PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Received in the Senate and Read twice and referred to the Committee on Environment and Public Works.
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in House · May 22, 2017
Modernizing the Pittman-Robertson Fund for Tomorrow's Needs Act of 2017
This bill amends the Pittman-Robertson Wildlife Restoration Act to make it one of the purposes of the Act to provide financial and technical assistance to the states for the promotion of hunting and recreational shooting.
The bill also prescribes a formula for the allocation of funds apportioned to a state that may be used for any activity or project to recruit or retain hunters and recreational shooters.
Showing the opening paragraphs of the official summary.
In addition to other uses authorized under this bill, amounts apportioned to the states from any taxes on pistols, revolvers, bows, and arrows may be used for hunter recruitment and recreational shooter recruitment.
The funds apportioned to a state for wildlife restoration management may be used for related public relations.
If a state has not used all of the tax revenues apportioned to it for firearm and bow hunter education and safety program grants, it may use its remaining apportioned funds for the enhancement of hunter recruitment and recreational shooter recruitment.
Up to $5 million of the revenues covered into the wildlife restoration fund in the Treasury from any tax imposed for a fiscal year on the sale of certain bows, arrows, and archery equipment shall be available to the Department of the Interior exclusively for making hunter recruitment and recreational shooter recruitment grants that promote a national hunting and shooting sport recruitment program, including related communication and outreach activities.
People & committees
Rep. Scott, Austin [R-GA-8] · R–GA
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Received in the Senate and Read twice and referred to the Committee on Environment and Public Works.
Motion to reconsider laid on the table Agreed to without objection.
On motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill, as amended Agreed to by voice vote. (text: CR H8133)
Passed/agreed to in House: On motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill, as amended Agreed to by voice vote.(text: CR H8133)
DEBATE - The House proceeded with forty minutes of debate on H.R. 2591.
Considered under suspension of the rules. (consideration: CR H8133-8134)
Mr. Gianforte moved to suspend the rules and pass the bill, as amended.
Placed on the Union Calendar, Calendar No. 695.
Reported (Amended) by the Committee on Natural Resources. H. Rept. 115-899.
Reported (Amended) by the Committee on Natural Resources. H. Rept. 115-899.
Ordered to be Reported (Amended) by Unanimous Consent.
Committee Consideration and Mark-up Session Held.
Subcommittee on Federal Lands Discharged.
Subcommittee Hearings Held.
Referred to the Subcommittee on Federal Lands.
Referred to the House Committee on Natural Resources.
Introduced in House
Introduced in House
Primary sources
Text links open the official source. We currently store references to these documents.
Source last updated: Sep 8, 2026. Consult Congress.gov for the current record.
AI Conversation Starters
Choose a perspective, copy a prompt, and paste it into your preferred AI. Each prompt includes the bill version and available official source links, and asks for counterarguments as well as supporting evidence.
Analyze H.R.2591 as objectively as possible. Explain its main provisions, who would be affected, possible benefits and harms, implementation, exceptions, and uncertainties. Present the strongest arguments for and against it, and identify evidence needed to assess its public impact.
Examine H.R.2591 through a progressive lens, focusing on fairness, access, economic inequality, and effects on vulnerable communities. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and distinguish stated goals from demonstrated outcomes.
Examine H.R.2591 through a conservative lens, focusing on fiscal responsibility, institutional stability, federalism, and the scope of government. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and any provisions that challenge this perspective.
Examine H.R.2591 through a civil-liberties and limited-government lens. Consider individual rights, privacy, voluntary choice, accountability, and government power. Explain tradeoffs, possible safeguards, and the strongest counterarguments without assuming the proposal is beneficial or harmful.