Protecting Access for Hunters and Anglers Act

Mr. Speaker, happy St. Patrick's Day to everybody. I thank the gentlewoman from North Carolina, the distinguished chairwoman of the Rules Committee, for whom I have much admiration and respect, for yielding me the customary 30 minutes.

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, what on Earth are we doing here? Yesterday, the President of the United States spent an hour at lunch talking about the Kennedy Center--you know, the place he slapped his name on before basically running it into the ground.

Today, the Congress of the United States is spending an hour debating messaging bills that totally ignore the realities of what is going on in people's everyday lives.

Does anyone on the other side of the aisle realize that the United States of America is at war right now? Does anyone in the Republican Conference want to acknowledge that costs are up, corruption is running rampant, and everyday people are getting screwed?

They promised lower costs on day one. That is what Donald Trump promised. Guess what. Gas is up, thanks to the war in Iran. Groceries are up, thanks to the tariffs. Rent is up. Childcare is up. Healthcare is up, with millions of Americans paying double and triple for their health insurance and over a million losing it altogether because of Republican inaction.

Do Republicans plan to do anything about any of that? No.

This is what they did instead. They jammed through a big, ugly bill to help billionaires. They defend Trump's tariffs that are raising costs on working people. They continue to cover up for the predators in the Epstein files. Now, they are backing another illegal war in the Middle East that is costing over a billion dollars a day in taxpayer money.

But they are not talking about any of that. They keep bringing distraction after distraction to the House floor, bills meant to waste time, divide people, and shift the blame from billionaires onto immigrants. That is their whole playbook.

Don't look over here at Epstein elites and billionaire corporations who are ripping us off, breaking the law, and getting away with it. No, no, no. Blame the immigrants. Blame trans kids. Blame Joe Biden. Blame everybody but the President and his billionaire buddies. It is getting old, and I, for one, am sick and tired of it.

This President and my friends on the other side, who are refusing to rein him in because they are all afraid of him, are burning a billion dollars a day of American taxpayer money on a war halfway around the world. That is $1 billion a day. Let me repeat that: $1 billion a day.

There is no more money to help seniors heat their homes. They say we don't have it. There is no money to help kids get healthy breakfasts in school. There is no money to restore SNAP benefits to help seniors and veterans afford groceries. There is no more money to help working families breathe easier or sleep better at night.

I am just sick and tired of this, Mr. Speaker. There is always money for war. There is always money for another tax break for multimillionaires, billionaires, and giant corporations. There is always time to debate silly bills that try to shift the blame onto immigrants and trans kids, but there is never the time or the money to address the real and pressing issues that the American people are begging Republicans to help them with.

This is an embarrassing debate. This is an embarrassing moment for this Congress. While everybody in this country is in an uproar over rising costs, people are begging us to address that issue, to lower costs, and to help make their lives easier. While that is what is on the minds of the American people, Republicans can't bring themselves to bring legislation to the floor to address those issues. It really is sad. It really is sad.

Again, I think that my friends are going to realize come the midterm elections that people have had enough of this. But really people can't wait until the next election. People need us to address these concerns now.

This is an embarrassing debate, I urge a ``no'' vote, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I am just going to respond to the gentlewoman because she wants me to address some of the underlying bills. One of them, H.R. 4638, is the so-called BOWOW Act of 2025. We are debating something and saying that it should be illegal when it already is illegal. It is kind of redundant.

Under the Immigration and Nationality Act, a noncitizen who is convicted of a crime involving moral turpitude is subject to removal. In 2018, the Board of Immigration Appeals found that the crime of animal fighting is a crime involving moral turpitude because there is a clear intent to harm an animal.

Let me read to you how this bill we are talking about came to be. On June 24, 2025, canine detective and U.S. Customs and Border Protection Beagle Brigadier Freddie and his handler were inspecting baggage from Cairo, Egypt. Beagle Brigadier Freddie's job is to sniff out prohibited agriculture products at the border that could threaten vital agricultural industries.

Beagle Brigadier Freddie alerted to one of the suitcases being transported by Hamed Ramadan Bayoumy Aly Marie, an Egyptian national. As Beagle Brigadier Freddie continued his investigation, his handler began questioning Mr. Marie who abruptly and violently kicked the canine detective. The kick was of such force that it launched Beagle Brigadier Freddie, a 25-pound beagle, off the ground. After examination by a veterinarian, it was determined that Beagle Brigadier Freddie suffered contusions on his right ribs following the attack.

Mr. Marie was taken into custody and charged with harming animals used in law enforcement under the law. He pleaded guilty. He was ordered to pay Freddie's vet bill, and he was deported back to Egypt. That is the law.

What the hell are we doing here? I mean, we are repeating what was already in the law.

I guess the difference would be if the bill that the gentlewoman is advocating actually became law, then Mr. Marie would escape any kind of financial responsibility of paying Freddie's vet bill. I don't think we want that. But this was a deportable act, and this gentleman was deported.

When I say that this is a distraction, this is what I am talking about. Again, we are spending a billion dollars a day, my friends, on this war in Iran, and nobody knows what the hell is going on.

Gas prices are through the roof. The cost of everything is going up. We are here on the floor basically trying to bring bills that restate current law?

I would even say that in this case it weakens current law.

