportions funding for territories. For Wildlife Restoration, Puerto Rico receives not more than 0.5% of the apportionments made under the act and American Samoa, Guam, the Commonwealth of Northern Mariana Islands, and the U.S. Virgin Islands each receive not more than 0.17%. Each territory receives 0.17% of the total apportionments for both the Basic and Enhanced Hunter Education and Safety programs.

Summary: Amending Pittman-Robertson is of perennial interest to some in Congress. Members routinely consider legislation to amend how states and territories may use their Pittman-Robertson apportionments, sources of funding to support Pittman-Robertson, and the Pittman-Robertson apportionment formulas. Issues of interest have included whether Pittman-Robertson funds should be available for hunter recruitment and retention activities and the amount available for the expansion or construction of public shooting ranges. Because Pittman-Robertson derives its funding through an excise tax on shooting and archery equipment, the number of people participating in these and related activities influences the amount of available funding for these programs. This, in turn, can lead some to consider issues related to funding sources and whether the existing revenue sources derived from excise taxes on shooting and archery equipment should be modified. Other issues that Congress has addressed include whether to modify the existing apportionment structure, including whether to amend how funding is apportioned for states and territories.

Enacted in 1937, the Federal Aid in Wildlife Restoration Act, now known as the Pittman-Robertson Wildli fe Restoration Act (hereinafter referred to as Pittman-Robertson), provides funding for states and territories to support projects that promote the conservation and restoration of wild birds and mammals and their habitats and programs that provide hunter education and safety training and opportunities.

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS), an agency within the Department of the Interior, administers Pittman-Robertson as part of its Wildlife and Sport Fish Restoration program. Revenues generated through excise taxes on pistols and revolvers, other firearms, ammunition, bows, and other archery equipment provide the funding for Pittman-Robertson. After collection, receipts from these excise taxes are deposited into the Federal Aid to Wildlife Restoration Fund in the Treasury, and monies from the fund are made available for FWS for Pittman-Robertson activities in the fiscal year following their collection without any further action by Congress. For three programs within Pittman-Robertson, FWS apportions the funds directly among the states and territories. All 50 states as well as Puerto Rico, Guam, American Samoa, the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, and the U.S. Virgin Islands (collectively referred to as territories in this report) are eligible to receive funding through Pittman-Robertson. Since its creation, Pittman-Robertson has provided over $18.8 billion (in 2018 dollars; $12.2 billion in nominal dollars) to states and territories.

This report provides an overview of the Pittman-Robertson state and territory programs that support wildlife restoration and hunter education and safety activities, including a breakdown of the various apportionment formulas and an analysis of related issues that may be of interest to Congress. This report focuses on the formula-based programs within Pittman-Robertson that provide funding for states and territories.

The Pittman-Robertson Wildlife Restoration Act apportions and allocates funding for five distinct purposes:

1. program administration (Section 4(a)); 2. Wildlife Restoration (Section 4(b)); 3. Basic Hunter Education and Safety (Section 4(c)); 4. Enhanced Hunter Education and Safety Grants (Section 10); and 5. Multistate Conservation Grants (Section 11).

Funds for three of these programs—Wildlife Restoration, Basic Hunter Education and Safety, and Enhanced Hunter Education and Safety Grants—are disbursed directly to states based on two apportionment formulas (both hunter education and safety programs use the same formula). The formulas take into account a state's acreage, number of hunting licenses sold, and population ( Figure 1 and Table A-1 ). Territories are apportioned a set percentage of the funds for each program. Washington, DC, does not receive funding under these programs. States and territories can use their apportionments to support the federal share of wildlife and hunter and safety projects that receive Pittman-Robertson funding. Additionally, Pittman-Robertson provides for FWS to allocate nonformula based funding for multistate conservation grants and program administration.

Funding for programs authorized in Pittman-Robertson comes from excise taxes on certain firearms, ammunition, and archery equipment. Taxes on these items are imposed on the manufacturer, producer, or importer of these goods. However, these taxes may result in higher prices for the purchaser if part or all of the cost is passed on in the final purchase price. The tax rates are 10% for pistols and revolvers, 11% for other firearms and ammunition, 11% for bows and archery equipment, and a per shaft tax for arrows that is adjusted annually for inflation. Receipts from these excise taxes are deposited into the Federal Aid to Wildlife Restoration Fund in the Treasury, and monies from the fund are made available for FWS in the fiscal year following their collection without any further action by Congress.

