[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.
____________________