I have got to tell you, Mr. Speaker, I think things are screwed up around here when our focus is on the stuff that we are bringing to the floor today and not on trying to lower the costs for the American people.

Life is hard. I don't know whether my friends go home and talk to their constituents or do townhalls or do town meetings, but if they do, they are hearing what I am hearing: Life is too damn expensive.

People want us to address the high costs, and we are not doing that. We are not doing that, and Republicans refuse to bring legislation to the floor to address that issue. Instead, we do this.

Mr. Speaker, I am a huge animal rights advocate, and so I want people who abuse animals to be deported. I don't have any problem with that, but that is the law. We are bringing this to the floor, and we are not doing a damn thing about addressing the high costs that Americans are facing each and every day. Something is wrong with this place.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Let me read for my colleagues a statement from the national director of the National Economic Council, Mr. Hassett, who works for President Trump.

This is his quote: ``If the war were to be extended, it wouldn't really disrupt the U.S. economy very much at all. It would hurt consumers, and we'd have to think about what we'd have to do about that, but that's really the last of our concerns right now.''

This is from Trump's top economic adviser. This is a direct quote from him.

He says that hurting consumers is the last of our concerns right now.

This guy should be fired. This is outrageous. We all should be worried about consumers. Those are our constituents. When prices are going up, people cannot make ends meet. They can't afford their rent, they can't afford their healthcare, and they can't afford their groceries.

Madam Speaker, they can't afford a damn thing, and this is what Trump's top economic adviser says: The consumers are really the last of our concerns right now?

Does anything outrage my Republican colleagues?

Can anybody in the Trump administration say anything that might give them pause and that might cause them concern?

This is outrageous. Three out of four Americans say that groceries are so expensive that they have been forced to cut down on other spending.

Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to include in the Record an article from Fortune titled: ``Three in four Americans say groceries are so expensive they've been forced to cut down on other spending.''

Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert in the Record an article from CBS8 titled: ``National average gas prices now nearly 90 cents higher than one month ago.''

Madam Speaker, I hate to tell my Republican friends this, but here is a news flash: The American people are struggling. They are desperately looking for us to take action to make their lives easier, to help them be able to afford groceries, to be able to afford gas prices, and to be able to afford to support their families.

While we are spending $1 billion a day on a reckless and illegal war in Iran and the President with no end in sight has money for that, my friends on the other side can't bring themselves to bring legislation to the floor that will address the high cost of living.

Madam Speaker, when you have people in the administration saying that consumers are the last of their concerns, I mean like, I am just like every time I think this administration can't say something that will shock me even more, they do. This is one of the more outrageous comments coming from one of the President's top advisers.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

I just want to say the gentlewoman is doing exactly what I predicted she would do: blaming immigrants so that people who are watching this debate don't focus in on the fact that prices are going through the roof and everything is more expensive than ever.

She said that Trump is doing better than Biden in terms of gas prices. Well, when Biden left office, the average gallon of gas was $3.11. It is now close to $3.80. It is creeping up to nearly $4. I mean, that is just the reality. People can google that. Don't take my word for it. You can google it.

The other fact is that, if I remember correctly, Donald Trump said that when he became President, he and Republicans would lower costs on day one and everything would go down. What a crock. Everything has gone up. Everything has skyrocketed. Gas, rent, the price of food-- everything has gone way up.

I am going to read this again because I can't get this out of my head that somebody in this administration would say this out loud. Again, this is what the chair of the Council of Economic Advisers, Kevin Hassett, said: If the war ``were to be extended, it wouldn't really disrupt the U.S. economy very much at all. It would hurt consumers, and we would have to think about . . . what we would have to do about that, but that is really the last of our concerns right now. . . .''

This is one of the President's top economic advisers telling the American consumer: The hell with you. You don't matter. You are at the bottom of our list.

That tells you everything you need to know.

I heard the gentlewoman's 1-minute speech before we got into this debate, when she kind of defended the tax cuts for the rich and basically said that we have a spending problem in this country.

Okay, we have a spending problem. We are spending a billion dollars a day on a reckless, illegal war in Iran, and nobody on the other side seems to give a damn about that. We don't have money to help make sure that we can lower energy costs for senior citizens. We don't have money to make sure our kids get nutritious breakfasts and lunches in schools. We don't have money for anything, for childcare, eldercare, our veterans, or our healthcare in general.

We are told we don't have the money, but no debate and no concern about a billion dollars a day on Iran? Come on. I mean, enough is enough.

The focus of Congress, the focus of government, should be about helping people, not screwing them over, not hurting them. The focus of our government should not be about enriching the rich, protecting the Epstein class, the people who are well-off and well-connected and who have tons of money.

The focus ought to be on how to lift up working families in this country. That is what Democrats have been fighting for. That is what we stand for. There is a difference here.

Again, going back to Kevin Hassett, his comment today. He says the quiet part out loud. The consumers, according to him, are the last of our concerns right now.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Madam Speaker, I am almost at a loss for words. I don't even know how to respond to that. That gets like five Pinocchios. I don't know what the gentlewoman is talking about. She talked about the debt and reducing the debt. My friend, who I respect and enjoy working with, voted for a reconciliation bill that added nearly $5 trillion to the debt.