Revenues generated from these excise taxes vary year by year both in total revenue ( Figure 2 ) and in revenue attributable to a specific item group ( Table 1 ). From FY2007 through FY2016, FWS reported a total of $6.2 billion (in 2018 dollars) of revenue. Ammunition accounted for $2.1 billion (34%), firearms for $1.9 billion (32%), pistols and revolvers for $1.7 billion (27%), and archery equipment for $0.5 billion (8%) of the total (in 2018 dollars). The revenues attributable to ½ the revenues generated from excise taxes on pistols, revolvers, and archery equipment accounted for 17% of the total revenue. These revenues determined the amount available for apportionments through the Basic Hunter Education and Safety program for the years from FY2008 through FY2017 (the years following excise tax collection). The remaining revenues, 83% for FY2007 through FY20016, provide funds for the Wildlife Restoration and Enhanced Hunter Education and Safety programs as well as the Multistate Conservation Grant program and the set-aside for administration.

While the overall revenues generated determines the total amount available for apportionment in the year following collection, the amount available for Basic Hunter Education and Safety program (Section 4(c)) is solely based on revenues generated from pistols, revolvers, and archery equipment. As such, amounts available for apportionment and disbursement are program specific and fluctuate based on the total volume of shooting and archery equipment and the type of goods.

Between FY1939 and FY2019, FWS disbursed $18.8 billion (in constant 2018 dollars; $12.2 billion in nominal dollars) for wildlife restoration and hunter education and safety activities to states and territories ( Figure 3 ). Annual apportionments have increased over time. However, in recent years, there have been fluctuations of over $100 million between years. FWS disbursed $3.8 billion (in nominal dollars)—an average of $751 million per year—to states and territories for the Wildlife Restoration and the two Hunter Education and safety programs for FY2015 through FY2019 ( Figure 3 ). Each year, individual states received between $4.5 million and $34.7 million, on average, in total apportionments for FY2015 through FY2019. American Samoa, Guam, the Commonwealth of Northern Mariana Islands, and the Virgin Islands each received $1.3 million per year, on average, and Puerto Rico received $3.3 million per year, on average. Table B-1 provides the annual total apportionment for each state and territory for FY2015 through FY2019.

The Wildlife Restoration program, also known as Section 4(b), comprises the largest funding stream within Pittman-Robertson. From FY2015 through FY2019, annual state and territory apportionments for the Wildlife Restoration Program averaged $606 million (81% of the $751 million, on average, disbursed directly to states and territories under Pittman-Robertson; see Figure 3 and Table B-2 ). The total amount of funding available for the Wildlife Restoration program for states is determined by deducting the amounts available for administration, the Basic and Enhanced Hunter Education and Safety programs (Sections 4(c) and 10, respectively), multistate conservation grants, and territorial allocations for wildlife restoration activities from the total amount of revenues generated from the excise taxes on pistols, revolvers, firearms, ammunition, and archery equipment in the previous year. States and territories may use this funding to pay the federal share of wildlife restoration projects. States and territories may use their apportionments to pay for up to 75% of the total project cost; they are responsible for the remaining cost of the project using non-Pittman-Robertson funds. Wildlife Restoration program funds are available for use by the states and territories for the fiscal year in which they are apportioned and the following fiscal year.

FWS calculates the Wildlife Restoration apportionment for each state using a two-part formula, with each part determining half of the amount apportioned. The formula is based on

the ratio of the area of a state compared with the total area of all 50 states and the number of paid hunting licenses sold in a state compared with the total number of paid hunting licenses sold in all 50 states.

The area of and number of licenses sold in the territories and Washington, DC, are not included in the totals for all 50 states.

