[Congressional Record Volume 170, Number 74 (Tuesday, April 30, 2024)]
[House]
[Pages H2735-H2740]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




         PROTECTING ACCESS FOR HUNTERS AND ANGLERS ACT OF 2023

  Mr. WESTERMAN. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 1173, I call 
up the bill (H.R. 615) to prohibit the Secretary of the Interior and 
the Secretary of Agriculture from prohibiting the use of lead 
ammunition or tackle on certain Federal land or water under the 
jurisdiction of the Secretary of the Interior and the Secretary of 
Agriculture, and for other purposes, and ask for its immediate 
consideration in the House.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 1173, the 
amendment in the nature of a substitute recommended by the Committee on 
Natural Resources, printed in the bill, shall be considered as adopted, 
and the bill, as amended, is considered read.
  The text of the bill, as amended, is as follows:

                                H.R. 615

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``Protecting Access for 
     Hunters and Anglers Act of 2023''.

     SEC. 2. PROTECTING ACCESS FOR HUNTERS AND ANGLERS ON FEDERAL 
                   LAND AND WATER.

       (a) In General.--Except as provided in section 20.21 or 
     20.108 of title 50, Code of Federal Regulations (as in effect 
     on the date of enactment of this Act), and subsection (b), 
     the Secretary of the Interior, acting through the Director of 
     the United States Fish and Wildlife Service or the Director 
     of the Bureau of Land Management, and the Secretary of 
     Agriculture, acting through the Chief of the Forest Service 
     (referred to in this section as the ``applicable 
     Secretary''), may not--
       (1) prohibit the use of lead ammunition or tackle on 
     Federal land or water that is--
       (A) under the jurisdiction of the applicable Secretary; and
       (B) made available for hunting or fishing activities; or
       (2) issue regulations relating to the level of lead in 
     ammunition or tackle to be used on Federal land or water 
     described in paragraph (1).
       (b) Exception.--Subsection (a) shall not apply to a 
     prohibition or regulations described in that subsection that 
     are limited to a specific unit of Federal land or water, if 
     the applicable Secretary determines that--
       (1) a decline in wildlife population at the specific unit 
     of Federal land or water is primarily caused by the use of 
     lead in ammunition or tackle, based on the field data from 
     the specific unit of Federal land or water; and
       (2) the prohibition or regulations, as applicable, are--
       (A) consistent with the law of the State in which the 
     specific Federal land or water is located;
       (B) consistent with an applicable policy of the fish and 
     wildlife department of the State in which the specific 
     Federal land or water is located; or
       (C) approved by the applicable fish and wildlife department 
     of the State in which the specific Federal land or water is 
     located.
       (c) Federal Register Notice.--The applicable Secretary 
     shall include in a Federal Register notice with respect to 
     any prohibition or regulations that meet the requirements of 
     paragraphs (1) and (2) of subsection (b) an explanation of 
     how the prohibition or regulations, as applicable, meet those 
     requirements.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The bill, as amended, shall be debatable for 
1 hour, equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking 
minority member of the Committee on Natural Resources, or their 
respective designees.
  The gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Westerman) and the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Huffman) each will control 30 minutes. The Chair 
recognizes the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Westerman).


                             General Leave

  Mr. WESTERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members 
may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks 
and include extraneous material on H.R. 615.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Arkansas?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. WESTERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 615, sponsored 
by my colleague, Congressman Wittman of Virginia.
  This commonsense bill protects hunters' and anglers' ability to 
continue using cost-effective lead ammunition and fishing equipment in 
our National Wildlife Refuge System. At the same time, this legislation 
gives the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service the flexibility to make 
targeted decisions on lead use in refuges based on sound, site-specific 
science and in coordination with State fish and wildlife agencies.
  In the United States, sportsmen's and -women's participation is 
crucial to the success of wildlife conservation. The North American 
model of wildlife conservation operates on seven interdependent 
principles. Embedded in these principles are sound science, active 
management, and access to hunting and fishing. This model is a success 
story that is best characterized by the millions of dollars paid by 
hunters and anglers for wildlife conservation each year through excise 
taxes on the equipment that they use.
  In fiscal year 2024, the Service apportioned nearly $1 billion in 
receipts from excise taxes on firearms manufacturers. Of that, about 
$800 million was targeted to wildlife restoration. Similarly, $381 
million was generated from excise taxes on fishing equipment for fish 
conservation.
  Last year, after significant pushback from stakeholders and Members 
of Congress, the Fish and Wildlife Service denied a petition from far-
left environmental groups to ban the use of lead ammunition and tackle 
throughout the system. However, the Fish and Wildlife Service is still 
pressing ahead with refuge-specific lead bans.
  In its 2023-2024 hunting and sports fishing regulations for the 
system, the Service is banning the use of lead ammunition and tackle in 
eight refuges. It tries to lessen the blow by expanding access to 
hunting and fishing in three other refuges, but this expansion also 
includes a lead ban.
  Why does any of this matter? It is about access and how the Service's 
actions are limiting access.
  In 2021, the National Shooting Sports Foundation concluded that lead-
free hunting ammunition is, on average, almost 25 percent more 
expensive than lead. Not only are alternative materials such as copper 
more expensive, but this administration also continues to push policies 
that prohibit mining such resources here in America.
  Their lead bans will result in decreased hunting and fishing 
participation for all but the wealthy and a reduction in wildlife 
conservation and restoration funding.

