[Congressional Record Volume 172, Number 49 (Wednesday, March 18, 2026)]
[House]
[Pages H2576-H2580]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
{time} 1420
PROTECTING ACCESS FOR HUNTERS AND ANGLERS ACT
Mr. WESTERMAN. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 1115, I call
up the bill (H.R. 556) 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 1115, the
amendment in the nature of a substitute recommended by the Committee on
Natural Resources, printed in the bill, is adopted and the bill, as
amended, is considered read.
The text of the bill, as amended, is as follows:
H.R. 556
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''.
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.
General Leave
Mr. WESTERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members
may have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and
include extraneous material on H.R. 556.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Arkansas?
There was no objection.
Mr. WESTERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 556, sponsored by my
colleague, the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wittman).
This commonsense bill protects hunters' and anglers' ability to
continue using cost-effective lead ammunition and fishing equipment on
our Federal lands. At the same time, this legislation gives land
management agencies the flexibility to make targeted decisions on lead
usage based on sound science and in coordination with State fish and
wildlife agencies.
In the United States, sportsmen and -women 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.
The success of this model is best characterized by the millions of
dollars that hunters and anglers pay for wildlife conservation each
year, mainly through excise taxes on firearms, ammunition, and fishing
tackle.
In fiscal year 2026, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service apportioned
over $800 million in receipts from excise taxes on firearms
manufacturers alone. Of that, nearly $700 million was for wildlife
restoration. Similarly, $442 million was generated from excise taxes on
fishing equipment for fish conservation.
It was with this in mind that the Trump administration changed the
paradigm for hunting and fishing on Federal lands earlier this year.
Historically, Federal lands were considered closed to hunting and
fishing unless specific regulations were issued to allow these
activities in certain places. With the signing of Secretarial Order No.
3447 by Secretary Burgum, Federal lands are now considered to be open
for hunting and fishing unless existing authorities and unit purposes
require an area to be closed.
This change charts a path forward toward opening thousands of acres
of
[[Page H2577]]
Federal land through responsible hunting and fishing. This new approach
will result in greater economic activity for local communities
surrounding our Federal lands and more funding for wildlife and habitat
conservation.
H.R. 556 will further these goals by ensuring that Federal land
management agencies follow specific science and coordinate with State
agencies when regulating the use of lead ammunition and fishing tackle.
Providing these safeguards is critical, as alternatives to lead
ammunition and fishing tackle are often cost prohibitive, with some
costing as much as 10 times more than similar lead products. Instead of
regulating hunters and anglers out of our Federal lands, the Trump
administration is working with State managers, conservation
organizations, and sportsmen and -women.
When lead is shown to cause harm to wildlife, it will be addressed
accordingly, but wide-reaching bans or even refuge-by-refuge bans,
where no specific science link can be made, are the wrong approach and
ultimately undermine 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, October 6, 2025.
Hon. Bruce Westerman,
Chairman, Committee on Natural Resources,
Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Chairman: This letter confirms our mutual
understanding regarding H.R. 556, the ``Protecting Access for
Hunters and Anglers Act of 2025.'' 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. 556 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, October 7, 2025.
Hon. Glenn Thompson,
Chairman, Committee on Agriculture,
Washington, DC.
Dear Chairman Thompson: I write regarding H.R. 556, the
``Protecting Access for Hunters and Anglers Act of 2025,''
which was ordered reported by the Committee on Natural
Resources on July 15, 2025.
I recognize that the bill contains provisions that fall
within the jurisdiction of the Committee on Agriculture and
appreciate your willingness to forgo further consideration of
the bill. I acknowledge that the Committee on Agriculture
will not formally consider H.R. 556 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 and will include such letters in
the committee report on H.R. 556. I appreciate your
cooperation regarding this legislation.
Sincerely,
Bruce Westerman,
Chairman.
Mr. HUFFMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, we are on day 19 of Trump's illegal war of choice with
Iran. So far, 13 American servicemembers are dead, and 200 more are
wounded. Gas prices have surged 80 cents a gallon just in the last 3
weeks. Grocery bills are climbing. Oil is over $100 a barrel. The
Strait of Hormuz is effectively closed.
Mr. Speaker, what is it, in the face of this chaos and calamity, that
the United States House of Representatives has chosen to do this week:
debate a bill about lead ammunition in our Nation's wildlife refuges.
