House panel hears competing testimony on H.R. 556 over lead-ammunition limits

At a House Committee on Rules meeting, members heard extended testimony from Chairman Bruce Westerman and Representative Joe Randall of the Natural Resources Committee about H.R. 556, the Protecting Access for Hunters and Anglers Act.

Chairman Westerman told the committee H.R. 556 would "ensure that any ban on using lead ammunition and fishing tackle on federal land is based on site specific data and coordinated with state game and fish agencies," arguing that federal bans should not be imposed without unit-level science and that the bill would protect hunting and fishing access while relying on state expertise. He referenced Secretarial Order 3447 and said recent departmental changes aim to open federal lands to hunting and fishing unless unit purpose requires closure.

Representative Randall pushed back that the bill would create an impractical evidentiary standard that could block conservation measures. Randall said the "science is settled: lead kills wildlife," and warned that requiring exhaustive, unit-specific forensic studies would be impossible for chronically underfunded refuges, citing that dozens of refuges have no or insufficient staff to perform such studies. She called the bill a political measure that would in practice protect ammunition manufacturers and could force managers to close areas rather than undertake costly studies.

During questioning, members and witnesses discussed the cost and performance of non-lead alternatives. Some witnesses and members noted that, for certain uses, non-lead options such as tungsten or bismuth shot are more expensive (testimony cited retail examples where non-lead options were $8 higher on a sample item and premium lead options could cost more than some non-lead options). Members also noted examples of state-level actions, buyback programs and retailer partnerships that aim to reduce wildlife exposure without a blanket federal ban.

Supporters emphasized that the bill preserves regulation where site-specific science shows harm, and opponents said the bill would raise the bar for action so high that necessary protections would be delayed or prevented. The hearing record includes data points and price examples provided by witnesses; members asked the Natural Resources panel to submit underlying studies for the record.

The committee moved from the hearing to consideration of rules for the House floor, where the Rules Committee later voted to report a closed rule covering H.R. 556 alongside other bills.

The committee adjourned after voting on the rule; no floor action on H.R. 556 was taken during this meeting.