Let me say that one more time: It added nearly $5 trillion to the debt. Most of that additional cost to the debt were in the form of tax cuts for multimillionaires and billionaires.

She talks about the Republicans trying to cut fraud, waste, and abuse. They cut programs like SNAP, the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, to help senior citizens and veterans and low-income families be able to put food on the table, a benefit, by the way, that is on average about $2 per person per meal. That is what SNAP is.

They cut money for child nutrition programs. They cut money for school nutrition programs. They cut money for environmental protection, for infrastructure. I go right down the list, economic development for our farmers, everything.

They had Elon Musk come in with DOGE, and they claim they saved all this money. Guess what. All of the cuts that they made, by the way, I think we are going to pay for down the road because they are going to add costs in a whole bunch of other ways. All of that so-called savings has just been eliminated by what has been spent on the war in Iran, a billion dollars a day. We are at $22, $23 billion already on that war.

We are not anywhere near done. They tell you that we can't deal with the fact that we have so many senior citizens in this country who can't afford to put food on the table. We can't do anything about that. Then they say nothing about the billion dollars a day on an illegal and reckless war in Iran.

For the record, I will include the CBO score, that is the Congressional Budget Office, on their reconciliation bill in the Record because I want the Record to reflect that what I am saying here is backed up by facts. This is a nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office. Both Democrats and Republicans rely on the CBO for scores on how much things are going to cost.

This is crazy that we are having this debate, all the while the cost of living for every person in this country, who is not a multimillionaire or billionaire who is not part of the Epstein class, is going through the roof.

By the way, when you talk about taxes on people, what my friend didn't mention was the tariffs. That is a tax on every American. That is a tax on every American. We are now told that these tariffs are costing the average citizen of this country an additional $1,700 per person per year. I don't know who is asking for this stuff, but it is certainly not the people that I talk to.

Madam Speaker, I am going to urge that we defeat the previous question. If we do, I will offer an amendment to the rule to bring up H.R. 7481, the Department of Homeland Security Appropriations Act 2026, sponsored by Ranking Member Rosa DeLauro of Connecticut, a bill which only funds law-abiding agencies under the Department of Homeland Security and not the unlawful actions of ICE and CBP.

Madam Speaker, House Republicans are trying to use President Trump's illegal war in Iran as pretext to force Congress to fund ICE and CBP without any reforms, even though these agencies are harassing, detaining, beating, and killing American citizens. This is a cheap trick to score political points, and we are not buying it. I don't think anybody in the country is buying it.

You can't make this up. The President's own National Director of the National Counterterrorism Center, who Trump himself appointed and basically every single Republican in the Senate voted to confirm this guy, resigned this morning stating that he cannot in good conscience support the ongoing war in Iran and that ``Iran posed no imminent threat to our Nation.''

Also, Republicans already funded ICE and CBP in their big, ugly bill so why are they holding up funding for TSA, the Coast Guard, and FEMA? Republicans should allow a vote to fund the law-abiding components of DHS while negotiations on critical reforms to ICE and CBP continue.

Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of my amendment into the Record, along with any extraneous material immediately prior to the vote on the previous question.

Madam Speaker, to discuss our proposal, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro), the ranking member of the Appropriations Committee and the sponsor of this bill.

Madam Speaker, I yield an additional 30 seconds to the gentlewoman from Connecticut.

Madam Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, nobody disagrees that we should have a secure border. That is not the debate.

Where there is disagreement and, quite frankly, where there is outrage is when we have a Federal agency that goes into our communities and kills American citizens. This is not at the border but in our heartland. That is where we believe there is a line that has been crossed. We are outraged over that.

I am sorry that my friends on the other side are not. They control the House. They control the Senate. They control the White House. They are in charge. If they want our votes, we are not going to vote to continue to fund agencies and departments within agencies that are rogue, where there is no accountability and where there is no transparency. We are not going to do that.

We support TSA, the Coast Guard, and FEMA. We will vote to support them, but don't ask us to fund agencies that do harm to our constituents.

By the way, is there any end to what my Republican colleagues want for CBP and for ICE? They have got money in the big, ugly bill for them, billions and billions of dollars for them. I don't understand what the deal is.

In any event, for whatever reason, they have a problem with TSA. They have a problem with FEMA. They have a problem with the Coast Guard. I don't understand why. We don't. We support them.

Madam Speaker, the pattern here is obvious. It is broken promises, higher costs, more war, more hate, alternative facts, and unbelievable corruption. That is what is happening in this country right now because of Republican leadership.

Republicans said they would fight for ordinary people. Instead, they helped billionaires. They said they would keep us out of war. Instead, they dragged us into another one. Madam Speaker, 13 American troops are dead. Over 140 are wounded. Our Nation is, once again, sending $1 billion a day over to the Middle East on another reckless, illegal war of choice.

They said they would tell the truth. Instead, they protect the Epstein elites and peddle distraction after distraction after distraction, hoping it will all go away.

At the center of it all is a President so hollow, so unwell, and so morally lost that he is fundraising off of dead American troops. I can't believe I am saying that sentence out loud.

The President of the United States went to a dignified transfer of remains ceremony. He refused to take off his ball cap. Then he took a photo of himself standing behind an American servicemember in a casket coming home from war in the Middle East. He slapped it on a fundraising email, asking people to donate money to his campaign. Let me say that again.