Mr. Speaker, we should consider the iconic national symbol of the
bald eagle when we talk about this subject. Every year, bald eagles
across America die. They drop out of the sky in some cases because they
ate carcasses and remains that were laced with lead fragments.
Bald eagles are not alone. Lead poisoning has been documented in over
130 species: the common loon, condors, trumpeter swans, many species of
ducks, and even some mammals. For species already struggling on the
brink of extinction, each piece of spent ammunition or lost fishing
tackle left in the environment is another potential lethal dose of
lead.
We banned lead from gasoline. We banned it from paint. We banned it
from children's toys. We did that because lead is a known lethal
neurotoxin that never breaks down.
That same lead in the form of spent ammunition or lost fishing tackle
can kill wildlife, and it does so on our public lands and waters right
now, in some cases at levels that are far too high.
Mr. Speaker, Republicans are proposing a bill that would make this a
lot worse. H.R. 556 would block Federal land managers from using
commonsense, science-based safeguards, when necessary, to protect
wildlife from lead poisoning on Federal lands and waters.
The bill does have an exception, at least technically or
hypothetically. Agencies can act when a species decline is ``primarily
caused'' by lead. That evidentiary requirement and the standard that
goes with it, the way this bill is written, is going to be impossible
to meet.
The bill demands site-specific field data for each individual unit of
land, ignoring decades of peer-reviewed science and imposing costs that
most land units, already stretched thin by Trump's budget cuts, simply
cannot afford.
States are already moving to protect wildlife in many cases. Maine,
New Hampshire, and Vermont banned lead tackle to protect loon
populations. California banned lead ammunition to protect the
California condor. However, this bill creates a very murky legal
landscape that would undermine these safeguards, replacing State laws
and policies with a Federal mandate written by and for the gun lobby.
Most concerning, this bill claims to protect access for hunters and
anglers. Yet, in reality, the bill could result in less access for some
of America's biggest conservationists. The legislation conflicts with
the Endangered Species Act and with a 2022 settlement governing hunting
and fishing in the National Wildlife Refuge System.
Mr. Speaker, even under the Trump administration, the Fish and
Wildlife Service issued targeted lead restrictions in eight refuges,
specifically to open new hunting and fishing opportunities near
sensitive Endangered Species Act-listed wildlife species.
Yet, if this bill is enacted, the Fish and Wildlife Service would
have to close those sensitive areas for hunting and fishing entirely to
comply with the ESA. That is going to leave hunters and anglers with
fewer places to fish and hunt.
Transitioning away from lead is a step toward a more sustainable
future for the sport. We saw this in 1991 when the Federal Government
phased out lead shot for duck hunting. The gun lobby said at the time
all the same things that it is saying now: This will kill the sport.
People will be priced out. It will be the end of a way of life.
It was nonsense. It was wrong in every case. Waterfowl populations
rebounded, giving duck hunters more opportunities, more birds, and more
places to hunt.
{time} 1430
Proponents of this bill often claim banning lead will price out
hunters and anglers, but the data tells a very different story. An
analysis of 86 different bullet calibers and cartridge sizes found no
significant price difference between lead-free and lead-core ammunition
in popular calibers.
Switching to non-lead tackle can add less than 1 percent to the
average angler's total annual cost. In the handful of refuges that do
restrict lead to protect endangered species and to make sure that they
can continue hunting and fishing, the Fish and Wildlife Service already
offers vouchers and programs providing free or low-cost ammunition and
tackle to hunters and anglers.
Congress should always remember that our public lands belong to the
American people, not to the NRA and the gun lobby. H.R. 556 imposes a
Federal mandate to allow the spread of a known lethal toxin across our
Nation's
[[Page H2578]]
wildlife refuges, waterways, and the habitats that our children will
inherit.
My colleagues must reject this bill and let public land managers make
the tough calls and do their jobs.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. WESTERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
Virginia (Mr. Wittman), the vice chairman of the Committee on Natural
Resources and the lead sponsor of this legislation.
Before he takes his 3 minutes, I will mention that Mr. Wittman is not
only an active member of our committee, serving as vice chairman, and
the lead sponsor of this bill, but Mr. Wittman also holds degrees in
biology and public health and policy. I could actually call him Dr.
Wittman, with a Ph.D. He is also an avid outdoorsman. If there ever was
an expert in this area, I would consider Representative Wittman an
expert.
