Restore M–44 Act
- Bill Number
- H.R. 3003
- Origin Chamber
- House
- Congress
- 119th Congress, Session 1
- Policy Area
- Public Lands and Natural Resources
- Status
- Introduced
- Latest Action
- 2025-04-24: Referred to the Committee on Agriculture, and in addition to the Committee on Natural Resources, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned.
- Last Updated
- 2025-05-29T15:58:02Z
AI-Generated Summary
Summary of H.R. 3003: Restore M-44 Act
Purpose
This bill aims to reverse restrictions on the use of certain chemical devices for managing wildlife damage, specifically by canceling a 2023 agreement between federal agencies and lifting a funding-related prohibition from 2024. It seeks to restore the ability of the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) to deploy tools for controlling predators that harm livestock or crops.
Key Provisions
- Rescission of Memorandum of Understanding (MOU): Requires the Secretary of the Interior and the Secretary of Agriculture to jointly cancel the "Master Memorandum of Understanding" (BLM-MOU-HQ230-2023-05), signed on November 15, 2023, which addressed wildlife damage management. Once canceled, this MOU will have no legal effect.
- Lifting Prohibition on M-44 Devices: Overrides a directive in the explanatory statement for the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2024 (Public Law 118-42), allowing the Secretary of Agriculture to:
- Purchase, deploy, and train third parties (such as ranchers or contractors) on M-44 sodium cyanide ejector devices, including their parts and the poison sodium fluoroacetate (known as "Compound 1080").
- Elimination of Reporting Requirements: Relieves the Secretary of Agriculture from providing updates to congressional committees, including the House and Senate Appropriations Committees, on implementing the prior prohibition.
Significant Changes to Existing Law
- Cancellation of 2023 MOU: Directly nullifies an inter-agency agreement that likely coordinated or limited wildlife management practices between the Department of the Interior (DOI) and USDA.
- Override of 2024 Appropriations Directive: The bill supersedes a non-binding explanatory statement tied to federal funding for USDA's Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS), which had barred the purchase, use, or training related to M-44 devices. This restores flexibility in how APHIS handles wildlife threats without ongoing congressional oversight on this issue.
Potential Impacts
- On Government Agencies: The DOI and USDA regain authority to use M-44 devices for predator control (e.g., targeting coyotes or wolves that damage livestock), potentially streamlining wildlife management programs under APHIS. This could reduce administrative burdens from prior restrictions but might increase operational costs for device procurement and training.
- On Citizens: Farmers, ranchers, and rural communities facing wildlife-related economic losses (e.g., livestock predation) may benefit from resumed access to these tools, improving protection for agriculture. However, environmental or animal welfare advocates could see heightened risks to non-target wildlife, pets, or ecosystems from the poisons.
- On International Relations: No direct impacts mentioned, though it could indirectly affect U.S. wildlife conservation efforts that align with international treaties on biodiversity or chemical use.
Main Stakeholders
- Federal Agencies: Primarily the DOI (managing public lands) and USDA (via APHIS, responsible for animal health and wildlife damage control).
- Congressional Committees: House and Senate Committees on Agriculture, Natural Resources, and Appropriations, which oversee related funding and policies.
- Private Sector and Citizens: Livestock producers, farmers, and third-party trainers who rely on these devices for economic protection; environmental groups, wildlife advocates, and hunters who may oppose the poisons due to ecological concerns.
Notable Legal, Constitutional, or Political Implications
- Legal Implications: The bill uses congressional authority to override an explanatory statement (a form of informal guidance in appropriations laws), affirming Congress's power over executive branch spending and operations. It treats the MOU as rescindable without further legal process, potentially setting a precedent for nullifying inter-agency agreements.
- Constitutional Implications: Reinforces separation of powers by allowing Congress to direct executive actions, but it does not raise major constitutional challenges as it aligns with legislative oversight of federal programs.
- Political Implications: Introduced by Rep. Tony Gonzales (R-TX) on April 24, 2025, and referred to the Committees on Agriculture and Natural Resources, it reflects tensions between agricultural interests (favoring predator control) and conservation priorities. If enacted, it could spark debates on balancing economic needs with environmental protections, especially in Western states with significant ranching.
This summary was generated by AI and may contain inaccuracies. Refer to the official source document for the authoritative text.
Sponsor
Recent Actions
- 2025-04-24: Referred to the Committee on Agriculture, and in addition to the Committee on Natural Resources, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned.
- 2025-04-24: Referred to the Committee on Agriculture, and in addition to the Committee on Natural Resources, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned.
- 2025-04-24: Introduced in House
- 2025-04-24: Introduced in House
Bill Versions
- Restore M–44 Act — issued 2025-04-24 — PDF (2 pages)