The President used a dead American servicemember as a photo op for his campaign fundraising. When he was asked about it yesterday, he said he saw nothing wrong with that.

Can anyone imagine if Bill Clinton, Barack Obama, or Joe Biden had done that? My Republican colleagues' heads would explode. That is what happened after Joe Biden checked his watch during one of these ceremonies. Yet, there was not a word after this disrespectful President dishonored our troops in the most outrageous way by using them as a prop for his own personal benefit.

I challenge any Republican, any single one, to come down here and defend this. Come down here and explain to their constituents why the leader of their party is fundraising off of dead American servicemembers.

I think it is one of the most disrespectful, inappropriate, awful things I have ever, ever seen in all my time in Congress. I doubt a single Republican will have the guts to say it was wrong.

The American people deserve a hell of a lot better than this chaos and cruelty. They deserve better than this President. They deserve better than this Republican majority. They deserve elected officials who care about them and who want to fight to lower the cost of living, who want to make their lives better and easier and more manageable. That is not what is happening here.

With all that is going on--$1 billion a day on a reckless illegal war in Iran, gas prices creeping up to nearly $4 a gallon, and the price of groceries going up because of these stupid tariffs that my friends don't want to deal with--I can go on and on and on about how the Republican policies are making life more miserable for average Americans. With all that is going on, they can't be bothered to come down here.

Mr. Speaker, I urge a ``no'' vote on this rule, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

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.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on H.R. 556.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

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.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wittman), the vice chairman of the Committee on Natural Resources and the lead sponsor of this legislation.

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.

Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 1 minute to the gentleman from Virginia.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

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.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time for closing.

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.

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.

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 1115 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern), pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only.

General Leave

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may

have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, last night, the Rules Committee met and produced a rule, House Resolution 1115, providing for the House's consideration of H.R. 556, H.R. 1958, and H.R. 4638.

The rule provides for consideration of H.R. 556, the Protecting Access for Hunters and Anglers Act, under a closed rule. The rule provides 1 hour of general debate equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on Natural Resources, or their designees, and provides for one motion to recommit.

The rule further provides for consideration of H.R. 1958, the Deporting Fraudsters Act of 2026, and H.R. 4638, the Federal Working Animal Protection Act, both under closed rules. The rule provides each 1 hour of general debate equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on the Judiciary or their respective designees and provides for one motion to recommit for each bill.

Additionally, when considered under suspension of the rules, the rule provides additional debate time to 1 hour of general debate for H.J. Res. 139, proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States requiring a balanced budget for the Federal Government.

Mr. Speaker, the three measures that underpin this rule all share a singular, defining characteristic: They are in alignment with the priorities and demands of the American people.

What do the American people want, Mr. Speaker? I will tell you what they want. They want a restoration of law and order so that illegal aliens are deported, especially when they are convicted of having committed criminal acts.

Republicans are answering that demand by putting forth H.R. 1958 and H.R. 4638. These two pieces of legislation zero in on criminal aliens who have defrauded the government and criminal aliens who commit violent acts against law enforcement working animals in the line of duty.

Mr. Speaker, when I say that we back the blue, I am talking about the men and women of law enforcement and the trained animals that stand alongside them in the line of duty.

Those who choose to oppose this legislation, I can guarantee, are members of the same party that has voted to keep the Department of Homeland Security shut down and has voted in the past to defund the police. You and I both know, Mr. Speaker, which party it is that I am referring to here. It is obvious.

Americans want a Federal Government that respects consumer choice and the exercising of our freedoms, not a Federal Government that seeks to regulate every single aspect of our lives. That is why Republicans are putting forth H.R. 556, which would tear down regulations that have dictated how men and women across the Nation can hunt and fish on select pieces of land under the control of the Secretary of the Interior and the Secretary of Agriculture, respectively.

These are two essential parts of life that Americans are incredibly fortunate to engage in and enjoy. I believe all should respect that, but the Federal Government, under Democratic control, has time and again viewed these activities as nothing more than a target to overregulate. Is anyone surprised by this? I don't believe so.

Now, Mr. Speaker, I will guarantee that our colleagues across the aisle won't spend their time debating this slate of bills with us today. I would be pleasantly surprised if they actually chose to do that. Instead, they will do the same thing they always do: stomp their feet, huff and puff, and yell about unrelated things until they are blue in the face. It is like muscle memory for them at this point.

Meanwhile, Republicans will be focused on the task at hand, like they always are. They stand ready to deliver, and they intend to do so, yet again, with these three pieces of legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Massachusetts for his kind comments. I send them back to him and wish him a happy St. Patrick's Day. I appreciate him making my prediction in my opening remarks come true.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. McDowell).

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1\1/2\ minutes.

Mr. Speaker, I am a huge animal rights lover too, and I have a dog I say that owns me.

My colleague just talked about one example that worked out well, but we know lots and lots of examples where these things don't work out well, and that is why we need this legislation. It is because acts of cruelty toward animals who are working often fall between the cracks.

My colleague also just said that no one will see any benefits from the Working Families Tax Cut, yet thanks to this important legislation, Americans could receive nearly a $4,000-tax refund this year. The average take-home pay boost is $10,900, and the average tax cut for middle-income Americans is 15 percent.