However, the minimum and maximum amount any state may receive is 0.5% and 5%, respectively. Territorial apportionments are not formula based. Rather, the caps for territorial apportionments for wildlife restoration activities are set in statute: Puerto Rico receives not more than one-half of 1% (0.5%), and Guam, the U.S. Virgin Islands, American Samoa, and the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands each receive not more than one-sixth of 1% (0.17%) of the total funds apportioned. Collectively, territories can receive slightly more than 1% of the allocated funding.

FWS calculates state area as the sum of land and inland water areas in a state. State area does not include coastal, Great Lakes, or territorial waters. The area within an individual state is compared to the total area in all 50 states (territorial area is not counted in the total). In total, the United States contains 3.6 million square miles of land and inland water areas. States' areas vary from 0.03% (Rhode Island) to over 16% (Alaska) of the total U.S. area ( Figure 4 ). States' areas do not change on an annual basis, though they may be updated periodically.

The number of paid hunting-license holders used for the calculation in a given apportionment year (also known as calculation year) is "the number of paid hunting-license holders in each State in the second fiscal year preceding the fiscal year for which such apportionment is made." The act does not distinguish between in-state and out-of-state hunters; a hunting license purchased by a nonresident would be equivalent under this formula to one purchased by a resident. For calculation years 2015 to 2019, states collectively sold 15.4 million licenses per year, on average, in the United States. During these five years, Rhode Island sold the fewest licenses per year (8,404, on average) and Texas sold the most (1.1 million per year, on average) ( Figure 4 ). Unlike area, the number of hunting licenses sold varies from year to year ( Table A-2 ). This annual variation influences the apportionment level and can result in states receiving more or less in a given year (subject to minimum and maximum requirements; Table 2 ).

From FY2015 through FY2019, 8 states each received the minimum of 0.5% of the apportionments for the Wildlife Restoration program ($3.0 million per year, on average), 40 states received between the minimum and maximum, and 2 states received the maximum of 5% ($30.3 million). All 8 states receiving the minimum allocation are comparatively small (each consists of less than 0.5% of the total U.S. area) and sold a comparatively small number of hunting licenses in recent years (on average, each sold less than 0.5% of the U.S. total). The 2 states—Texas and Alaska—that received the maximum apportionment of 5% are both large (7.4% and 16.3% of the total U.S. area, respectively) but differed significantly in license sales in recent years (on average 7.4% and 0.7%, respectively).

Two programs within Pittman-Robertson provide support to states and territories for hunter education and safety projects: Basic Hunter Education and Safety (Section 4(c)) and Enhanced Hunter Education and Safety Grants (Section 10). The amount of funding available for state and territorial apportionments for the Basic Hunter Education and Safety program fluctuates based on annual revenues deposited in the Federal Aid to Wildlife Restoration Fund from excise taxes on pistols, revolvers, and archery equipment ( Figure 1 ). The Enhanced Hunter Education and Safety Grants program receives a statutorily fixed amount of $8 million per year. Both programs use the same apportionment structure, premised on the ratio of a state's population to the total population of the United States, as reported in the most recent decennial census. Statute dictates a minimum (1%) and maximum (3%) state apportionment cap for both programs. Each of the five eligible territories receives one-sixth of 1% (0.17%) of the total amount available for each program. States and territories may use their apportionments to pay for up to 75% of the total cost of a project.

Based on the 2010 decennial census, 21 states each contain less than 1% of the U.S. population. Of the 29 remaining, 12 contain between 1% and 2%, 7 between 2% and 3%, 4 between 3% and 4%, and 6 more than 4%. The most populous state, California, contains 12.1% of the total U.S. population. Figure 5 shows the percentage of the population for each state compared with the total for all 50 states calculated from the 2010 U.S. decennial census.

Because apportionments are determined based on the decennial census, which only changes when a new decennial census is conducted, the percentage of apportionment each state receives is constant in the years between decennial censuses, though the actual apportionment will fluctuate based on revenues generated by the excise tax on pistols, revolvers, and archery equipment. Based on the 2010 decennial census, 21 states have received the minimum 1%, 3 states have received between 1% and 2%, 9 states between 2% and 3%, and 17 states the 3% cap. The territories have received 0.17% as required in statute.

