[House Report 118-203]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
118th Congress} { REPT. 118-203
1st Session } HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES { Part 1
======================================================================
PROTECTING ACCESS FOR HUNTERS AND
ANGLERS ACT OF 2023
_______
September 20, 2023.--Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on
the State of the Union and ordered to be printed
_______
Mr. Westerman, from the Committee on Natural Resources, submitted the
following
R E P O R T
together with
DISSENTING VIEWS
[To accompany H.R. 615]
[Including cost estimate of the Congressional Budget Office]
The Committee on Natural Resources, to whom was referred
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., having
considered the same, reports favorably thereon with an
amendment and recommends that the bill as amended do pass.
The amendment is as follows:
Strike all after the enacting clause and insert the
following:
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.
PURPOSE OF THE LEGISLATION
The purpose of H.R. 615 is 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.
BACKGROUND AND NEED FOR LEGISLATION
Hunting and fishing are allowed at nearly 400 national
wildlife refuges, 35 wetland management districts, and 20
national fish hatcheries.\1\ Each of these units are managed
differently and, in some cases, hunting and fishing is only
allowed for certain species or in certain sections of a
particular refuge. In addition, hunting and fishing in the
National Wildlife Refuge System (System) is governed in
compatibility with state laws around hunting seasons and
licensing.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\``Hunting.'' U.S Fish and Wildlife Service. Hunting | U.S. Fish
& Wildlife Service (fws.gov).
\2\Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
According to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS),
``as practiced on refuges, hunting does not pose a threat to
the wildlife populations--and in some instances it is necessary
for sound wildlife management.''\3\ Science-based hunting is
used as a tool to manage species populations, like deer, that
if they become overpopulated can threaten habitat for other
vital species. The harvesting of wildlife on refuges is
intended to be regulated on a case-by-case basis based on the
conditions at each refuge unit, not by a one-size fits all
mandate system-wide.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\``Why Hunting is Allowed on National Wildlife Refuges.'' U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service. Why Hunting Is Allowed on Refuges | U.S.
Fish & Wildlife Service (fws.gov).
\4\Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On August 18, 2020, the Department of the Interior (DOI)
announced it was expanding hunting and fishing opportunities on
2.3 million acres across 147 national wildlife refuges and
national fish hatcheries.\5\ In response, the Center for
Biological Diversity (CBD) filed suit against the DOI in the
U.S. District Court for the District of Montana on November 29,
2021.\6\ In its suit, CBD stated the effects of lead ammunition
and tackle would negatively impact endangered species that
inhabit the System.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\``Secretary Bernhardt Announces Historic Expansion of Hunting
and Fishing Opportunities on Public Lands.'' U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service. August 18, 2020. Secretary Bernhardt Announces Historic
Expansion of Hunting and Fishing Opportunities on Public Lands | U.S.
Fish & Wildlife Service (fws.gov).
\6\``Greens sue to block expanded hunting on wildlife refuges.''
Michael Doyle. E&E News. November 29, 2021. Greens sue to block
expanded hunting on wildlife refuges--E&E News (eenews.net).
\7\Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On November 30th, 2022, the USFWS and CBD reached a
settlement agreement that mandated USFWS to take steps to
protect wildlife ``harmed by expanded hunting and fishing'' on
refuges.\8\ Also included in the settlement were USFWS promises
to expand lead ammunition bans as a part of the 2023-2024
annual rule governing management of the System. USFWS also
agreed to respond to CBD's petition to ban lead ammunition and
fishing tackle across all refuges,\9\ which the Service denied
on June 7, 2023.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\``Biden's war on hunting faces blowback from Republicans,
sportsmen groups.'' Thomas Catenucci. Fox News. April 30, 2023. https:/
/www.foxnews.com/politics/bidens-war-hunting-faces-blowback-
republicans-sportsmen-groups.
\9\Id.