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Taylor).

Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Madam Speaker, I will point out to my colleague that, yes, gas jumped in the last month, but it is still a lot less expensive than it was under President Biden.

Thankfully, under President Trump, gas prices were cut almost in half. The number one role of the Federal Government, Madam Speaker, as we all know on our side of the aisle, is defense of this Nation.

Madam Speaker, the need for legislation like H.R. 1958 is not hypothetical. Fraud is a serious crime, and it is essential we ensure foreign national fraudsters cannot continue to exploit the American taxpayers.

While my colleagues will argue that there is no fraud currently, here are just a few recent examples: ``A 3-year-old girl's Social Security number had been used for `two credit cards and two auto loans, with an outstanding balance of more than $25,000.''

The second example is: ``Fraud by illegal immigrants destroying children's

lives.'' These are quotes, Madam Speaker. Including the life of: ``A 9- year-old boy who was denied Medicaid because wages were reported on his Social Security number. A 13-year-old girl who was denied as a dependent on her family's tax return because she supposedly made too much money.''

These are because illegal aliens are stealing Social Security numbers and using them.

In 2019, the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of Mississippi announced the prosecution of 119 illegal aliens for crimes, including ``misusing Social Security numbers of American citizens.''

I have the sources for all of these, Madam Speaker.

In June 2020, the Justice Department announced that an illegal alien from Guatemala was sentenced to 3 months' imprisonment for ``[using] another person's Social Security number to get a job and for tax purposes.''

In October 2023, an illegal alien who was arrested by the U.S. Border Patrol near Hidalgo, Texas, in September 2022 and then released by the Biden administration, pleaded guilty to illegal use of a Social Security number.

In November 2025, The New York Times highlighted the case of Daniel Kluver, a Minnesota man whose identity was stolen by a Guatemalan illegal alien with a criminal history and multiple deportations. Because of the identity theft, Kluver lost thousands of dollars through garnished wages and increased taxes. He spent years unsuccessfully trying to untangle the mystery of his stolen identity.

The stories go on and on, Madam Speaker, so there is a real reason for this legislation.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

First, let me say, we know what the role of the Federal Government is. It is outlined in the Constitution of the United States. Many of the things that my colleague wants us to be involved in--and we have been involved in--are the things that have caused us to have a $38 trillion debt at the Federal level, and so doing everything that we can to reduce fraud is really very important.

Let me say, if we have people who are here legally, as Americans have done for Americans, we will do for them. But those who come here illegally--and the term is illegal alien--then we do not have any truck with them. We want them to obey the law, just like we want everybody else to obey the law.

If they commit fraud, then we want them gone, out of this country. They shouldn't be here to begin with because they come in illegally.

If we want to address the high cost of living in this country, we must confront fraud. We must confront fraud. Democrats should be joining us, not opposing the commonsense effort.

Let's talk about the rhetoric from our colleagues on our record of fiscal soundness this Congress and the Democrats' record of spending addiction. We just finished the FY26 appropriations package--of course, minus the funding for Homeland Security. We saved nearly $14 billion compared to last year's appropriated levels. Let's not forget that comes on the heels of cutting $9 billion of waste and fraud through a rescissions package just months earlier, and that came on the heels of cutting $1.4 trillion of waste, fraud, and abuse through Republicans' reconciliation effort.

Democrats are lying in wait to vote for higher taxes on working families yet again if they have the opportunity. What they don't understand is that the government doesn't have a tax flow problem. We have a fundamental spending problem in Washington. Again, that spending is not on what the Federal Government should be spending it on, which is the defense of this Nation, but is on spending on things that are not outlined in the Constitution for us to be doing.

When Democrats had full control of the levers of power and passed their reconciliation packages, they expanded the Federal Government with an unprecedented $11 trillion in spending. Yes, Madam Speaker, I said $11 trillion in additional spending, $6 trillion of which has been added to the national debt.

There is simply no comparison between what Republicans have accomplished this Congress and the Democrats' spending addiction. We have lowered the deficit. We have cut trillions in waste. We have secured tax relief for working families. Democrats opposed us on every front.

Guess what. Our deficit is finally being addressed. The Federal Government's cumulative deficit for fiscal year 2026 at the end of November was 19 percent lower than the year prior under Biden.

Be it by reconciliation, rescission, or through the regular-order annual appropriations process, this Congress is cutting spending, driving down inflation, and returning money to taxpayers.

Madam Speaker, that is really the fundamental difference between Democrats and Republicans. We believe that the public should hold on to as much of its money as possible, not turn that money over to bureaucrats to spend.

Don't buy the empty rhetoric of congressional Democrats. They ran on affordability in the Commonwealth of

Virginia, but just recently, they slapped on a regressive payroll tax that will squeeze billions out of workers' paychecks.

Congressional Democrats are on record voting against tax relief for tipped workers, Social Security recipients, working moms, and the working class when they voted against the Working Families Tax Cut Act.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Madam Speaker, this is not a serious proposal.

Madam Speaker, it is really rich. Now, it is the fault of Republicans that the Department of Homeland Security is not funded. It is just too rich.

Crime is down in this country because we have shut down our border and denied people coming in illegally.

