Likely helped
- No clear beneficiaries surfaced yet.
H.R. 556 (119th)Bill Overview
Protecting Access for Hunters and Anglers Act
Public Lands and Natural Resources|Hazardous wastes and toxic substancesHunting and fishing
Sponsor
Cosponsors
Support
Republican
Introduced
Jan 16, 2025
Discussions
Bill Text
Current stageCommittee
Received in the Senate and Read twice and referred to the Committee on Environment and Public Works.
Introduced
Committee
Floor
President
Law
01 · The brief
Plain-English summaryWhat this bill actually does
<p><strong>Protecting Access for Hunters and Anglers Act of 2025</strong></p><p>This bill bars the Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS), the Bureau of Land Management (BLM), and the Forest Service from prohibiting or regulating the use of lead ammunition or tackle on federal land or water. The bill makes exceptions for specified existing regulations and where the FWS, the BLM, or the Forest Service 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 such unit, and the state approves the regulations.</p>
Why people may split
The main political fault lines are not fully surfaced yet, so coalition durability is still unclear.
Watch point
The next hurdle is reproducing that support in the other chamber.
<p><strong>Protecting Access for Hunters and Anglers Act of 2025</strong></p><p>This bill bars the Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS), the Bureau of Land Management (BLM), and the Forest Service from prohibiting or regulating the use of lead ammunition or tackle on federal land or water.
The bill makes exceptions for specified existing regulations and where the FWS, the BLM, or the Forest Service 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 such unit, and the state approves the regulations.</p>
Passage65/100
This bill has already passed one chamber, which is a stronger signal than introduction alone but still leaves another major hurdle ahead.
CredibilityPartial
How solid the drafting looks.
Contention62/100
The main political fault lines are not fully surfaced yet, so coalition durability is still unclear.
02 · What it does
Who stands to gain, and who may push back.
Likely benefits vs burdens0% / 100%
Likely helpedLikely burdened
These are examples from the analysis, not a ranked list of the most-affected groups.
Likely burdened
- No clear downsides surfaced yet.
Congressional Budget Office
CBO cost estimate
The clearest budget scorecard attached to this bill: what it changes for direct spending, revenue, and the deficit.
As reported by the House Committee on Natural Resources on November 25,2025
03 · Why people split
Why the argument around this bill splits.
The main political fault lines are not fully surfaced yet, so coalition durability is still unclear.
Progressive—
The main political fault lines are not fully surfaced yet, so coalition durability is still unclear.
Centrist—
The main political fault lines are not fully surfaced yet, so coalition durability is still unclear.
Conservative—
The main political fault lines are not fully surfaced yet, so coalition durability is still unclear.
04 · Can it pass?
The path through Congress.
Introduced
Reached or meaningfully advanced
Committee
Reached or meaningfully advanced
Floor
Still ahead
President
Still ahead
Law
Still ahead
Passage likelihood65/100
This bill has already passed one chamber, which is a stronger signal than introduction alone but still leaves another major hurdle ahead.
Why this could stall
- The next hurdle is reproducing that support in the other chamber.
05 · Recent votes
Recent votes on the bill.
HOUSE · Mar 18, 2026
Final passage✓ PassedClose voteParty-line
The House passed this bill. It now goes to the other chamber, and eventually to the President for signature.
What is a final passage?Hide explanation
The final vote on whether the bill becomes law (pending the other chamber and the President).
Yes 52% No 48%
Against party line
Aaron Bean (FL)RR · Yes
Abraham J. Hamadeh (AZ)RR · Yes
Adam Gray (CA)DD · Yes
Adam Smith (WA)DD · No
Addison P. McDowell (NC)RR · Yes
Showing a quick cross-section of legislators, with followed members first when available.
HOUSE · Mar 18, 2026
Send back to committee✗ FailedClose voteParty-line
The attempt to send the bill back to committee failed. The bill continues moving forward.
What is a send back to committee?Hide explanation
A motion to recommit sends a bill back to committee, often as a last-ditch attempt to stop it.
Yes 50% No 50%
Aaron Bean (FL)RR · No
Abraham J. Hamadeh (AZ)RR · No
Adam Gray (CA)DD · Yes
Adam Smith (WA)DD · Yes
Adelita S. Grijalva (AZ)DD · Yes
Showing a quick cross-section of legislators, with followed members first when available.
06 · Go deeper
Go deeper than the headline read.
Included on this page
The main political fault lines are not fully surfaced yet, so coalition durability is still unclear.
This bill has already passed one chamber, which is a stronger signal than introduction alone but still leaves another major hurdle ahead.
Unlocked analysis
Pro readers get the full perspective split, passage barriers, legislative design review, stakeholder impact map, and lens-based policy tradeoff analysis for Protecting Access for Hunters and Anglers Act.
Go beyond the headline summary with full stakeholder mapping, legislative design analysis, passage barriers, and lens-by-lens tradeoff breakdowns.
Perspective breakdownsPassage barriersLegislative design reviewStakeholder impact map
Open full analysis