[[Page H2736]]

  Instead of regulating hunters and anglers off of our Federal lands, 
the Service should be working with State managers, conservation 
organizations, and sportsmen and -women. Where lead is shown to cause 
harm to wildlife populations, it should be addressed accordingly, but a 
systemwide ban or refuge-by-refuge bans where no scientific link can be 
made is the wrong approach and ultimately undermines wildlife 
conservation.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this bill, and I reserve 
the balance of my time.

                                         House of Representatives,


                                     Committee on Agriculture,

                               Washington, DC, September 15, 2023.
     Hon. Bruce Westerman,
     Chairman, Committee on Natural Resources, Longworth House 
         Office Building, Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. Chairman: This letter confirms our mutual 
     understanding regarding H.R. 615, the ``Protecting Access for 
     Hunters and Anglers Act of 2023''. Thank you for 
     collaborating with the Committee on Agriculture on the 
     matters within our jurisdiction.
       The Committee on Agriculture will forego any further 
     consideration of this bill. However, by foregoing 
     consideration at this time, we do not waive any jurisdiction 
     over any subject matter contained in this or similar 
     legislation. The Committee on Agriculture also reserves the 
     right to seek appointment of an appropriate number of 
     conferees should it become necessary and ask that you support 
     such a request.
       We would appreciate a response to this letter confirming 
     this understanding with respect to H.R. 615 and request a 
     copy of our letters on this matter be published in the 
     Congressional Record during Floor consideration.
           Sincerely,
                                            Glenn ``GT'' Thompson,
     Chairman.
                                  ____

                                         House of Representatives,


                               Committee on Natural Resources,

                               Washington, DC, September 18, 2023.
     Hon. Glenn ``GT'' Thompson,
     Chairman, Committee on Agriculture, Longworth House Office 
         Building, Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. Chairman: I write regarding H.R. 615, the 
     ``Protecting Access for Hunters and Anglers Act of 2023,'' 
     which was ordered reported by the Committee on Natural 
     Resources on June 21, 2023.
       I recognize that the bill contains provisions that fall 
     within the jurisdiction of the Committee on Agriculture and 
     appreciate your willingness to forgo any further 
     consideration of the bill. I acknowledge that the Committee 
     on Agriculture will not formally consider H.R. 615 and agree 
     that the inaction of your Committee with respect to the bill 
     does not waive any jurisdiction over the subject matter 
     contained therein.
       I am pleased to support your request to name members of the 
     Committee on Agriculture to any conference committee to 
     consider such provisions. I will ensure that our exchange of 
     letters is included in the Congressional Record during floor 
     consideration of the bill. I appreciate your cooperation 
     regarding this legislation.
           Sincerely,
                                                  Bruce Westerman,
                         Chairman, Committee on Natural Resources.

  Mr. HUFFMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.R. 615, a bill that 
incorrectly claims in its title that recreation access is threatened by 
efforts to protect wildlife from lead poisoning. Instead, this 
legislation could actually reduce the areas open to our sportsmen and -
women because it is a wrongheaded attempt to take away a commonsense 
tool for allowing sustainable hunting and fishing.
  Specifically, this bill would ban the Fish and Wildlife Service, the 
BLM, and the Forest Service from prohibiting or regulating the use of 
lead ammunition or tackle on Federal lands that are made available for 
hunting and fishing.
  Lead regulations and bans actually make sense. When wildlife forage 
for food, they inadvertently consume spent shot or tackle that is left 
in the environment. This lead accumulates in animal tissue, where it 
causes neurological and immune system impairments and anemia, slowly 
poisoning these animals until they die. When one animal dies of lead 
poisoning, the lead accumulated in its tissue then becomes a hazard to 
scavenging animals.
  We see this in species like the bald eagle and the California condor. 
In fact, scientific evidence shows that over 130 animal species, 
including humans, have been exposed to or killed by lead shot or 
ammunition, whether directly or by ingesting prey poisoned with lead.
  Twenty million birds and other animals die each year from lead 
poisoning. We know lead is a neurotoxin, and the science is clear that 
many species are negatively impacted. In a study from the USGS, almost 
half of all examined bald eagles exhibited symptoms of lead toxicity. 
The California condor was nearly driven to extinction by lead 
poisoning, leading the Republican Governor of my State, California, at 
the time to implement lead ammunition restrictions in condor habitat.
  Some States, such as Maine, Vermont, and California, have instituted 
restrictions on lead ammunition in fishing tackle. This bill could make 
it extremely difficult for Federal land managers in those States to 
simply carry out those same logical, beneficial restrictions on Federal 
lands.