Madam Speaker, we need to fund all of Homeland Security so that we can keep the border closed. Obviously, our colleagues want to open the border again just like President Biden did. There were people waiting at the border when President Biden was elected

with shirts on that said: Thank you, Biden. We can't do that. We need to fund all of Homeland Security at the same time.

By the way, Madam Speaker, it was the Bipartisan Policy Center that said that the 19 percent reduction in deficit had occurred.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, our colleagues across the aisle said that they want to keep the border closed. If they are serious about keeping the border closed and safe, then how are they going to do it without funding border patrol and they don't want to fund border patrol?

Mr. Speaker, our colleagues across the aisle have spent their time during this debate drawing caricatures, weaving a tapestry of tangential statements, and engaging in theatrics. This is unserious behavior, Mr. Speaker.

Might I remind them we are here debating substantive legislation that aligns with the priorities of the American people. Our colleagues across the aisle are welcome to join us in supporting them, standing for law and order, and returning freedom and choice back to the custody of the American people where they belong.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on the previous question and ``yes'' on the rule.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, we are on day 19 of Trump's illegal war of choice with Iran. So far, 13 American servicemembers are dead, and 200 more are wounded. Gas prices have surged 80 cents a gallon just in the last 3 weeks. Grocery bills are climbing. Oil is over $100 a barrel. The Strait of Hormuz is effectively closed.

Mr. Speaker, what is it, in the face of this chaos and calamity, that the United States House of Representatives has chosen to do this week: debate a bill about lead ammunition in our Nation's wildlife refuges.

Mr. Speaker, we should consider the iconic national symbol of the bald eagle when we talk about this subject. Every year, bald eagles across America die. They drop out of the sky in some cases because they ate carcasses and remains that were laced with lead fragments.

Bald eagles are not alone. Lead poisoning has been documented in over 130 species: the common loon, condors, trumpeter swans, many species of ducks, and even some mammals. For species already struggling on the brink of extinction, each piece of spent ammunition or lost fishing tackle left in the environment is another potential lethal dose of lead.

We banned lead from gasoline. We banned it from paint. We banned it from children's toys. We did that because lead is a known lethal neurotoxin that never breaks down.

That same lead in the form of spent ammunition or lost fishing tackle can kill wildlife, and it does so on our public lands and waters right now, in some cases at levels that are far too high.

Mr. Speaker, Republicans are proposing a bill that would make this a lot worse. H.R. 556 would block Federal land managers from using commonsense, science-based safeguards, when necessary, to protect wildlife from lead poisoning on Federal lands and waters.

The bill does have an exception, at least technically or hypothetically. Agencies can act when a species decline is ``primarily caused'' by lead. That evidentiary requirement and the standard that goes with it, the way this bill is written, is going to be impossible to meet.

The bill demands site-specific field data for each individual unit of land, ignoring decades of peer-reviewed science and imposing costs that most land units, already stretched thin by Trump's budget cuts, simply cannot afford.

States are already moving to protect wildlife in many cases. Maine, New Hampshire, and Vermont banned lead tackle to protect loon populations. California banned lead ammunition to protect the California condor. However, this bill creates a very murky legal landscape that would undermine these safeguards, replacing State laws and policies with a Federal mandate written by and for the gun lobby.

Most concerning, this bill claims to protect access for hunters and anglers. Yet, in reality, the bill could result in less access for some of America's biggest conservationists. The legislation conflicts with the Endangered Species Act and with a 2022 settlement governing hunting and fishing in the National Wildlife Refuge System.

Mr. Speaker, even under the Trump administration, the Fish and Wildlife Service issued targeted lead restrictions in eight refuges, specifically to open new hunting and fishing opportunities near sensitive Endangered Species Act-listed wildlife species.

Yet, if this bill is enacted, the Fish and Wildlife Service would have to close those sensitive areas for hunting and fishing entirely to comply with the ESA. That is going to leave hunters and anglers with fewer places to fish and hunt.

Transitioning away from lead is a step toward a more sustainable future for the sport. We saw this in 1991 when the Federal Government phased out lead shot for duck hunting. The gun lobby said at the time all the same things that it is saying now: This will kill the sport. People will be priced out. It will be the end of a way of life.

It was nonsense. It was wrong in every case. Waterfowl populations rebounded, giving duck hunters more opportunities, more birds, and more places to hunt.

Proponents of this bill often claim banning lead will price out hunters and anglers, but the data tells a very different story. An analysis of 86 different bullet calibers and cartridge sizes found no significant price difference between lead-free and lead-core ammunition in popular calibers.

Switching to non-lead tackle can add less than 1 percent to the average angler's total annual cost. In the handful of refuges that do restrict lead to protect endangered species and to make sure that they can continue hunting and fishing, the Fish and Wildlife Service already offers vouchers and programs providing free or low-cost ammunition and tackle to hunters and anglers.

Congress should always remember that our public lands belong to the American people, not to the NRA and the gun lobby. H.R. 556 imposes a Federal mandate to allow the spread of a known lethal toxin across our Nation's

wildlife refuges, waterways, and the habitats that our children will inherit.

My colleagues must reject this bill and let public land managers make the tough calls and do their jobs.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I have a couple of points. First of all, Federal wildlife managers under current law already have to follow the best available science. If they were to issue lead ammunition regulations randomly, arbitrarily, in a way that contravenes science, they would find themselves immediately in court, and those actions would be overturned.