Basic Hunter Education and Safety Program (Section 4(c))

The total amount of funding available for the Basic Hunter Education and Safety program is equal to the revenue generated by half of the excise taxes collected on pistols, revolvers, and archery equipment but not other firearms and ammunition. Apportionments for the Basic Hunter Education and Safety program represent the second-largest component of Pittman-Robertson in terms of funding. Between FY2015 and FY2019, the Basic Hunter Education and Safety program apportioned an average of $136 million per year in total to states and territories (18.2% of the $751 million total average annual apportionments disbursed to states and territories under Pittman-Robertson apportionment programs; see Figure 3 and Table B-3 ). Between FY2015 and FY2019, the majority of states received either the minimum or the maximum allocation established in statute each year; 21 states received the minimum amount required by law (1%, or $1.4 million per year, on average), and 17 states received the maximum (3%, or $4.1 million per year, on average). Each territory received 0.17% ($227,473 per year, on average), as required by statute. States may use funding under this program to pay the federal share of the "costs of a hunter safety program and the construction, operation, and maintenance of public target ranges, as part of such program." Basic Hunter Education and Safety program funds are available for use by states and territories for the fiscal year in which they are apportioned and the following fiscal year.

Enhanced Hunter Education and Safety Grants Program (Section 10)

Congress passed legislation to add the Enhanced Hunter Education and Safety Grants program (also known as Section 10) to Pittman-Robertson in 2000. Since FY2003, $8.0 million has been set aside annually for the program for firearm and bow hunter education and safety grants. Pittman-Robertson states that the allowed uses for these grants are determined based on whether a state or territory has "used all of the funds apportioned to the State under section 669c(c) [Section 4(c)] of this title for the fiscal year." If a state or territory has not used all the funds apportioned to it under the Basic Hunter Education and Safety program, it may use monies apportioned under the Enhanced Hunter Education and Safety Grants program for the enhancement of

hunter education programs, hunter and firearm safety programs, and hunter development programs; interstate coordination, hunter education, and shooting range programs; bow hunter and archery education, safety, and development; and construction and updating of firearm and archery shooting ranges.

If a state or territory has used all of its Basic Hunter Education and Safety program apportionment, it may use its Enhanced Hunter Education and Safety Grants apportionment for any purpose authorized by Pittman-Robertson.

FWS annually apportions and disburses funding to states and territories under the Enhanced Hunter Education and Safety Grants program ( Figure 3 and Table B-4 ). For FY2015 to FY2019, each state received between 1% ($80,160 per year, on average) and 3% ($240,480 per year, on average) of the total amount apportioned for these grants. Each eligible territory received 0.17% ($13,360 per year, on average) of the total Enhanced Hunter Education and Safety Grants program apportionments. Because both hunter education programs use the same distribution formula, apportionments for the Enhanced Hunter Education and Safety Grants program follow the same pattern as apportionments for the Basic Hunter Education and Safety program. Unlike the Basic Hunter Education and Safety program, Enhanced Hunter Education and Safety Grant program funds are available for use by states and territories only for the fiscal year in which they are apportioned.

Members of Congress have routinely introduced legislation to amend Pittman-Robertson. In particular, Congress has considered issues related to eligible uses of state and territorial apportionments, the funding structure and funding sources for the program, and the apportionment formulas.

In recent Congresses, some Members have introduced several bills that would amend the way states and territories are able to spend their apportionments. Some bills have proposed amending Pittman-Robertson to allow additional uses, such as hunter recruitment and retention; others have proposed modifying the federal share and eligible uses of funds for existing or related activities, such as for public target ranges. Some Members introduced multiple bills for both purposes in recent Congresses, including in the 115 th and 116 th Congresses.

Several bills in the 115 th Congress would have allowed and in the 116 th Congress would allow states to use funds provided through Pittman-Robertson to promote hunting and recreational shooting, recruitment and retention of hunters and shooters, and public relations. According to the 2016 National Survey of Fishing, Hunting, and Wildlife-Associated Recreation , the number of hunters in the United States declined by 16% (2.2 million individuals) compared to the similar survey in 2011 (from 13.7 million in 2011 to 11.5 million in 2016). These bills would allow states to use funds currently provided for the Wildlife Restoration, Basic Hunter Education and Safety, and Enhanced Hunter Education and Safety Grants programs for hunter and recreational shooter recruitment and retention. In addition, they would create a funding mechanism for the Secretary of the Interior to use for recruitment and retention purposes at the national level. Currently, Pittman-Robertson prohibits the use of Wildlife Restoration program apportionments for public relations related to wildlife management activities. These proposals would remove this prohibition.