Mr. WITTMAN. Mr. Speaker, I thank Chairman Westerman for yielding.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 556, the
Protecting Access for Hunters and Anglers Act. This legislation
safeguards the rights of sportsmen and -women who play such a critical
role in the conservation of our lands and resources across our Nation.
As a lifelong hunter and recreational fisherman, I know firsthand how
important access to our public lands and waters is for America's
sportsmen and -women.
Hunters and anglers are some of the Nation's most dedicated
conservationists. They care deeply about the lands, and they
demonstrate that. Through the license fees that they pay, the excise
taxes that they pay, and on-the-ground stewardship, they have helped
fund wildlife management and habitat conservation for generations and
have been responsible stewards of the land.
Unfortunately, in recent years, we have seen efforts to restrict the
use of traditional lead ammunition and fishing tackle on Federal lands
and waters, policies that would have placed unnecessary burdens on
sportsmen and -women and limited the access to these outdoor traditions
that are so fundamental to what Americans cherish.
I appreciate the Trump administration and Secretary Burgum for taking
action through a Secretarial order to address this issue and protect
access for hunters and anglers, those true stewards of the great
resources that are part of this Nation.
This legislation builds on that effort by codifying these protections
in law, ensuring that future administrations cannot impose sweeping
restrictions that are not grounded in science or consistent with State
wildlife management authority.
The Protecting Access for Hunters and Anglers Act ensures that any
future restrictions on lead ammunition or tackle on Federal lands and
waters must be supported by sound science and aligned with State law.
Let me repeat that again. Counter to the gentleman from California's
statement, this requires a demonstration of sound science in
coordination with State management agencies.
State wildlife management agencies have primacy in managing the
resources in their States, and Congress should make sure that we honor
the regulations and requirements that they put in place to make sure
that hunters and anglers have access to the resources that belong to
them. These resources belong to the citizens of the United States of
America, everyone, not just a group that says, no, we want to restrict
access, or we want to use pseudoscience to say that there is a threat
here, or we want to state that a species that is actually on the road
to recovery is somehow threatened or endangered.
My colleagues can mislead, but the American people aren't going to
fall for that. The American people understand what this is about, and
that is allowing them to have access to the lands that they own and to
the resources that belong to all of us. That is what makes this Nation
great.
States have long been the primary managers of fish and wildlife. That
is their responsibility, and they are best positioned to make decisions
that balance conservation with continued access for hunters and
anglers. Congress should respect the States. The 10th Amendment tells
us to do so.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mr. WESTERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 1 minute to the
gentleman from Virginia.
Mr. WITTMAN. Mr. Speaker, this legislation will also help ensure that
participation in these outdoor traditions remains affordable, which
means they will be accessible.
Republicans want to reduce barriers that could prevent the next
generation of sportsmen and -women from getting involved. The young
folks of today want to be a part of the outdoors. Let's make sure we
don't stop that.
I was proud to see this bill pass the House last Congress, and I
remain committed to advancing it once again so that it can be sent to
the Senate and, ultimately, to President Trump's desk.
Protecting access for hunters and anglers means protecting the
conservation model that has sustained America's wildlife and public
lands for decades.
Mr. HUFFMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I have a couple of points. First of all, Federal
wildlife managers under current law already have to follow the best
available science. If they were to issue lead ammunition regulations
randomly, arbitrarily, in a way that contravenes science, they would
find themselves immediately in court, and those actions would be
overturned.
In terms of deference to State law and State wildlife managers, I
certainly agree with the gentleman on that. The problem is that many
States have actually taken steps to restrict lead ammunition and
tackle. This bill is so poorly written that it is not clear whether
Federal wildlife managers could continue to comply with those State
laws or whether they would have to ignore them and continue to allow
lead in those cases.
Those are several reasons why this bill, in addition to the policy
problems I have highlighted, is technically not ready for prime time.
Mr. Speaker, at this point, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from
Michigan (Mrs. Dingell).
Mrs. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, as a former chair and proud member of the
Congressional Sportsmen's Caucus, I have worked tirelessly to defend
our public lands and wildlife for the benefit of all outdoor
enthusiasts. I am here today on the floor to continue to fight for
healthy wildlife populations and to protect public lands access for our
Nation's hunters and fishers.
I have been warning my colleagues for years that this legislation, as
written, will undermine science-based conservation of wildlife and will
result in closures of areas to hunting and fishing.
The fact is that when land managers are allowed to follow the best
available science, restrictions on lead ammunition and tackle can be
used as a tool to expand access for hunters and fishers, not limit it.
