Hill Heat

The Committee on Rules will meet Monday, March 16, 2026 at 4:00 PM ET in H-313, The Capitol on the following measures:

• H.R. 1958 – Deporting Fraudsters Act of 2026, to amend the Immigration and Nationality Act to clarify that aliens who have been convicted of defrauding the United States Government or the unlawful receipt of public benefits are inadmissible and deportable
• H.R. 4638 – Bill to Outlaw Wounding of Official Working Animals Act of 2025, to amend the Immigration and Nationality Act to provide that an alien who has been convicted of harming animals used in law enforcement is inadmissible and deportable
• H.R. 556 – Protecting Access for Hunters and Anglers Act (Text, Committee Report)

H.R. 556, the ‘‘Protecting Access for Hunters and Anglers Act of 2025,’’ would undermine science-based wildlife conservation by prohibiting federal land managers from regulating lead ammunition and tackle—known pollutants that have devastated wildlife populations across the United States. This legislation ignores decades of scientific evidence demonstrating that lead ammunition and fishing tackle pose grave threats to over 130 species, including iconic birds like bald eagles, California condors, and common loons.

The scientific consensus is clear: when lead ammunition is used in hunting, bullets fragment and contaminate gut piles that scavenger animals consume, while lead fishing tackle is mistaken for food or grit by waterbirds. It takes only tiny amounts of lead to kill large birds, making this a significant conservation concern on federal lands specifically managed to protect wildlife.

Rather than supporting evidence-based land management, H.R. 556 would strip federal agencies of their fundamental authority to regulate pollutants on lands under their stewardship. This legislation would effectively handcuff land managers from protecting wildlife on National Wildlife Refuges—areas explicitly managed with the mission of conserving wildlife. By requiring agencies to prove that wildlife population declines are ‘‘primarily caused’’ by lead ammunition in each specific management unit, the bill would create an impossibly high and cost-prohibitive standard that most land units lack the budget or staff capacity to meet.

Ironically, as written, this bill could also preempt the authority of states to limit the use of lead in hunting or fishing. At least 38 states currently have lead ammunition and tackle restrictions in place, demonstrating that this is not a federal overreach but a widespread conservation strategy. States like Arizona, New Hampshire, Maine, and Minnesota have demonstrated remarkable success with lead fishing tackle bans, protecting wildlife while ensuring continued access for sportsmen and women through gear exchange programs, non-lead materials discounts, and incentives for lead removal.

By blocking federal agencies from using the best available science to make determinations about lead restrictions, this bill prioritizes ideology over evidence and threatens the long-term stewardship of our public lands and wildlife. The legislation could have numerous unintended consequences, including forcing land closures to protect species that could otherwise be managed through targeted lead restrictions.

This bill represents a dangerous step backward for wildlife conservation at a time when we should be building on the proven success of existing lead reduction programs. Rather than addressing the documented impacts of lead on wildlife, H.R. 556 would make conservation and management more difficult while undermining the very lands and wildlife that provide hunting and fishing opportunities for future generations.

Previous analyses have shown no significant price difference between lead-free and lead-core ammunition in popular calibers, with annual cost differences for anglers of only $5–25 per year 3—comparable to other minor hunting expenses. In contrast, the Trump administration’s sweeping tariffs on imported metals and ammunition components are driving up costs for all ammunition—both lead and non-lead—making the modest price differences between ammunition types a negligible concern compared to the broader affordability crisis facing sportsmen and women.

The robust body of scientific literature supporting lead restrictions reflects decades of research and successful implementation. H.R. 556 ignores this evidence and sets a troubling precedent for politics to override science in federal land management decisions, ultimately threatening both wildlife conservation and sustainable hunting and fishing opportunities.