Proponents of this type of legislation have argued that these bills would provide states with flexibility to use Pittman-Robertson apportionments to support recruitment efforts that would promote participation in hunting and shooting sports. They contend there is a need to attract and retain hunters and recreational shooters, which, in turn, could increase excise tax revenues that support Pittman-Robertson. Stakeholders also point out that wildlife restoration would remain the primary purpose of the act even if amended. Other stakeholders have raised the concern that these bills would diminish wildlife restoration activities by allowing states to use funds currently apportioned for wildlife restoration purposes for recruitment and retention.

Other legislation has been introduced, including in the 115 th and 116 th Congresses, that would change the terms under which states may use Pittman-Robertson allocations for projects related to the construction and expansion of public target ranges. Currently, Pittman-Robertson allows states to use funds apportioned under the Basic Hunter Education and Safety program (Section 4(c)) for the "construction, operation, and maintenance of public target ranges." Funds apportioned under the Enhanced Hunter Education and Safety Grants program (Section 10) may be used for "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." However, both programs have a 75% cap for the federal share of projects supported by Pittman-Robertson funding. All of the proposals in the 115 th and 116 th Congress to amend the eligibility of activities related to shooting ranges would

allow states and territories to use their Basic Hunter Education and Safety program apportionments for land acquisition, expansion, and construction related to a target range, rather than solely for construction, operation, and maintenance of a range; allow states and territories to use up to 10% of funds apportioned to them through the Wildlife Restoration program to supplement apportionments for the Enhanced Hunter Education and Safety Grants program to be used for land acquisition, expansion, and construction related to a target range; allow states and territories to use their apportionments to pay for up to 90% of the total cost of a project related to a shooting range, instead of the current 75% federal cost-share cap; and extend the obligation and expenditure window of Enhanced Hunter Education and Safety Grants program apportionments used for shooting ranges to up to five fiscal years from the current window (the fiscal year for which they were apportioned).

According to their authors, these bills would address a stated decline in the availability of public target ranges and would provide increased opportunity for target practice at public shooting ranges. Some proponents have further argued that this type of legislation would allow the use of more funds to provide the public with opportunities to "embrace hunting and shooting sports," which could lead to economic benefits. Some proponents also contend that this legislation would make it easier for states to use federal funding, because it would lower the state matching requirement from at least 25% to 10% for target range-related projects and extend the funding window for certain funds. Some stakeholders have raised concerns that this legislation would allow states to use funding for target range-purposes that otherwise would be available for wildlife restoration activities under Section 4(b).

Under current law, the Federal Aid to Wildlife Restoration Fund receives revenues generated through an excise tax on firearms, ammunition, and archery equipment. Because Pittman-Robertson funding is entirely reliant on revenues from these taxes, it is subject to spending patterns on these items and can fluctuate with the markets for these goods. In addition, although firearm and archery equipment owners, hunters, and recreational shooters generate the funds used by Pittman-Robertson, many stakeholders contend that the act's wildlife restoration benefits accrue to the American public at large (this is often referred to as user-pay, public-benefit). Both the potential for market-based fluctuation of the excise tax structure and the public benefit nature of Pittman-Robertson have led some stakeholders to propose amending the act to include a funding source that they argue is more stable and not solely reliant on hunters and recreational shooters.

Congress has structured revenue sources for Pittman-Robertson so that those who recreate with firearms or bows contribute to funding that is used to maintain and preserve wildlife and hunter safety programs. Upon enactment of the Federal Aid in Wildlife Restoration Act, in 1937, Congress only included revenues generated from excise taxes on firearms (not including pistols and revolvers) and shells and cartridges. In debating this act, some Members stated that taxes imposed on sporting arms and ammunition should be used to benefit wildlife restoration. In 1970, Congress enacted legislation to deposit revenues from an excise tax on pistols and revolvers into the Federal Aid to Wildlife Restoration Fund rather than into the general fund of the Treasury, into which they were being deposited. The purpose of this legislation was to increase revenues available to support wildlife restoration and programs for hunter safety. Congress further amended the revenue sources in 1972, providing that an excise tax on bows and arrows, also created in the same law, also be deposited into the Federal Aid to Wildlife Restoration Fund. This inclusion provided that archers also contribute to the benefits provided by the act.