In terms of deference to State law and State wildlife managers, I certainly agree with the gentleman on that. The problem is that many States have actually taken steps to restrict lead ammunition and tackle. This bill is so poorly written that it is not clear whether Federal wildlife managers could continue to comply with those State laws or whether they would have to ignore them and continue to allow lead in those cases.

Those are several reasons why this bill, in addition to the policy problems I have highlighted, is technically not ready for prime time.

Mr. Speaker, at this point, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Michigan (Mrs. Dingell).

Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Michigan.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time for closing.

About this best available science, just to be very clear, best available science is what wildlife managers have to do right now. If they don't, any regulation that they promulgate involving lead tackle or lead ammunition restrictions is going to be invalidated and will mean nothing.

What this poorly written legislation would do, though, is substitute a brand-new scientific standard that we have never seen. We have no idea what it really means. It would have a narrow exception to allow restrictions on lead ammunition or tackle on specific units of land if the applicable Secretary 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 the specific unit of the Federal land or water.''

These are very new and ambiguous terms. A simple reading would suggest you have to do a complete forensic analysis that would, in the real world, make this standard totally unattainable. It would effectively mean you would never be able to regulate lead ammunition or tackle, even when it was forcing the closure of hunting and fishing in our National Wildlife Refuge System.

As the National Wildlife Refuge Association has pointed out, this is an impossible standard because population monitoring data is not available at the unit scale in most cases.

Mr. Speaker, we have heard a lot today about hunters and anglers, but let's talk about what this bill actually does.

First, it is bad for wildlife. It strips our land managers of the tools they need to limit lead, a known neurotoxin, on our public lands and waters, putting the recovery of species like the bald eagle, our national symbol, and the California condor at great risk of further loss and potentially extinction. We cannot claim to support wildlife while handcuffing the people tasked with managing it.

My colleagues across the aisle talk constantly about States' rights and keeping the Federal Government out of local decisions. Then they bring a bill like this that amounts to a Federal mandate preempting, overriding, State laws on behalf of the gun lobby.

Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, and California have already banned lead ammunition or tackle in some cases to limit lead and protect wildlife. This bill would throw all of that into legal limbo. Land managers wouldn't even know whether they can honor these State laws.

This bill also harms the very people it claims to champion: our hunters and anglers. It creates a direct conflict with the Endangered Species Act in ways that would force the Fish and Wildlife Service to close off public lands currently open to fishing and hunting.

It does all of this for a problem that doesn't even exist. Lead-free alternatives are widely available and cost about the same in most cases for the most popular calibers. They have been working since 1991. Fewer places to hunt and fish does not grow the outdoor economy, and the places that have sensibly restricted lead tackle and ammunition have not seen a reduction in hunting and fishing.

The people who actually use these lands--our hunters, anglers, and families--are among the strongest conservationists in this country. We agree on that. The last thing they need is for Congress to do favors for the gun lobby at the expense of these lands and wildlife that they love.

We banned lead from gasoline, from paint, and from children's toys. I don't think anyone in this Chamber would argue for putting lead back in any of those circumstances, but House Republicans are asking us, through this bill, to guarantee the sacred place of lead in our wildlife refuges. The people and the wildlife who depend on healthy public lands would pay the price for that.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to see this bill for what it is, a step backward for our environment and our economy, and vote ``no'' on

Under clause 7 of rule XII, sponsors were added to public bills and resolutions, as follows:

H.R. 116: Ms. Boebert.

H.R. 151: Ms. Van Duyne.

H.R. 255: Mr. Gill of Texas, Mr. Self, and Ms. Crockett.

H.R. 404: Mr. Wied.

H.R. 429: Mr. Suozzi.

H.R. 479: Ms. Boebert.

H.R. 556: Mr. Wied.

H.R. 574: Mr. Van Drew, Mrs. Miller-Meeks, Mr. Stauber, and

Mr. Fitzpatrick.

H.R. 628: Ms. Davids of Kansas.

H.R. 659: Mr. Soto, Mrs. Ramirez, and Mr. Garcia of

California.

H.R. 740: Ms. Malliotakis and Mr. Kustoff.

H.R. 802: Ms. Bonamici.

H.R. 833: Mr. Hamadeh of Arizona, Mr. Moran, Mr. Barr, and

Mr. Burlison.

H.R. 842: Mr. Kiley of California and Ms. Stansbury.

H.R. 909: Mr. Subramanyam and Ms. Schakowsky.

H.R. 914: Ms. McDonald Rivet.

H.R. 942: Mr. Bresnahan and Ms. Davids of Kansas.

H.R. 956: Mr. Biggs of Arizona.

H.R. 1004: Ms. Elfreth and Ms. Kelly of Illinois.

H.R. 1024: Mr. Moran.

H.R. 1041: Mr. Ezell, Mr. Hurd of Colorado, Mr. Cline, and

Ms. De La Cruz.

H.R. 1086: Mrs. Miller-Meeks.

H.R. 1106: Mr. Himes.

H.R. 1151: Mr. Rose.

H.R. 1181: Ms. Fedorchak.

H.R. 1232: Mr. James and Mr. Pfluger.