                              {time}  1500

  Banning lead products when we know they pose harm is not a radical 
idea. We have banned lead in paint, pipes, and household items because 
we know lead poisoning is a serious problem. Scientists are continuing 
to discover further evidence of its harm to people and wildlife.
  There are ample alternatives to lead-based tackle and ammo at 
virtually the same price. People already can and do use these 
alternatives in areas where lead is banned. No one is losing access due 
to lead bans, but our wildlife and habitats are safer because of them. 
It is a win-win.
  Why are Republicans pushing this bill? Well, I can't say for sure, 
but I can say that at the hearing on this bill, Republican Members and 
witnesses didn't have much to say about lead bans causing problems for 
hunters and fishers. What my colleagues aired was their ideological 
opposition to anything that regulates firearms in any context for any 
reason, including ammunition.
  Let's not pretend that this bill is about solving a problem for 
sportsmen and -women. This bill would likely result in closures of 
hunting and fishing areas.
  The National Wildlife Refuge System's mission is to conserve, manage, 
and restore wildlife and their habitats for future generations. In the 
face of a changing climate, habitat loss, disease, and other pressures, 
our wildlife increasingly rely on the protections and resources of the 
refuge network. That is why, by law, refuges cannot be open for hunting 
or fishing if doing so is incompatible with the purpose of the refuge. 
Additionally, many of these refuges were established to recover and 
conserve endangered species.
  Guess what happens if refuge managers can no longer restrict lead 
ammo and tackle? They are going to face a dilemma. What happens when 
they are faced with a decision to open an area to hunting and fishing 
or not open it? If they are concerned that lead-based gear could 
jeopardize endangered or threatened species, then the most likely 
outcome will be to not allow any hunting. They will have no choice but 
to close off these habitats to hunting and fishing.
  My colleagues have to think through the consequences of poorly 
written legislation like this. Committee Democrats have been pointing 
this out for months, but House Republicans are forging ahead at full 
speed.
  Preventing the Federal management of pollutants does nothing to 
protect or even maintain access, and it is in direct opposition to the 
conservation goals shared by sportsmen and -women and Federal land 
managers.
  The hearing on this bill shed a lot of light for me on the thinking 
behind it. When it comes to guns, and now ammo, any type of restriction 
is too much for Republican ideology, even if it means closing off 
hunting areas for actual gun users.
  That is where we are, and that is why Republicans refuse to move 
forward on commonsense gun safety regulations, assault weapon bans, and 
other things that the American people overwhelmingly support.
  That is the problem. House Republicans need to listen to the people 
instead of pushing an ideological agenda that Americans are not asking 
for. The entire House schedule this week misses the mark. It elevates 
rightwing ideology over the actual needs of the American people. It 
tells us once again what the GOP has devolved to. Unfortunately, it 
stands for guns, oil, and polluters.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to reject this bill, and I reserve 
the balance of my time.

[[Page H2737]]

  

  Mr. WESTERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Speaker, let's be clear. The rule this administration put out has 
absolutely nothing to do with protecting wildlife, wildlife 
conservation, or protecting human health. As the gentleman alluded to, 
I believe this bill probably is more aimed at restricting the sale of 
ammunition and any kind of attack Democrats can take on our Second 
Amendment rights.
  This bill will hurt conservation. It is senseless. It is based on no 
facts. The Fish and Wildlife Service can't produce a document to show 
why they should ban lead ammunition or lead fishing tackle. It is 
simply another move by an administration that wants to write the law 
instead of letting Congress write the laws and them enforce the laws.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. 
Wittman), the sponsor of the legislation.
  Mr. WITTMAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today as a lifelong hunter and 
recreational fisherman in support of my bill, H.R. 615, the Protecting 
Access for Hunters and Anglers Act.
  Mr. Speaker, our hunters and anglers are really the backbone of this 
Nation. They are the contributors that put a tremendous amount of 
resources into protecting the resources that we all enjoy. Why would we 
want to restrict their access?
  America is blessed with an abundance of natural resources. These 
refuges belong to the American people. Why wouldn't we want them to use 
them to the maximum utility for everybody, not just for a small group 
that decides that they want to go to court?
  The Trump administration opened up 2.3 million acres of the refuge 
system for the owners of the system. That makes some sense, doesn't it? 
In response, anti-fishing and hunting groups sued, claiming lead 
ammunition and tackle would negatively impact endangered species in the 
National Wildlife Refuge System. Certainly, there are limited instances 
where one can show an association there, but not carte blanche. We 
wouldn't just say we are going to close the whole thing down because of 
some isolated incidents.
  In 2022, the Biden administration reached a settlement and pretty 
much said they were going to go forward with the lead ban for fishing 
tackle and ammunition.
  For those who said it is not a big deal because other materials can 
be substituted at kind of the same price, they are people who have 
never gone to hunt and fish before and don't know what the heck they 
are talking about. If you take a lead sinker that you are going to now 
replace with tungsten, you have to know by common sense tungsten is 
going to cost significantly more than lead.