This is especially important in places like national wildlife refuges,
where managers must ensure that hunting and fishing activities are
compatible with the refuge's purposes, including safeguarding
threatened and endangered species.
Even last fall, I saw new hunting and fishing opportunities combined
with restrictions on lead. The Trump administration's 2025 hunt-fish
rule combined these limited lead regulations for new hunting and
fishing opportunities with its Lead-Free Hunting Voluntary Incentive
Program.
For example, at Pocosin Lakes National Wildlife Refuge, they combined
a new opportunity for lead-free bear hunting with a program that
distributed all needed lead-free ammunition to hunters.
The bill as currently written undermines that effort by requiring
costly and unworkable unit-specific analysis before any regulation on
lead can be proposed. In many cases, this bureaucratic burden in H.R.
556 may cause entire units to be closed to hunting or fishing.
From an administrative perspective, it is less risky to remain in
compliance with the ESA and the National Wildlife Refuge System
Administration Act by closing units to hunting and fishing than to
navigate the complex process required by this bill.
Meanwhile, wildlife populations are under increasing pressure from a
range
[[Page H2579]]
of stressors, including habitat loss, disease, and climate change. Lead
contamination often contributes to population decline alongside these
other factors, and waiting until lead becomes the primary cause of harm
means we are acting too late.
That is why, at the appropriate time, I will offer a motion to
recommit this bill back to committee.
If House rules permitted, I would have offered the motion with an
important amendment to the bill.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Haridopolos). The time of the
gentlewoman has expired.
Mr. HUFFMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 1 minute to the
gentlewoman from Michigan.
{time} 1440
Mrs. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, my amendment ensures that land managers
can make science-based decisions to protect both wildlife and hunting
opportunities so they don't face a choice between keeping lands open to
hunting and fishing or protecting wildlife.
As someone who strongly supports our hunters and anglers, I want
these activities to remain sustainable and accessible for future
generations. Hunters and anglers are among conservation's greatest
champions, and they deserve our support.
Grounding conservation and recreation in sound science supports both
the natural resources we value and the outdoor traditions we cherish.
Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of my
amendment in 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 that will protect our Nation's rich
wildlife heritage for future generations.
Mr. WESTERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
I will point out that H.R. 556 checks the boxes. It allows State
agencies to make the rules on what kind of ammunition is being used. It
also allows for the best available science.
It has been argued almost like the science totally supports the ban
of lead, but I want to read from a quote from the Association of Fish &
Wildlife Agencies, who is actually the lead advocate for all State fish
and wildlife agencies here in Washington:
On the Biden administration's proposal to ban lead, I am quoting what
they testified:
Without definitive science conclusively and fully
documenting population-level impacts, we do not believe there
is sufficient evidence to support these mandates.
What the people closest to this issue said was that there is no
conclusive science that we should ban lead, yet that is what the
previous administration wanted to do and not only on fish and wildlife
refuges. They wanted to ban it not only for hunting but also for
fishing.
Fishing and hunting are sports that people in my district do that
maybe can't afford to do a lot of other activities. When you increase
the cost of ammunition or the cost of fishing tackle by a factor of 10,
you are going to price people out of that sport.
Going back to my opening comments, hunters and fishermen are the ones
who fund conservation in America through excise taxes, and a lot of
that comes from ammunition and fishing tackle.
What this would do is force more people out of those sports. It would
reduce funding for conservation, and it would create a downward spiral.
We need to use common sense. We need to use thorough, science-based
research, and we need to be able to make these decisions as they arise.
We are not preventing lead from being banned. We are not saying that
you can go back and use lead to hunt waterfowl and migratory species.
We are just saying to these fish and wildlife agencies, for certain
game, you can still use lead shot. We are not going to allow that to be
banned just because somebody has a political agenda to ban it.
This is a commonsense bill. It is good for hunting and fishing. It is
good for hunters and fishermen, and it is ultimately good for our
country and conservation. I strongly support it, and I reserve the
balance of my time.
Mr. HUFFMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time for
closing.
About this best available science, just to be very clear, best
available science is what wildlife managers have to do right now. If
they don't, any regulation that they promulgate involving lead tackle
or lead ammunition restrictions is going to be invalidated and will
mean nothing.
What this poorly written legislation would do, though, is substitute
a brand-new scientific standard that we have never seen. We have no
idea what it really means. It would have a narrow exception to allow
restrictions on lead ammunition or tackle on specific units of land if
the applicable Secretary determines that: ``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 the Federal land or water.''
