Protecting Access for Hunters and Anglers Act
Floor Speech
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
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.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. WESTERMAN. 556.
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 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.
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.
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.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. WESTERMAN.
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.
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.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
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.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Source