  Additionally, you have families suffering through Bidenomics, 
suffering from higher fuel prices when they go to the pump today and 
are paying almost $4 a gallon, when they are paying more for a loaf of 
bread and a dozen eggs. Now, you say, by the way, we are going to have 
government charge you more for something that can be avoided.
  Then, my colleagues say Members are making it difficult for the Feds 
to regulate. Isn't that our job? Shouldn't we make sure our Federal 
Government is doing its due diligence in regulating? No, we want to 
have a side that says: We want more costs to the American people. We 
don't even want them to enjoy their pastimes. We want them to suffer at 
the pump. We want them to suffer at the grocery store. Also, now we 
want to make them suffer by not being able to enjoy the lands that 
belong to them.
  How ironic is that? Add more suffering on more suffering on more 
suffering. Lord forbid, we don't want to make it difficult for 
government to regulate.
  Where are we? This is an alternate universe.
  We want to make sure that we are ensuring that these lands are 
accessible to the people who own them. These are sportsmen that put a 
tremendous amount of money into the system. The Duck Stamp Act, the 
Pittman-Robertson Act, and the Dingell-Johnson Act put millions and 
millions of dollars into the system every year. Hundreds of anglers 
help protect these assets. They protect the natural resources on these 
public lands.
  I want to make sure that we are able to support them, make sure that 
we don't add to the cost of them being able to enjoy those lands. This 
bill ensures that Federal agencies have to do their due diligence.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. WITTMAN. It doesn't stop them from limiting lead use on these 
properties, but it ensures that they have to use the science. They have 
to demonstrate, in these instances, in these specific situations, that 
they have the science behind limiting lead use, not just carte blanche 
bans.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has again expired.
  Mr. WESTERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 30 seconds to the 
gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wittman).
  Mr. WITTMAN. I want to make sure the Secretary of the Interior and 
the Secretary of Agriculture have to do their due diligence to show 
that there is indeed a scientific purpose behind these lead 
restrictions. We want to make sure we are effectively managing our 
lands and our natural resources in ways that keep in mind the American 
citizen.
  Mr. HUFFMAN. Mr. Speaker, just a reality check. No one has lost 
hunting or angling access because of lead ammunition or tackle 
restrictions. That has not happened, but if this management tool is 
taken away from fish and wildlife managers, and lead pollution and lead 
poisoning is allowed to continue to build up, my colleagues will start 
to see the loss of that access.
  This ready-shoot-aim approach to wildlife management is actually 
going to hurt the people who the gentleman says he wants to protect.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 6 minutes to the gentlewoman from Michigan (Mrs. 
Dingell).
  Mrs. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, I am a proud member of the Congressional 
Sportsmen's Caucus. In fact, I am a past co-chair. I am dedicated to 
protecting and expanding access to hunting and fishing opportunities 
throughout the United States.
  Sportsmen and -women are some of the country's leading 
conservationists, and I applaud their work to protect lands and 
wildlife for current and future generations. However, this bill before 
us today is not a conservation bill. In fact, it drives a wedge in the 
deep partnerships between sportsmen and -women and Federal land 
managers who have worked together for decades to identify strategies to 
allow hunting and fishing in ethical ways that help fish and wildlife 
populations thrive.
  Federal land managers have the authority and the mission to manage 
their lands in a way that contributes to the conservation of wildlife, 
and they must ensure that any actions that occur on the lands that they 
manage do not cause jeopardy to endangered or threatened species.
  This bill conflicts with the Endangered Species Act, the Migratory 
Bird Treaty Act, the National Wildlife Refuge System Administration 
Act, and other land management laws by prohibiting any regulation of 
lead ammunition or tackle, even when scientific analysis conducted 
under those laws determines that lead is causing a decline in a 
population of animals or is not compatible with the uses of the 
wildlife refuge.
  Particularly for the national wildlife refuges, this bill is based on 
a fundamental misunderstanding of how hunting and fishing are managed 
on wildlife refuges. Under the National Wildlife Refuge System 
Administration Act, the refuges are closed to hunting and fishing until 
they are opened by the annual hunt-fish regulations the Fish and 
Wildlife Service publishes. In those regulations, the Fish and Wildlife 
Service identifies the places; the types of hunting and fishing 
available; the restrictions, such as no hunting or fishing at night, no 
motorized boats, et cetera; and the times those opportunities are 
available.
  This regulation is published after careful analysis of whether such 
actions are compatible with the goals and the purposes of each refuge. 
The Fish and Wildlife Service also assesses if the regulation has any 
impacts under the Endangered Species Act, the National Environmental 
Policy Act, and other laws.
  If we play out this bill before us today, one can easily imagine 
scenarios

