A Republican bill with no cosponsors
Last activity — Placed on the Union Calendar, Calendar No. 588.
Cleared committee, waiting for its first floor vote
A committee approved it and it is on the calendar of the chamber it started in.
This is further than most bills get, and still no promise of a vote: the calendar is a queue, and the majority leadership decides what is called. A bill can sit here until the Congress ends.
Its path through Congress
- Introduced
- On Calendar
What this bill would do
This bill, known as the "Alaska's Right to Ivory Sales and Tradition Act" or the "ARTIST Act," aims to amend the Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972. The legislation is designed to protect the cultural practices and livelihoods of those who produce Alaska Native handicrafts and marine mammal ivory products. It establishes specific exemptions for Alaska Natives residing on the North Pacific or Arctic coasts for subsistence and the creation of authentic handicrafts. The bill also includes provisions regarding the sale of edible portions of marine mammals and regulates the interstate commerce of these items. Additionally, it outlines the Secretary's authority to regulate species deemed depleted and prohibits States from restricting certain commerce of these items by Alaska Natives.
Yes· 3 of 11
- Scored +9
Would Native Americans be better off under this?
Significantly protects the cultural, subsistence, and economic rights of Alaska Natives.
- Scored +7
Does this narrow racial gaps in how people are treated?
The bill protects the cultural practices and economic rights of Alaska Native communities.
- Scored +6
Would people in rural areas be better off under this?
Provides critical subsistence and economic protections for rural coastal populations.
The opposite
- Scored -2
Does this give the federal government more power?
The bill maintains the Secretary's power to regulate species if they are deemed depleted.
- Scored -2
Does this better protect air, water and wildlife?
The bill creates exemptions to existing marine mammal protections for subsistence and handicraft.
Who it would affect, and how
Potential Positive Impacts for People
-
Protection of Livelihoods and Culture: The bill provides an exemption for Alaska Natives residing on the coast of the North Pacific Ocean or the Arctic Ocean to take marine mammals for subsistence or to create and sell authentic Alaska Native articles of handicrafts and clothing (Section 2, paragraph 2, subparagraph A).
-
Support for Traditional Arts: By defining "authentic Alaska Native article of handicrafts and clothing" and "traditional Alaska Native handicrafts," the bill creates a framework to protect the sale of items produced through traditional methods like weaving, carving, and sewing (Section 2, paragraph 1, subparagraphs A and C).
-
Food Security and Local Trade: The bill allows for the sale of the edible portion of a marine mammal taken for handicraft purposes for consumption within a native village or town in Alaska (Section 2, paragraph 2, subparagraph B, clause ii).
-
State Law Protections: The bill prohibits States from stopping the interstate commerce, sale, or possession of marine mammal ivory or bone when it is incorporated into authentic Alaska Native articles of handicrafts and clothing by an Alaska Native (Section 2, paragraph 4).
Potential Negative Impacts for People
-
Regulatory Restrictions on Depleted Species: If the Secretary determines a species or stock of marine mammal is depleted, they have the authority to create regulations that could limit the taking of those animals by Alaska Natives (Section 2, paragraph 3, subparagraph A).
-
Variable Regulation Factors: The Secretary may establish regulations based on specific species, stocks, geographical areas, or seasons, which could impact how and when people can practice their traditions (Section 2, paragraph 3, subparagraph B).
Groups and Interests Ranking
Every group the model scored this bill for, from -10 to +10. Tap or hover a score for the reason it gave.
- Demographic And Interest Groups
- Would Native Americans be better off under this? — Significantly protects the cultural, subsistence, and economic rights of Alaska Natives. Would people in rural areas be better off under this? — Provides critical subsistence and economic protections for rural coastal populations. Would business owners be better off under this? — Supports the livelihoods of traditional artisans through expanded commerce rights. Would households on low incomes be better off under this? — Provides subsistence and income opportunities for native inhabitants.
- Governance And Ideology
- Does this make it easier to do business across state lines? — The bill explicitly prevents states from prohibiting the interstate commerce of authentic Alaska Native articles. Does this make what the government does easier for the public to see? — The bill requires the Secretary to demonstrate regulatory decisions in writing and make them public. Does this protect the right to fair treatment by the courts? — The bill requires substantial evidence and notice/hearings before new regulations can be imposed. Does this give the federal government more power? — The bill maintains the Secretary's power to regulate species if they are deemed depleted.
- Social Issues And Justice
- Does this narrow racial gaps in how people are treated? — The bill protects the cultural practices and economic rights of Alaska Native communities. Is this likely to lift people out of poverty? — The bill assists with food security and livelihood support for native villages.
- Economy And Finance
- Does this make it easier to run a small business? — The bill supports traditional artisans by ensuring their handicrafts can be sold through interstate commerce.
- Environment Energy And Infrastructure
- Does this invest in rural communities? — The bill supports the economic and cultural foundations of coastal Alaskan communities. Does this better protect air, water and wildlife? — The bill creates exemptions to existing marine mammal protections for subsistence and handicraft.
- 6/2/2026
- Reported (Amended) by the Committee on Natural Resources. H. Rept. 119-674.
- Placed on the Union Calendar, Calendar No. 588.
- 5/14/2026
- Subcommittee on Water, Wildlife and Fisheries Discharged
- Committee Consideration and Mark-up Session Held
- Ordered to be Reported in the Nature of a Substitute (Amended) by Unanimous Consent.
- 3/26/2026
- Subcommittee Hearings Held
- 3/19/2026
- Referred to the Subcommittee on Water, Wildlife and Fisheries.
- 10/6/2025
- Referred to the House Committee on Natural Resources.
- Introduced in House
One bill Congress.gov lists as related to this one — companions in the other chamber, earlier versions, and bills this one absorbed or was folded into.