\10\``The Association Support the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's
Decision to Reject CBD's petition.'' Association of Fish & Wildlife
Agencies. June 7, 2023. AFWA Supports USFWS Decision to Reject CBDs
Petition: Association of Fish & Wildlife Agencies (fishwildlife.org).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On June 22, 2023, the USFWS followed through on the
settlement agreement by proposing to ban the use of lead
ammunition and tackle by 2026 in seven specified national
wildlife refuge (NWR) areas: Blackwater NWR in Maryland,
Eastern Neck NWR Maryland, Erie NWR in Pennsylvania, Great
Thicket NWR in Maine, Patuxent Research Refuge in Maryland,
Rachel Carson NWR in Maine and Wallops Island NWR in
Virginia.\11\ In addition, lead ammunition, but not tackle,
would be banned in the Chincoteague NWR in Virginia and
Maryland.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\88 FR 41058.
\12\Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
A ban on cost-effective traditional lead ammunition and
tackle has an impact on sportsmen participation and therefore
dollars going into wildlife conservation. Increasing costs on
consumers could result in a substantial decrease in hunting and
fishing participation and, by extension, conservation funding.
The Pittman-Robertson Wildlife Restoration Act (16 U.S.C. 669
et seq.) and Dingell-Johnson Act (16 U.S.C. 777 et seq.)
require that the sale of hunting and fishing equipment have an
excise tax attached to it that is paid by manufacturers and,
ultimately, consumers.\13\ In Fiscal Year 2023, U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service received $1.2 billion in receipts from
Pittman-Robertson\14\ and $425 million in receipts from
Dingell-Johnson.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\``The Pittman-Robertson Wildlife Restoration Act.'' Erin H.
Ward, Pervaze A. Sheikh, and Mark K. DeSantis. Congressional Research
Service. The Pittman-Robertson Wildlife Restoration Act (congress.gov)
and ``Sport Fish Restoration.'' U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Sport
Fish Restoration | U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service (fws.gov).
\14\``Certificate of Apportionment Pittman-Robertson Wildlife
Restoration Act FY23''. Martha Williams. U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service. January 30, 2023. Certificate of Apportionment Pittman-
Robertson Wildlife Restoration.pdf (fws.gov).
\15\``FY 23--Certificate of Apportionment for Dingell-Johnson Sport
Fish Restoration.'' Martha Williams. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
January 30, 2023. Certificate of Apportionment for Dingell-Johnson
Sport Fish Restoration.pdf (fws.gov).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In 2021, the National Shooting Sports Foundation concluded
that lead-free hunting ammunition is on average 24.66 percent
more expensive than lead ammunition.\16\ In addition, the cost
of raw materials to manufacture lead alternatives compared to
traditional lead is substantial, with copper being four times
more expensive than lead ($8.49/kg for copper vs. $2.17/kg for
lead).\17\ For fishing tackle, the cost of lead-free
alternatives is even more stark. For example, tin, a leading
alternative costs $13.04/lb. compared to $0.98/lb. for
lead.\18\ This price difference could increase if a System-wide
ban on lead ammunition and fishing tackle is put in place, as
the demand for copper and other alternatives will most likely
increase due to market conditions. After years of decline,
participation in hunting and fishing activities increased
substantially during the pandemic.\19\ Increasing participation
costs on consumers by increasing the cost of popular hunting
ammunition and fishing tackle, could result in a substantial
decrease in hunting and fishing participation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\16\``2021 Economic Impact of Ban on Traditional Ammunition in the
United States.'' National Shooting Sports Foundation. https://
naturalresources.house.gov/uploadedfiles/2021_economic_
impact_banning_traditional_ammo_united_states_pdf.pdf.
\17\``Copper Commodity Price.'' Markets Insider. May 8, 2023.
https://markets.businessinsider.
com/commodities/copper-price and ``Lead Commodity Price.'' Markets
Insider. May 8, 2023. https://markets.businessinsider.com/commodities/
lead-price.
\18\``Tin Metal Price.'' Daily Metal Price. May 8, 2023. Daily
Metal Price: Tin Price (USD / Pound) Chart for the Last 2 Years.