[[Page H2738]]

where the best-available science under the Endangered Species Act shows 
that hunting or fishing with lead ammunition or tackle will lead to a 
decline in the listed species. At that point, the Fish and Wildlife 
Service has a choice to make: Do they allow hunting or fishing with 
lead ammunition or tackle in violation of the Endangered Species Act, 
or do they close off that area to hunting and fishing?

  They have already been sued for allowing the use of lead in violation 
of the ESA. They would simply avoid lawsuits by keeping that area 
closed to future hunting and fishing.
  This bill is going to be counterproductive to the goals of the 
sponsors. It is likely that it will result in less lands available for 
hunting and fishing, limiting access to sportsmen and -women.
  Mr. Speaker, for this reason, at the appropriate time, I will offer a 
motion to recommit this bill back to committee. If the House Rules 
permitted, I would have offered the motion with an important amendment 
to this bill. This amendment would ensure that sportsmen and -women 
won't be harmed by reduced access to hunting and fishing if this bill 
is enacted by tasking the Fish and Wildlife Service and its partners 
with analyzing the likely outcomes of this legislation and assessing 
whether they would have to close areas to hunting and fishing to comply 
with this bill and other laws, such as the Endangered Species Act and 
the National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act.
  It is common sense to assess the possible outcomes of legislation 
before it takes effect. In this case, Democrats have been asking these 
difficult questions with little response from the Republicans.
  Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of this 
amendment into the Record immediately prior to the vote on the motion 
to recommit.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentlewoman from Michigan?
  There was no objection.
  Mrs. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, I hope my colleagues will join me in 
voting for the motion to recommit.
  Mr. WESTERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I serve as the co-chair of the 
Congressional Sportsmen's Caucus, and I would like to point out that 
not only does the Congressional Sportsmen's Foundation endorse this 
legislation, but so do organizations such as the Mule Deer Foundation, 
the American Sportfishing Association, Ducks Unlimited, and Delta 
Waterfowl. The who's who of sportsmen and -women organizations support 
this legislation.
  Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record this list of endorsements.
                                                 October 27, 2022.