H.R. 1241: Ms. Boebert.

H.R. 1262: Mrs. Hinson and Mr. Garamendi.

H.R. 1286: Mrs. Fischbach.

H.R. 1329: Mr. Burchett and Mr. McCaul.

H.R. 1330: Mr. Suozzi.

H.R. 1357: Mr. Morelle.

H.R. 1378: Mr. Rogers of Kentucky and Mr. Garbarino.

H.R. 1400: Ms. Perez.

H.R. 1415: Mr. Schmidt and Mr. Weber of Texas.

H.R. 1505: Mr. Min.

H.R. 1509: Ms. Houlahan, Mr. Carbajal, Ms. Lee of Florida,

and Mr. Fry.

H.R. 1521: Mr. Harder of California.

H.R. 1539: Mr. Bilirakis.

H.R. 1636: Mr. Thompson of Mississippi.

H.R. 1659: Ms. Budzinski.

H.R. 1676: Mr. Haridopolos.

H.R. 1682: Mr. James.

H.R. 1695: Mr. Rutherford.

H.R. 1709: Mr. Nunn of Iowa.

H.R. 1775: Ms. Stansbury.

H.R. 1822: Mr. Owens.

H.R. 1868: Ms. Williams of Georgia.

H.R. 1882: Mr. Gill of Texas.

H.R. 1909: Mr. Wittman.

H.R. 1918: Ms. McBride.

H.R. 2028: Ms. Van Duyne and Ms. McBride.

H.R. 2033: Ms. Malliotakis.

H.R. 2109: Mr. Costa.

H.R. 2126: Mr. Brecheen and Mr. James.

H.R. 2145: Ms. Davids of Kansas.

H.R. 2160: Mr. Schmidt.

H.R. 2189: Mr. Fry.

H.R. 2199: Ms. McBride.

H.R. 2230: Ms. Malliotakis.

H.R. 2253: Mr. Frost.

H.R. 2290: Mr. Garamendi.

H.R. 2294: Ms. McBride.

H.R. 2311: Mr. Jackson of Illinois.

H.R. 2315: Ms. Boebert.

H.R. 2355: Mr. Mann.

H.R. 2395: Ms. Hageman.

H.R. 2514: Ms. Budzinski.

H.R. 2531: Mr. Larson of Connecticut and Ms. Stansbury.

H.R. 2536: Mr. Riley of New York.

H.R. 2538: Ms. Stansbury and Mr. Graves.

H.R. 2550: Mr. Clyburn.

H.R. 2599: Mr. Issa.

H.R. 2623: Mr. Wied.

H.R. 2687: Ms. Pelosi.

H.R. 2705: Mr. Collins and Ms. Boebert.

H.R. 2729: Mr. Stauber, Mr. Rose, Mrs. Radewagen, and Mr.

Peters.

H.R. 2736: Mrs. Sykes.

H.R. 2753: Ms. Chu, Mr. Johnson of Georgia, Ms. Goodlander,

Mr. Meeks, Mr. Courtney, Ms. Escobar, Ms. Dexter, and Mr.

Pocan.

H.R. 2761: Mr. Goldman of New York.

H.R. 2767: Ms. Norton.

H.R. 2781: Mr. Bishop.

H.R. 2788: Mr. Cohen.

H.R. 2841: Ms. Boebert.

H.R. 2904: Mrs. Cherfilus-McCormick.

H.R. 2941: Mr. Krishnamoorthi.

H.R. 2969: Mr. Cline.

H.R. 2979: Mr. Fitzpatrick.

H.R. 3033: Mr. Pfluger.

H.R. 3036: Mr. Takano.

H.R. 3043: Mr. McGuire.

H.R. 3048: Mr. Fitzpatrick.

H.R. 3098: Mr. Correa.

H.R. 3107: Mr. Bishop.

H.R. 3112: Ms. Perez, Mr. Peters, Mrs. Cherfilus-McCormick,

and Mr. Sherman.

H.R. 3128: Ms. Sewell.

H.R. 3131: Mr. Rogers of Kentucky.

H.R. 3142: Mr. Bacon.

H.R. 3177: Mr. Steube.

H.R. 3179: Ms. Van Duyne and Mr. Self.

H.R. 3195: Mr. Rogers of Alabama.

H.R. 3199: Ms. Omar, Ms. Meng, Mr. Boyle of Pennsylvania,

Mr. Mullin, and Mr. Sherman.

H.R. 3204: Mr. Neguse.

H.J. Res. 38: Mr. Steube.

H. Res. 155: Ms. Pingree.

H. Res. 166: Ms. Norton.

H. Res. 267: Mr. Davis of Illinois, Mr. Garcia of

California, Mr. Thompson of Mississippi, Ms. McClellan, Mr.

Bacon, Mr. Torres of New York, Mrs. Hayes, Ms. Ansari, Ms.

Tlaib, Ms. Stansbury, Mr. Johnson of Georgia, Ms. Titus, Mr.

Soto, and Mr. Fields.

H. Res. 364: Mr. Thompson of Pennsylvania, Ms. Malliotakis,

Mr. Fallon, and Mr. Kustoff.

H. Res. 380: Mr. Pocan, Mr. Thanedar, Ms. McCollum, and Ms.

Tokuda.