These are very new and ambiguous terms. A simple reading would
suggest you have to do a complete forensic analysis that would, in the
real world, make this standard totally unattainable. It would
effectively mean you would never be able to regulate lead ammunition or
tackle, even when it was forcing the closure of hunting and fishing in
our National Wildlife Refuge System.
As the National Wildlife Refuge Association has pointed out, this is
an impossible standard because population monitoring data is not
available at the unit scale in most cases.
Mr. Speaker, we have heard a lot today about hunters and anglers, but
let's talk about what this bill actually does.
First, it is bad for wildlife. It strips our land managers of the
tools they need to limit lead, a known neurotoxin, on our public lands
and waters, putting the recovery of species like the bald eagle, our
national symbol, and the California condor at great risk of further
loss and potentially extinction. We cannot claim to support wildlife
while handcuffing the people tasked with managing it.
My colleagues across the aisle talk constantly about States' rights
and keeping the Federal Government out of local decisions. Then they
bring a bill like this that amounts to a Federal mandate preempting,
overriding, State laws on behalf of the gun lobby.
Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, and California have already banned
lead ammunition or tackle in some cases to limit lead and protect
wildlife. This bill would throw all of that into legal limbo. Land
managers wouldn't even know whether they can honor these State laws.
This bill also harms the very people it claims to champion: our
hunters and anglers. It creates a direct conflict with the Endangered
Species Act in ways that would force the Fish and Wildlife Service to
close off public lands currently open to fishing and hunting.
It does all of this for a problem that doesn't even exist. Lead-free
alternatives are widely available and cost about the same in most cases
for the most popular calibers. They have been working since 1991. Fewer
places to hunt and fish does not grow the outdoor economy, and the
places that have sensibly restricted lead tackle and ammunition have
not seen a reduction in hunting and fishing.
The people who actually use these lands--our hunters, anglers, and
families--are among the strongest conservationists in this country. We
agree on that. The last thing they need is for Congress to do favors
for the gun lobby at the expense of these lands and wildlife that they
love.
We banned lead from gasoline, from paint, and from children's toys. I
don't think anyone in this Chamber would argue for putting lead back in
any of those circumstances, but House Republicans are asking us,
through this bill, to guarantee the sacred place of lead in our
wildlife refuges. The people and the wildlife who depend on healthy
public lands would pay the price for that.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to see this bill for what it is, a
step backward for our environment and our economy, and vote ``no'' on
H.R. 556.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. WESTERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time for
closing.
[[Page H2580]]
Hunters and anglers are the backbone of American wildlife
conservation efforts, and they are heavily invested in the long-term
health of wildlife. It is important that Congress come to their defense
against ideologically driven, unscientific decisions that limit access
to our Federal public lands.
Mr. Speaker, I have a letter here supporting H.R. 556. I want to read
some of the names who signed onto this letter before I ask to include
it in the Record.
These are organizations like the American Catfishing Association,
American Sportfishing Association, Bass Anglers Sportsman Society,
Boone and Crockett Club, California Waterfowl Association, Catch-A-
Dream Foundation, Coastal Conservation Association, Congressional
Sportsmen's Foundation, Council to Advance Hunting and the Shooting
Sports, Dallas Safari Club, Delta Waterfowl, Ducks Unlimited,
International Game Fish Association, Major League Fishing, Mule Deer
Foundation, National Deer Association, National Professional Anglers
Association, National Rifle Association, National Shooting Sports
Foundation, Pheasants Forever, Public Lands Foundation, Quail Forever,
Safari Club International, Sportsmen's Alliance, The Bass Federation,
The Walleye Federation, Whitetails Unlimited, and Wildlife Forever.
{time} 1450
These organizations represent millions of Americans who participate
in outdoor recreation through hunting and fishing. I don't think they
would be signing a letter encouraging the passage of H.R. 556 if they
thought there was something that would endanger our fish and wildlife
populations in this bill.
Again, to be clear, this bill doesn't prevent the Federal Government
from making decisions regarding the use of lead ammunition and fishing
tackle, but it does say that any ban must be backed up by site-specific
science demonstrating that lead use 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. I believe that a true
partnership between States and the Federal Government in wildlife
conservation is the best path forward, and this bill is a step in the
right direction.
Mr. Speaker, I include this letter I just mentioned in the Record.
March 16, 2026.