    Cosponsor Request: Protecting Access for Hunters and Anglers Act

       Dear Congressional Sportsmen's Caucus Member: The 
     undersigned organizations, representing millions of hunters, 
     anglers, wildlife professionals, and outdoor enthusiasts are 
     writing to express our support for the Protecting Access for 
     Hunters and Anglers Act (S. 4940/H.R. 9088). Introduced by 
     Senator Steve Daines with a companion bill from 
     Representatives Rob Wittman and Bruce Westerman, this 
     legislation would prohibit the Secretaries of Agriculture and 
     the Interior from prohibiting the use of lead ammunition or 
     tackle on certain Federal lands and waters absent field data 
     delineating a science-based nexus to a wildlife species 
     population decline. Overly broad and arbitrary ammunition and 
     tackle bans have severe and unnecessary detrimental impacts 
     on the economy while also serving as a hinderance to fish and 
     wildlife conservation programs and projects. To that end, we 
     are united in respectfully requesting that you join as a 
     cosponsor of this important legislation.
       At the outset, it is important to note that with few 
     exceptions, fish and wildlife are successfully managed at the 
     population level. Additionally, with the exception of Federal 
     Trust Species and certain other species, fish and wildlife 
     management decisions are primarily driven by state fish and 
     wildlife agencies. With those considerations in mind, in the 
     very rare occurrences that science-based field-data clearly 
     delineates a causational nexus between traditional ammunition 
     or tackle and changes in fish or wildlife population health, 
     state fish and wildlife agencies already have the ability to 
     regulate the use of those to both achieve conservation 
     objectives and minimize impacts to anglers and hunters.
       That said, we do not believe wildlife management decisions 
     should be driven or decided by political motivations, 
     litigation, at the ballot box or by anyone other than the 
     applicable fish and wildlife department of the State in which 
     the specific Federal land or water is located. Furthermore, 
     we maintain that any restrictions on the use of lead 
     ammunition and tackle on federal lands and waters by a 
     federal agency must have the support of the respective state 
     fish and wildlife agency, which is required by the Protecting 
     Access for Hunters and Anglers Act. Simply put, this 
     legislation reaffirms state fish and wildlife management 
     authority.
       In many cases, alternatives to lead ammunition and tackle 
     that deliver similar performance at a comparable cost simply 
     do not exist. Therefore, overly broad and arbitrary bans on 
     traditional ammunition and tackle serve as a disincentive to 
     the recruitment, retention and reactivation of hunters and 
     anglers and, as a result, have significant negative economic 
     consequences for sportsmen and women and local and regional 
     economies. In addition, these bans result in decreases to the 
     excise taxes that hunters and anglers voluntarily imposed on 
     ammunition and fishing tackle as part of the Pittman-
     Robertson and Dingell-Johnson Acts, both of which provide the 
     lion's share of funding for state fish and wildlife 
     conservation, research, public access to natural resources 
     and other important programs that promote hunting and fishing 
     and sustainable populations of fish and wildlife species.
       Recently, the United States Fish and Wildlife Service 
     (USFWS) published a final rule that, while expanding access 
     to hunting and fishing opportunities at certain wildlife 
     refuges, also seeks to phase out the use of traditional lead 
     ammunition and fishing tackle. We are disappointed to see the 
     lack of a science-based justification for the arbitrary 
     limitation on the use of lead ammunition and tackle. This 
     rule does not recognize state fish and wildlife as the 
     primary managers of our nation's fish and wildlife. 
     Concurrently, litigation initiated by animal rights interests 
     is pending against a similar, previous rule to expand hunting 
     and fishing access on national wildlife refuges alleging that 
     the additional use of lead ammunition and tackle will harm 
     wildlife species at those refuges. However, those allegations 
     are not substantiated by science.
       The litigation not only lacks scientific justification, but 
     it is entirely without legal merit. In light of the timing of 
     this litigation, we are concerned the USFWS has engaged in 
     settlement negotiations with the litigants. Despite strong 
     opposition from many of the undersigned, we believe the USFWS 
     continues conversations with the plaintiff. Furthermore, we 
     are concerned that an overly broad, onerous and unnecessary 
     ban on the use of traditional ammunition and tackle in the 
     National Wildlife Refuge System could be forthcoming.
       For these reasons, we strongly support the Protecting 
     Access for Hunters and Anglers Act (S. 4940/H.R. 9088) and 
     encourage you to serve as a cosponsor of this vital 
     legislation.
       Thank you for your leadership and continued service on 
     behalf of America's outdoor heritage.
           Sincerely,
       American Catnshing Association, American Sportfishing 
     Association, Bass Anglers Sportsman Society (B.A.S.S), 
     BoatU.S., Boone and Crockett Club, California Waterfowl 
     Association, Coastal Conservation Association, Congressional 
     Sportsmen's Foundation, Council to Advance Hunting and the 
     Shooting Sports, Delta Waterfowl, Ducks Unlimited, 
     International Game Fish Association, Major League Fishing, 
     Marine Retailers Association of the Americas, Mule Deer 
     Foundation, National Professional Anglers Association, 
     National Rifle Association, National Shooting Sports 
     Foundation, Northwest Sportfishing Industry Association, Pope 
     & Young Club, Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation, Safari Club 
     International, The Bass Federation, Inc., The Walleye 
     Federation, LLC, Whitetails Unlimited, Wildlife Mississippi.

                              {time}  1515

  Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. 
Carter).
  Mr. CARTER of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for 
yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak in support of H.R. 615, the 
Protecting Access For Hunters and Anglers Act of 2023 led by my friend, 
Mr. Wittman of Virginia.
  In 2022, the National Fish and Wildlife Service proposed to ban lead 
ammunition and tackle in seven National Wildlife Refuges by 2027.
  To put it plainly, this rule makes no sense whatsoever.
  It is simply another example of the Biden administration giving in to 
radical environmentalists who do not hunt nor fish in our national 
refuges.
  America's hunters and anglers contribute over a billion dollars a 
year in conservation funding via taxes on outdoor equipment like 
ammunition and tackle.
  On top of that, lead products are significantly cheaper than their 
lead-free counterparts, often costing 25 percent more.
  With prices rising on everything--thanks to Bidenomics--from gasoline 
to fishing tackle, why is it that this administration tries to limit 
access to wildlife refuges and jeopardize critical wildlife funding 
dollars? Hunters and anglers are the original conservationists, and 
without regulation based on

