The Capitol LedgerEvery move in Congress, on the record
HomeBillsRecordsLedger AI

The Capitol Ledger

Built from the Congressional Record and Congress.gov. Every summary links to its source.

AboutFAQFeedbackTerms of ServicePrivacy Policy
Follow us onlineInstagram

Summaries are AI-generated from primary sources. Verify anything important against the original record.

The Capitol Ledger

Built from the Congressional Record and Congress.gov. Every summary links to its source.

The projectAboutFAQFeedback
LegalTerms of ServicePrivacy Policy
Follow us onlineInstagram

Summaries are AI-generated from primary sources. Verify anything important against the original record.

All bills
S. 4250·119th Congress·Introduced Mar 26, 2026

Sport Fish Restoration, Recreational Boating Safety, and Wildlife Restoration Act of 2026

IntroducedPublic Lands and Natural ResourcesSubstantive
View bill text
Sponsor
Sen. Sullivan, Dan [R-AK]
Committees
Commerce, Science, and Transportation Committee (primary)
Last action
Mar 26, 2026

Bottom line

The bill ensures continued funding for sport fish restoration and recreational boating safety programs through 2031 and adjusts how multistate conservation grants are funded.

What it actually does

This bill reauthorizes the Dingell-Johnson Sport Fish Restoration Act, extending the authorization for the division of annual appropriations for sport fish restoration and recreational boating safety from 2026 to 2031. It also modifies the funding mechanism for the Multistate Conservation Grant Program, removing a previous cap and establishing a new minimum percentage for certain grants.

Proponents argue

Supporters argue that this reauthorization is crucial for maintaining vital conservation efforts for sport fish populations and ensuring the safety of recreational boaters across the nation. They contend that the Dingell-Johnson Act, funded by excise taxes on fishing and boating equipment, is a successful 'user pays' model that directly benefits the resources and activities it taxes. The adjustments to the Multistate Conservation Grant Program are seen as providing greater flexibility and potentially more robust funding for collaborative, regional conservation projects.

Opponents contend

No direct organized opposition is typically raised against the reauthorization of the Dingell-Johnson Act itself, as it is a well-established and broadly supported program funded by dedicated excise taxes. However, some critics might raise concerns about the efficiency of federal grant programs or the allocation of funds between state-specific and multistate projects, particularly if the overall funding pool does not increase proportionally to the demand for grants.

The bill is very short and clear, making it highly accessible for any reader to understand its provisions quickly.

Section 2(a)

Reauthorization of Dingell-Johnson Sport Fish Restoration Act

prominently featuredstraightforward

This provision extends the authorization for the division of annual appropriations under the Dingell-Johnson Sport Fish Restoration Act for an additional five years, from fiscal year 2026 through fiscal year 2031. This ensures that funds collected from excise taxes on fishing equipment and motorboat fuel continue to be distributed to states for sport fish restoration and recreational boating safety programs.

GroupImpactMechanismScale
GroupState fish and wildlife agenciesImpactContinued fundingMechanismReceives federal grants for conservation and safety programsScaleNational
GroupRecreational anglers and boatersImpactBenefits from improved fisheries and safer waterwaysMechanismPrograms funded by the act enhance fish habitats, stocking, and boating infrastructureScaleNational
GroupConservation organizationsImpactSupports their mission through state-led projectsMechanismOften partner with state agencies on funded projectsScaleNational

Supporters argue

Supporters argue that extending this authorization is essential for the long-term health of sport fisheries and the safety of recreational boating. They highlight the program's success in funding critical conservation projects, research, and boating access facilities, all paid for by the users themselves.

Critics contend

No specific opposition is typically raised against the reauthorization of this foundational conservation funding mechanism, as it is widely supported by conservation groups, outdoor recreation industries, and state agencies.

Tradeoffs

The primary tension is ensuring consistent, long-term funding for these programs amidst varying economic conditions, though the dedicated funding source mitigates this significantly. There are no major tradeoffs identified with a straightforward reauthorization.

Section 2(b)

Modification of Multistate Conservation Grant Program Funding

mentioned in summarymoderately complex

This section amends the funding structure for the Multistate Conservation Grant Program. It removes the previous cap of '$1,200,000' on the total amount of annual appropriations that could be allocated to the program. Instead, it specifies that 'Each' appropriation will be subject to the program's rules, and for grants under paragraph (1), the amount will be 'The greater of 0.0375 percent of such appropriation or $200,000', replacing a fixed '$200,000' limit.

About this analysis. AI-Generated from the official bill text and available committee reports. Gaps in available data are noted explicitly. Verify important details with the official Congress.gov record.

On this page

  • Executive summary
  • Key provisions
  • Follow the money
  • Critical analysis
  • Questions to ask
Ask Ledger AI about this