Read twice and referred to the Committee on Environment and Public Works.
The bill bars the Department of the Interior and Department of Agriculture (through USFWS, BLM, and Forest Service) from banning the use of lead ammunition or fishing tackle on federal lands or waters made available for hunting or fishing. It also prevents those agencies from issuing regulations limiting lead levels in ammunition or tackle.
Liberal emphasizes wildlife and public-health harms from lead
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill clearly establishes a substantive legal restriction on Federal agencies’ ability to ban or regulate lead ammunition or tackle on Federal lands and waters available for hunting or fishing, with a limited exception for unit-specific actions supported by field data and aligned with State law or approval.
The bill bars the Department of the Interior and Department of Agriculture (through USFWS, BLM, and Forest Service) from banning the use of lead ammunition or fishing tackle on federal lands or waters made available for hunting or fishing.
It also prevents those agencies from issuing regulations limiting lead levels in ammunition or tackle.
An exception allows a site-specific prohibition or regulation if field data show wildlife declines primarily caused by lead and the measure aligns with or is approved by the relevant State fish and wildlife authority.
Narrow and low-cost but politically charged; passage depends on chamber majorities and appetite to constrain federal environmental regulation.
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill clearly establishes a substantive legal restriction on Federal agencies’ ability to ban or regulate lead ammunition or tackle on Federal lands and waters available for hunting or fishing, with a limited exception for unit-specific actions supported by field data and aligned with State law or approval. It identifies responsible actors and requires Federal Register explanation for exceptions.
Liberal emphasizes wildlife and public-health harms from lead
These are examples from the analysis, not a ranked list of the most-affected groups.
Liberal emphasizes wildlife and public-health harms from lead
Likely opposed because the bill restricts federal conservation tools addressing lead poisoning in wildlife and potential human health risks.
They will emphasize scientific evidence on lead impacts and worry this blocks nationwide protections and precautionary regulations.
Mixed reaction: appreciates state coordination and protecting recreational access, but concerned about tying federal action to narrow site data.
Wants clear standards, costs, and contingencies for public-health or widespread ecological problems.
Likely supportive because the bill prevents expansive federal bans, protects hunters’ and anglers’ access, and reinforces state authority over wildlife management.
It is seen as limiting federal overreach and regulatory burdens.
Reached or meaningfully advanced
Reached or meaningfully advanced
Still ahead
Still ahead
Still ahead
Narrow and low-cost but politically charged; passage depends on chamber majorities and appetite to constrain federal environmental regulation.
The bill has not accumulated any surfaced votes yet.
Liberal emphasizes wildlife and public-health harms from lead
Narrow and low-cost but politically charged; passage depends on chamber majorities and appetite to constrain federal environmental regulati…
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill clearly establishes a substantive legal restriction on Federal agencies’ ability to ban or regulate lead ammunition or tackle on Federal lands and waters available fo…
Go beyond the headline summary with full stakeholder mapping, legislative design analysis, passage barriers, and lens-by-lens tradeoff breakdowns.