The concept of providing more stable and diversified funds for Pittman-Robertson is not new, and both stakeholders and Congress have addressed this issue on several occasions. For example, some stakeholders have suggested that given the public benefit nature of Pittman-Robertson, an excise tax should be imposed on other categories of goods and services related to outdoor recreation (e.g., backpacks, bicycles, climbing gear, and sport utility vehicles, among other items). This proposal—sometimes referred to as a backpack tax —has spurred an ongoing debate for several decades. Proponents have contended that it would be fairer for all users, not just hunters and shooters, to support wildlife conservation and restoration and that broadening the tax base could raise more revenue for restoration. Conversely, opponents have suggested that the proposal would place an untenable burden on the outdoor industry, leading to fewer sales and making items prohibitively expensive for some stakeholders, and that it could deter individuals from enjoying the outdoors.

Congress has not enacted legislation to broaden the excise tax base supporting Pittman-Robertson beyond firearms, ammunition, and archery equipment. However, in FY2001, Congress amended Pittman-Robertson to include an additional subaccount within the Federal Aid to Wildlife Restoration Fund, the Wildlife Restoration and Conservation Account, to provide supplemental funding for wildlife restoration and conservation. In the same law that created the subaccount, Congress appropriated $50 million to the subaccount "for the development, revision, and implementation of wildlife conservation and restoration plans and programs." Congress appropriated funding to this subaccount only in FY2001.

In recent Congresses, including the 115 th Congress, some Members have introduced legislation that would have amended Pittman-Robertson to repurpose the subaccount. These bills would have transferred up to $1.3 billion per year into the subaccount from revenues deposited into the Treasury under the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act and the Mineral Leasing Act. These funds would have been available for states and territories for a variety of conservation and restoration activities.

In the 116 th Congress, Congress may continue to consider alternate funding sources for Pittman-Robertson through existing or new mechanisms. Proponents have argued that additional funds from alternate sources would bolster restoration and conservation activities and provide a secure source of funding for Pittman-Robertson. Some stakeholders also have stated that a bill authorizing such alternate funding sources could provide additional resources for federal agencies or tribal partners to implement the conservation of threatened and endangered species, among other concerns. However, Congress may consider if providing funding for conservation and restoration under Pittman-Robertson could affect other potential uses of federal funds.

In addition to eligible uses and funding sources, Congress may consider amending Pittman-Robertson's apportionment structure. Currently, states and territories are treated differently under the program; states are apportioned funds based on area, population, and number of hunting licenses (see " State and Territory Apportionment " above), whereas territories are allocated funding based on a set percentage or percentage caps. For the Wildlife Restoration program, states receive a minimum of 0.5% of the program's total apportionment, Puerto Rico receives not more than 0.5%, and each of the remaining four eligible territories receives not more than 0.17%. For both the Basic and Enhanced Hunter Education and Safety programs, states receive at least 1% of the total apportionments and territories receive 0.17% of the apportionments. Under current law, Washington, DC, does not receive funding through any of these programs. However, in FY2001, Washington, DC, received funding through the Wildlife Conservation and Restoration Account.

Congress may consider issues related to apportionment formulas, including topics related to parity between states, territories, and others. It also may consider amending the apportionment structures, including minimum and maximum allocations, in general. The current structure is the result of multiple congressional actions since the original enactment in 1937. Through these actions, Congress has added and modified apportionment formula and eligibility. Some stakeholders have expressed concern over the discrepancy between the minimum apportionment to states and the set percentage provided to territories; they contend there should be greater parity between states and territories. Other stakeholders have suggested that tribes also should be eligible to receive allocations under Pittman-Robertson programs.

Appendix B. Annual Pittman-Robertson Wildlife Restoration Act Apportionments by State and Territory, FY2015-FY2019