\19\``Hunting pastime spikes during pandemic. Conservationists are
glad. Here's why.'' Alex Brown. The Washington Post. Hunting pastime
spikes during pandemic. Conservationists are glad. Here's why.--The
Washington Post.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMITTEE ACTION
H.R. 615 was introduced on January 27, 2023, by Rep. Robert
J. Wittman (R-VA). The bill was referred to the Committee on
Natural Resources, and within the Committee to the Subcommittee
on Water, Wildlife and Fisheries. The bill was also referred to
the Committee on Agriculture. On May 10, 2023, the Subcommittee
on Water, Wildlife and Fisheries held a hearing on the bill. On
June 21, 2023, the Committee on Natural Resources met to
consider the bill. The Subcommittee on Water, Wildlife and
Fisheries was discharged from further consideration of H.R. 615
by unanimous consent. Rep. Wittman (R-VA) offered an amendment
in the nature of a substitute, designated Wittman ANS_061.
Ranking Member Raul Grijalva (D-AZ) offered an amendment to the
amendment in the nature of a substitute, designated Grijalva #1
Revised. The amendment to the amendment in the nature of a
substitute was not adopted by a roll call vote of 16 yeas to 20
nays, as follows:
Rep. Debbie Dingell (D-MI) offered an amendment to the
amendment in the nature of a substitute, designated Dingell #2.
The amendment to the amendment in the nature of a substitute
was not adopted by a roll call vote of 16 yeas to 20 nays, as
follows:
The amendment in the nature of a substitute offered by Rep.
Wittman was adopted by voice vote. The bill, as amended, was
then ordered favorably reported to the House of Representatives
by a roll call vote of 21 yeas to 15 nays, as follows:
HEARINGS
For the purposes of clause 3(c)(6) of House rule XIII, the
following hearing was used to develop or consider this measure:
hearing by the Subcommittee on Water, Wildlife and Fisheries
held on May 10, 2023.
SECTION-BY-SECTION ANALYSIS
Section 1. Short title
Section 1 establishes the short title of the bill as the
``Protecting Access for Hunters and Anglers Act of 2023''.
Section 2. Protecting access for hunters and anglers on federal land
and water
Section 2 prohibits the Secretaries of the Interior and
Agriculture from banning the use of lead ammunition or tackle
on federal land or water that is under their jurisdiction and
made available for hunting or fishing activities. In addition,
the Secretaries may not issue regulations relating to the level
of lead in ammunition or tackle to be used on Federal land or
water.
The bill allows the Secretaries to exempt a particular unit
of federal land or water if the relevant Secretary determines a
decline in wildlife population at that specific unit is
primarily caused by the use of lead in ammunition or tackle,
and the prohibition is consistent with state law, or state fish
and wildlife policy or regulations governing that unit.
COMMITTEE OVERSIGHT FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Regarding clause 2(b)(1) of rule X and clause 3(c)(1) of
rule XIII of the Rules of the House of Representatives, the
Committee on Natural Resources' oversight findings and
recommendations are reflected in the body of this report.
COMPLIANCE WITH HOUSE RULE XIII AND
CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET ACT
1. Cost of Legislation and the Congressional Budget Act.
With respect to the requirements of clause 3(c)(2) and (3) of
rule XIII of the Rules of the House of Representatives and
sections 308(a) and 402 of the Congressional Budget Act of
1974, the Committee has received the following estimate for the
bill from the Director of the Congressional Budget Office:
H.R. 615 would prohibit the Departments of Agriculture and
the Interior from banning the use of lead hunting ammunition
and fishing tackle or limiting the amount of lead in those
items on property under their jurisdiction. That prohibition
would not apply at a specific location if the agency determines
that lead ammunition or tackle is the primary cause of a
decline in wildlife in that location.
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (part of the Department
of the Interior) has adopted regulations that, beginning in
2026, will limit the use of lead ammunition for hunting in some
refuges. Based on the costs of similar activities, CBO
estimates that it would cost less than $500,000 over the 2023-
2028 period to implement H.R. 615, including rescinding the
current rule and reverting to prior regulations. Such spending
would be subject to the availability of appropriated funds.