Hon. Mike Johnson,
Speaker, House of Representatives,
Washington, DC.
Dear Speaker Johnson: The undersigned organizations,
representing millions of hunters, anglers, wildlife
professionals, and outdoor enthusiasts, write to express
support for the Protecting Access for Hunters and Anglers Act
(H.R. 556). Introduced by Congressman Rob Wittman, this
legislation would prohibit the Secretaries of Agriculture and
the Interior from restricting the use of lead ammunition or
tackle on certain federal lands and waters absent field data
demonstrating a science-based link to wildlife population
declines. Overly broad or arbitrary bans on traditional
ammunition and tackle can create unnecessary economic impacts
and hinder fish and wildlife conservation efforts. We
respectfully urge prompt House consideration of this
legislation.
Fish and wildlife are generally managed at the population
level, and--with limited exceptions--management authority
primarily resides with state fish and wildlife agencies. In
the rare cases where credible field data demonstrate impacts
to wildlife populations, state agencies already have the
authority to regulate ammunition or tackle use to achieve
conservation objectives while minimizing impacts on hunters
and anglers.
Wildlife management decisions should be guided by science
and the expertise of professional wildlife managers--not
political motivations, litigation, or ballot initiatives.
Restrictions on traditional ammunition and tackle on federal
lands should occur only with the support of the relevant
state fish and wildlife agency. H.R. 556 appropriately
reinforces this principle and affirms the central role of
states in wildlife management.
Broad bans can also discourage participation in hunting and
fishing, particularly when comparable alternatives are not
widely available at similar cost or performance. Reduced
participation has economic consequences and directly affects
conservation funding. Through excise taxes on firearms,
ammunition, and fishing tackle under the Pittman-Robertson
and Dingell-Johnson Acts, hunters and anglers provide the
primary source of funding for state wildlife conservation,
habitat restoration, research, and public access.
At the same time, we support efforts by federal agencies to
responsibly expand opportunities for hunting and fishing on
public lands. We commend the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
for proposing to expand hunting and sport fishing
opportunities across units of the National Wildlife Refuge
System and National Fish Hatchery System. Increasing access
supports the Refuge System's mission to facilitate compatible
wildlife-dependent recreation while strengthening
participation in the North American Model of Wildlife
Conservation.
For these reasons, we strongly support the Protecting
Access for Hunters and Anglers Act (H.R. 556) and encourage
the House to advance this legislation. We also appreciate
ongoing agency efforts to maintain and expand opportunities
for America's hunters and anglers on public lands.
Thank you for your leadership and continued service on
behalf of America's outdoor heritage.
Sincerely,
American Catfishing Association, American Sportfishing
Association, Bass Anglers Sportsman Society, Boone and
Crockett Club, California Waterfowl Association, Catch A
Dream Foundation, Coastal Conservation Association,
Congressional Sportsmen's Foundation, Council to Advance
Hunting and the Shooting Sports, Dallas Safari Club, Delta
Waterfowl, Ducks Unlimited, International Game Association,
Major League Fishing.
Mule Deer Foundation, National Deer Association, National
Professional Anglers Association, National Rifle Association,
National Shooting Sports Foundation, Pheasants Forever,
Public Lands Foundation, Quail Forever, Safari Club
International, Sportsmen's Alliance, The Bass Federation, The
Walleye Federation, Whitetails Unlimited, Wildflife Forever.
Mr. WESTERMAN. In closing, Mr. Speaker, I, again, thank Congressman
Wittman for his leadership in working on this legislation. I urge my
colleagues to join me in supporting the bill, and I yield back the
balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. All time for debate has expired.
Pursuant to House Resolution 1115, 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.
556 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. 556 to the
Committee on Natural Resources with instructions to report
the same back to the House forthwith, with the following
amendment:
Page 4, strike lines 5 through 9.
Page 4, after line 4, insert the following:
(1) based on the best available science, the use of lead in
ammunition or tackle may contribute to the decline of a fish
or wildlife population within that unit;
Page 4, line 21, strike ``located.'' and insert ``located;
and''.
Page 4, after line 21, insert the following:
(3) the prohibition or regulations, as applicable, will
allow for hunting or fishing in areas that would otherwise be
closed to hunting or fishing in accordance with applicable
Federal and State laws.
Page 4, line 25, strike ``paragraphs (1) and (2)'' and
insert ``paragraphs (1) through (3)''.
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.
____________________