[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]