[[Page H2739]]

science, this rule does nothing but hurt the environment it is 
attempting to protect.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this measure.
  Mr. HUFFMAN. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. WESTERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from 
Florida (Mr. Rutherford).
  Mr. RUTHERFORD. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Arkansas for 
yielding and I thank my colleague from Virginia for introducing this 
bill, the Protecting Access for Hunters and Anglers Act of 2023.
  This is a poorly decided agreement on a court case where the U.S. 
Fish and Wildlife Service, as you just heard, was actually sued by the 
Center for Biological Diversity. They sued the Department of the 
Interior, and the agreement was: We will just throw them seven of our 
national wildlife refuges to get them to go away. That is not the best 
science. It is not based on science at all. In fact, it is best 
regulated by the States.
  Our colleague across the aisle even said some States have actually 
shut down areas because of lead issues. That is what all of these 
States should be doing--managing these resources themselves. It should 
not be from some bureaucrat in Washington, D.C., trying to settle a 
lawsuit and throwing away people's rights to enjoy the land.
  Millions of Americans, including myself, are avid outdoorsmen and -
women who greatly enjoy hunting and fishing, and we depend on reliable 
access to these public lands and waters. That is why a ban on the cost-
effective traditional lead ammo and tackle is so concerning. It will 
affect hunters, it will affect recreational and commercial anglers, and 
it will simply increase the cost which will reduce the participation by 
those who enjoy these two American pastimes.
  As you heard earlier from my good friend from Georgia, it is a 25 
percent higher cost for the nonleaded ammo versus the traditional lead 
ammo. When you start cutting that, you are going to cut the excise tax 
that actually provides money for wildlife conservation here in America.
  States already have the ability, as I mentioned earlier, to regulate 
lands for conservation purposes. Instead of these Federal mandates we 
should be leaning on the States that know an area's conservation needs 
better than anyone else.
  State-driven, public-private partnerships are much better than top-
down Federal mandates that do not take into consideration site-specific 
science necessary to make these decisions.
  In fact, the Center for Biological Diversity in their suit said that 
lead hunting and fishing on these lands might or could create lead 
issues. They used words like ``could'' or ``might.'' There is no 
science there, Mr. Speaker. This is strictly a top-down land grab.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on this important 
bill. We must protect our hunting and fishing in our national wildlife 
refuges. Let's leave it to the States and local authorities to decide 
what can and can't be used on public lands and keep the Biden 
administration's Green New Deal agenda out of these great American 
pastimes.
  Mr. WESTERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  I appreciate the gentleman pointing out some important facts about 
how this rule came to be from this administration that is anything but 
transparent. It is an administration that rejects any kind of 
oversight. I couldn't even start to tell you how much information they 
are behind on sending to the committee that we have requested just so 
we can do oversight, but I can imagine how this meeting probably went 
down.
  The radical environmental groups go over to the administration to 
have a meeting and the administration says, well, there are no facts, 
no science, nothing that supports what you are wanting to do. However, 
wink, wink, if you were to sue us and we went to court, then we could 
settle that and maybe we will give you a half dozen to a dozen refuges 
that we will ban lead on and that will make their friends happy. I 
think that is exactly what happened, and that is why we are here today 
with a bill in Congress to say you can't do that.
  Enough is enough. Manage these lands for the public, not for your 
special interest radical environmental groups. I think Congress has to 
take the lead on this.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HUFFMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I am continually puzzled by the things that my friends 
across the aisle embrace and seem to hold sacred from toilets that 
require five gallons for every flush, to inefficient incandescent 
lightbulbs that even the market and consumers want nothing to do with, 
and, of course, today, we hear this love affair with lead.