Under current law, ammunition sales are taxed at a rate of
11 percent of the sales price and those revenues are deposited
into the Federal Aid to Wildlife Restoration Fund. Those funds
are available to be spent without further appropriation for
wildlife restoration, conservation, and hunter education and
safety. CBO estimates that enacting the bill could affect those
revenues and consequent spending but the directions of those
changes are uncertain. To the extent the change increases sales
of ammunition overall, revenues would increase. But to the
extent hunters substitute less expensive lead ammunition for
more expensive alternatives, revenues would decline.
The CBO staff contact for this estimate is Matthew
Pickford. The estimate was reviewed by H. Samuel Papenfuss,
Deputy Director of Budget Analysis.
Phillip L. Swagel,
Director, Congressional Budget Office.
2. General Performance Goals and Objectives. As required by
clause 3(c)(4) of rule XIII, the general performance goal or
objective of this bill is 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.
EARMARK STATEMENT
This bill does not contain any Congressional earmarks,
limited tax benefits, or limited tariff benefits as defined
under clause 9(e), 9(f), and 9(g) of rule XXI of the Rules of
the House of Representatives.
UNFUNDED MANDATES REFORM ACT STATEMENT
According to the Congressional Budget Office, H.R. 615
contains no unfunded mandates as defined by the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act.
EXISTING PROGRAMS
Directed Rule Making. This bill does not contain any
directed rule makings.
Duplication of Existing Programs. This bill does not
establish or reauthorize a program of the federal government
known to be duplicative of another program. Such program was
not included in any report from the Government Accountability
Office to Congress pursuant to section 21 of Public Law 111-139
or identified in the most recent Catalog of Federal Domestic
Assistance published pursuant to the Federal Program
Information Act (Public Law 95-220, as amended by Public Law
98-169) as relating to other programs.
APPLICABILITY TO LEGISLATIVE BRANCH
The Committee finds that the legislation does not relate to
the terms and conditions of employment or access to public
services or accommodations within the meaning of section
102(b)(3) of the Congressional Accountability Act.
PREEMPTION OF STATE, LOCAL OR TRIBAL LAW
Any preemptive effect of this bill over state, local, or
tribal law is intended to be consistent with the bill's
purposes and text and the Supremacy Clause of Article VI of the
U.S. Constitution.
CHANGES IN EXISTING LAW
As ordered reported by the Committee on Natural Resources,
H.R. 615 makes no changes in existing law.
DISSENTING VIEWS
H.R. 615 would bar the Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS),
Bureau of Land Management (BLM), and the U.S. Forest Service
(USFS) from prohibiting or regulating the use of lead
ammunition or tackle on federal land or water made available
for hunting or fishing under such departments' jurisdiction.
The bill makes exceptions for cases in which the applicable
department 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 such unit, and if such regulation complies with state
laws or the state approves the rules.
This bill would undermine federal land managers' ability to
regulate lead pollution that poses a risk to wildlife and
humans on the land they manage. This contamination can pose a
significant threat to wildlife and the threatened or endangered
species occupying those lands. Weakening such safeguards also
conflicts with the National Refuge System Administration Act,
which mandates that any activities in a refuge be compatible
with the aims of the refuge. It is also unclear how this
legislation would affect state laws and local regulations, such
as the State of Maine's ban on lead ammunition and tackle,
enacted after loons were found particularly susceptible to lead
poisoning.
Lead exposure from tackle and ammunition left in the
environment poses a significant health risk to wildlife,
reducing species growth and survival rates. However, lead's
abundance, low cost, and malleability make it attractive for
fishing weights and ammunition. Lead fishing tackle and spent
ammunition has been found in over 130 species, leading to lead
poisoning of wildlife--which has devastated species like the
common loon, California condor, and the bald eagle.
