H.R. 375 (119th)Bill Overview

Continued Rapid Ohia Death Response Act of 2025

Animals|Animal and plant healthAnimals
Cosponsors
Support
Democratic
Introduced
Jan 13, 2025
Discussions
Bill Text
Current stageCommittee

Received in the Senate and Read twice and referred to the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry.

Introduced
Committee
Floor
President
Law
Congressional Activities
01 · The brief
Plain-English summaryWhat this bill actually does

The bill directs the Secretary of the Interior to partner with the Secretary of Agriculture and the State of Hawaii to address Rapid ʻŌhiʻa Death (caused by Ceratocystis fimbriata). It requires continued USGS and Forest Service research on vectors and transmission, continued USFWS partnerships for ungulate management in control areas (with private landowner consent), and continued Forest Service financial assistance and staff/infrastructure support for Pacific Islands Forestry research and forest restoration.

Why people may split

Liberals emphasize stronger funding and Indigenous consultation

Watch point

Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill functions as a concise administrative directive that assigns interagency roles and maintains ongoing activities to address Rapid ʻŌhiʻa Death, but it is light on operational detail, fiscal authorization, statutory integration, and accountability mechanisms.

The bill directs the Secretary of the Interior to partner with the Secretary of Agriculture and the State of Hawaii to address Rapid ʻŌhiʻa Death (caused by Ceratocystis fimbriata).

It requires continued USGS and Forest Service research on vectors and transmission, continued USFWS partnerships for ungulate management in control areas (with private landowner consent), and continued Forest Service financial assistance and staff/infrastructure support for Pacific Islands Forestry research and forest restoration.

Passage70/100

Narrow, technical conservation bill with modest fiscal implications and cooperative provisions; historically such measures have high success rates absent calendar or procedural barriers.

CredibilityPartially aligned

Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill functions as a concise administrative directive that assigns interagency roles and maintains ongoing activities to address Rapid ʻŌhiʻa Death, but it is light on operational detail, fiscal authorization, statutory integration, and accountability mechanisms.

Contention30/100

Liberals emphasize stronger funding and Indigenous consultation

02 · What it does

Who stands to gain, and who may push back.

Likely benefits vs burdens50% / 50%
Federal agencies · Local governmentsFederal agencies

These are examples from the analysis, not a ranked list of the most-affected groups.

Likely helped
  • Federal agenciesImproved federal-state coordination could accelerate monitoring and response activities across jurisdictions.
  • Potential benefitSustained research funding may yield better understanding of disease vectors and control strategies.
  • Local governmentsFinancial assistance and restoration projects could support local restoration and research employment.
Likely burdened
  • Federal agenciesThe bill may increase federal spending without specifying authorization amounts or cost estimates.
  • Potential burdenManagement actions could impose new restrictions or expectations affecting private landowners and hunters.
  • Potential burdenRequiring consent for private land reduces coercion but may limit program reach and effectiveness.
03 · Why people split

Why the argument around this bill splits.

Liberals emphasize stronger funding and Indigenous consultation
Progressive90%

Likely supportive as a targeted conservation measure to protect native ʻōhiʻa and Hawaiian forest ecosystems.

Views federal coordination and research funding positively but will push for explicit funding levels, strong indigenous consultation, and equity in implementation.

May see the bill as necessary but incomplete without guarantees of adequate resources and community-led restoration.

Leans supportive
Centrist75%

Generally favorable to a narrow, evidence-based federal response that coordinates agencies and states.

Sees the bill as pragmatic but wants clarity on funding sources, measurable outcomes, and respect for private property rights.

Will favor oversight language and cost-effectiveness measures.

Leans supportive
Conservative55%

Cautious or mildly skeptical: accepts targeted research and voluntary cooperation but worries about expanded federal activity and unfunded obligations.

Appreciates private landowner consent language but seeks strict limits on new spending and regulatory reach.

Would prefer state/local-led solutions and clear cost controls.

Split reaction
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 likelihood70/100

Narrow, technical conservation bill with modest fiscal implications and cooperative provisions; historically such measures have high success rates absent calendar or procedural barriers.

Scope and complexity
24%
Scopenarrow
24%
Complexitylow
Why this could stall
  • No specific appropriation or funding levels included
  • Potential overlap with existing federal/state programs unclear
05 · Recent votes

Recent votes on the bill.

HOUSE · Jan 23, 2025
Fast-track passage✓ PassedBipartisanNear-unanimous
2/3 majority required

The House fast-tracked this bill — skipping normal debate — and it passed with a two-thirds majority. It now moves to the Senate.

What is a fast-track passage?

Suspending the rules allows the House to bypass normal debate procedures and pass a bill immediately with a two-thirds vote.

Yes 85% No 15%
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

Liberals emphasize stronger funding and Indigenous consultation

Narrow, technical conservation bill with modest fiscal implications and cooperative provisions; historically such measures have high succes…

Unlocked analysis

Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill functions as a concise administrative directive that assigns interagency roles and maintains ongoing activities to address Rapid ʻŌhiʻa Death, but it is light on oper…

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