  I think it is really important to remember that the science is really 
clear. Lead is harmful to both humans and wildlife. It causes 
neurological, behavioral, muscular, and cognitive impairment. The 
Center for Disease Control states there is no acceptable amount of lead 
exposure. None.
  In my home State of California and many other places, we have almost 
lost iconic species, the California condor in our case, because of lead 
ammunition and the way it bioaccumulates in the environment, especially 
for scavengers like the condor.
  We cannot save the condor, even though we have had a very successful 
reintroduction. There are signs we could recover this species, but we 
can't do it if we have this stubborn rule that restrictions on lead 
ammunition are off the table because of Republican ideology.
  Look, we have hundreds of studies documenting that lead ammo and 
tackle cause both acute and chronic lead poisoning. Its impact on 
hundreds of species and millions of individuals is not even debatable. 
Yet this bill requires a completely unworkable standard for fish and 
wildlife managers to even consider restricting lead.
  It would require the Secretary to determine that: a decline in 
wildlife population at the specific unit of Federal land or water, they 
would have to determine that lead is the primary cause of that decline, 
and they would have to use field data from that specific unit of 
Federal land or water.
  This is a completely unworkable standard. That is why the National 
Wildlife Refuge Association has pointed out that it is functionally 
impossible.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. WESTERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I am prepared to close, and I reserve the 
balance of my time.
  Mr. HUFFMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  Mr. Speaker, a lot of points have been made about this bill, but I 
think the one that needs discussion in my closing remarks is the fact 
that this bill seems to have achieved the unthinkable: It is bad for 
literally everyone.
  It is bad for wildlife as it restricts land managers' ability to 
limit harmful lead pollution in the environment. It conflicts with the 
Endangered Species Act, Migratory Bird Treaty Act, and land management 
laws, such as the National Wildlife Refuge Administration Act.
  It is bad for States. It is unclear whether Federal land managers 
could even carry out State laws that ban the use of certain types of 
lead ammunition or tackle on neighboring Federal lands.
  It is even bad for hunters and anglers who will be left with less 
land and water available for hunting and fishing because of this 
wrongheaded legislation.
  You might think that this bill would be a boon for the gun industry, 
but even there, it is hard to see how less land available for hunting 
would somehow lead to greater gun and ammunition sales.
  Most hunters and anglers want to contribute to improving wildlife 
conservation in this country, but this bill makes their efforts more 
difficult.
  At the end of the day, the only thing that this bill does is score a 
few cheap political points by yet again villainizing the big bad 
government for doing its job--in this case, for carrying out key 
wildlife conservation laws and keeping hunting areas open.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge all my colleagues to reject H.R. 615, and I yield 
back the balance of my time.
  Mr. WESTERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.

[[Page H2740]]

  Mr. Speaker, hunters and anglers are the backbone of American 
wildlife conservation efforts and are invested in the long-term health 
of wildlife.
  It is important that Congress comes to their defense against 
ideologically driven and unscientific decisions that limit access to 
our public lands.
  Now, Mr. Speaker, if the big bad government was really basing their 
actions on science, why did they randomly pick seven wildlife refuges? 
Why didn't they propose this across the Nation?
  Again, this is a classic sue and settle. They got sued by their 
friends in the radical environmental groups, and they decided to settle 
and give them a little consolation prize of a few wildlife refuges, 
thinking we might just turn our backs and say it was just a few 
refuges. They are just giving a little gift to their friends in the 
radical environmental movement. Let's go on and work on something else, 
but you have to stop these actions where they start.
  To be clear, this bill doesn't prevent the Federal Government from 
banning the use of lead ammunition and tackle, but it does say that any 
ban must be supported by site-specific science showing that the use of 
lead is harming wildlife in that refuge.
  It also requires that States be properly consulted when the Federal 
Government proposes to ban the use of lead. If some of my colleagues 
have an issue with that, they must ask themselves if they consider 
States to be partners in conserving wildlife or stakeholders who they 
can ignore.
  I believe that a true partnership between States and Federal 
Government and wildlife conservation is the best path forward, and this 
bill is a step in that direction.
  Mr. Speaker, I thank Congressman Wittman for his leadership on this 
legislation. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this bill, 
and I yield back the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 1173, the 
previous question is ordered on the bill, as amended.
  The question is on the engrossment and third reading of the bill.
  The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, and was 
read the third time.


                           Motion to Recommit

  Mrs. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, I have a motion to recommit at the desk.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will report the motion to 
recommit.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Mrs. Dingell of Michigan moves to recommit the bill H.R. 
     615 to the Committee on Natural Resources.
  The material previously referred to by Mrs. Dingell is as follows:

       Mrs. Dingell moves to recommit the bill H.R. 615 to the 
     Committee on Natural Resources with instructions to report 
     the same back to the House forthwith, with the following 
     amendment:
       Add at the end the following:

     SEC. 3. DETERMINATION.

       Notwithstanding any other provision of this Act, section 2 
     may not take effect until the Secretary of the Interior, 
     acting through the Director of the United States Fish and 
     Wildlife Service, and the Secretary of Agriculture, acting 
     through the Chief of the Forest Service, jointly determine, 
     in consultation with Indian Tribes, in coordination with 
     State wildlife agencies, and informed by the Hunting and 
     Wildlife Conservation Council, that the implementation of 
     such section will not result in a decrease in public lands 
     made available for hunting and fishing.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule XIX, the 
previous question is ordered on the motion to recommit.
  The question is on the motion to recommit.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the noes appeared to have it.
  Mrs. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, further 
proceedings on this question are postponed.

                          ____________________