Alternative forms of ammunition and tackle made of steel,
copper, tin, and bismuth are easily accessible and just as
effective as lead-based materials. The cost of transitioning
away from lead-based ammunition has not been a barrier to
participation in other areas where lead bans are in place, for
example in Denmark 20 years after a lead ammunition ban was
emplaced more hunters were registered than ever before.\1\
Additionally, a study released in 2013 included an analysis of
35 calibers of bullet and 51 cartridge sizes. It found no
significant difference in lead-free and lead-core ammunition
retail pricing in most of the popular calibers.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\Kanstrup, N. 2015. Practical and social barriers to switching
from lead to non-toxic gunshot--a perspective from the EU. In
Proceedings of the Oxford Lead Symposium. Lead ammunition:
Understanding and minimising the risks to human and environmental
health, eds. R.J. Delahay and C.J. Spray, 98-103. Oxford: Edward Grey
Institute, The University of Oxford. https://pure.au.dk/portal/da/
persons/niels-kanstrup(c0a7ebef-aa1c-4db0-946a-63a5390e0806)/publ
ications/practical-and-social-barriers-to-switching-from-lead-to-
nontoxic-gunshot(3c7853e8-8424-4381-878e-db040a70ef80).html.
\2\https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3758820/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
A 2005 report estimates the average angler will spend less
than 1% more on fishing costs if they switch to non-lead
materials, compared to current fishing related expenditures.\3\
Similarly, a 2008 technical review on the implications of a
lead tackle ban cites an average additional cost between $5-25
to transition to non-lead tackle.\4\ While alternative
materials may have different physical characteristics and
greater costs than lead, it is important to consider the costs
to wildlife, human, and ecosystem health that comes with the
continued use of lead.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\https://www.pca.state.mn.us/sites/default/files/leadfree-
canada2005.pdf.
\4\Sources and implications of lead ammunition and fishing tackle
on natural resources. Technical Review 08-01. June 2008. https://
wildlife.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/05/Lead08-1.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ammunition regulations, including those mandating non-toxic
ammunition, have proven to be practical in managing lead
exposure. For example, lead shot was outlawed for waterfowl
shooting in 1991, making non-lead shots more affordable and
significantly improving the blood and bone lead levels in
various waterfowl species.\5\ In addition, 35 states have
tightened lead ammunition limitations beyond the federal
waterfowl regulation of 1991.\6\ The National Park Service and
the U.S. Department of Agriculture's Animal and Plant Health
Inspection Service (APHIS) have also implemented regulations
prohibiting lead ammunition and investing in non-toxic
ammunition. Some states have enacted legislation to ban the use
of lead fishing sinkers. New Hampshire began enforcing a ban on
lead sinkers in 2000, and Maine, Vermont, Massachusetts, and
New York followed soon after.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\V.G. Thomas. 2009. The policy and legislative dimensions of
nontoxic shot and bullet use in North America.
\6\V.G. Thomas. 2014. Availability and Use of Nonlead Rifle
Cartridges and Nontoxic Shot for Hunting in California, with Reference
to Regulations used in Various Jurisdictions & Survey of California
Ammunition Retailers to Assess Availability of Nonlead Ammunition.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
H.R. 615 preempts land managers from limiting pollutants on
federal lands, some of which are managed with the explicit
mission of promoting the conservation of wildlife species.
While this bill makes exceptions for instances where lead is
linked to a decline in a wildlife population, the decline must
be documented in the specific unit of the National Wildlife
Refuge System. This would require significant funds, even if
there is robust scientific evidence that certain species are
highly susceptible to lead poisoning. It would be cost-
prohibitive, as land units typically lack the budget or staff
capacity to commission or carry out such research. Expert
testimony in this hearing stated, ``the studies that this bill
would require just cannot be done. It would be impossible given
the parameters of those studies.'' Given these hurdles, a
likely outcome of this bill is a loss of access to areas for
hunters and anglers that could otherwise be available for
hunting and fishing.
Finally, this bill appears to be an attempt by some in
Congress to support the powerful gun lobby, which is not how we
should be deciding on the future of our National Wildlife
Refuge System. In the legislative hearing on this bill, some
Members of the Committee made it clear their intention with the
bill is to further gun ownership, asserting that lead bans will
price people out of owning guns. At least to some, the purpose
of this bill apparently is really to prevent the government
from mandating ammunition, on the view that ``you cannot
control guns, you cannot mandate guns, but what you can mandate
is the ammo and that's what this lead bill is after.'' We
should not undermine state and local laws or federal land
managers' ability to regulate the discharge of deadly
pollutants in public lands and waterways just to accommodate
the gun lobby.
Raul M. Grijalva,
Ranking Member, House Committee on Natural Resources.
[all]