Bill
HR 355
Urges the EPA to action on testing and registering toxicants for feral hog control, prompting environmental and health assessments and coordinated review.
Note on source material
- The materials provided are internally inconsistent: the bill header and summary information indicate H.R. 355 is a resolution urging the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to take action on feral hog toxicant testing and registration, but the document text contains several unrelated state-level resolutions (a memorial for Ola Mae Lampley, an Illinois MS-awareness resolution, and a Georgia congratulatory resolution for a gymnast). Sponsor lists and procedural entries likewise appear to be a mixture from different jurisdictions. The formal text of the EPA-related resolution was not included.
- Because the substantive text of the feral-hog resolution is missing, the summary below (1) reports what is known from the title and the legislative status entries and (2) describes the likely scope, intent, and potential impacts of a non-binding congressional resolution asking the EPA to act on feral-hog toxicants.
Purpose and intent
- Primary purpose (per title): to urge and request the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency to take action regarding testing and registration of one or more toxicants intended for use in controlling feral (wild) hog populations.
- Intent is to prompt federal regulatory attention and coordination so that toxicants proposed for feral hog management can be scientifically evaluated, undergo appropriate environmental and human-health testing, and, where appropriate, proceed through EPA registration.
What a resolution like this typically asks for (likely provisions)
- A non-binding expression of the House’s position asking the EPA to:
- Prioritize or expedite review of data and applications related to feral hog toxicants;
- Coordinate reviews with USDA, state wildlife and agriculture agencies, and Tribal governments;
- Ensure rigorous environmental, non-target species, and human-health risk assessments;
- Promote transparency, public comment, and stakeholder consultation (ranchers, wildlife managers, public-health officials, conservation groups);
- Consider pilot testing protocols, monitoring requirements, and post-registration safeguards (baiting controls, label restrictions).
- Because the measure is characterized as a resolution, it would not itself change law or EPA regulatory authority; rather it signals congressional concern and requests administrative action.
Who would be affected
- Federal agencies: EPA (primary), USDA, U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service (coordination roles).
- State and local wildlife, agriculture, and public-health agencies involved in feral hog management.
- Stakeholders: livestock producers, landowners, hunters, nuisance wildlife control operators, conservation organizations, manufacturers of animal toxicants, and communities where feral hogs cause damage.
- Non-target wildlife, companion animals, and human populations could be affected indirectly depending on any future testing outcomes and potential registrations.
Procedural status (from provided records)
- Introduced: January 13, 2025.
- Committee referral: House Judiciary Committee (per provided data).
- Calendar and floor actions listed across 2025 show readings, placement on consent/local calendars, and an adoption/enrollment sequence with recorded roll call (reported adopted with yeas 98, nays 0 on 06/11/2025) and presentation to the Secretary of State on 06/13/2025. (Because the document mixes jurisdictions, these procedural entries should be verified against the official Congressional Record or House clerk’s website.)
Potential impacts and considerations
- As a non-binding resolution, immediate legal effect is limited; its main impact is political and administrative: encouraging EPA to prioritize reviews and signaling congressional support for taking regulatory steps.
- If followed by EPA action, possible downstream outcomes include: formal testing programs, data requirements for applicants, conditional registrations with stringent label restrictions, pilot field trials, or decisions not to register specific toxicants if risks outweigh benefits.
- Key trade-offs include balancing agricultural/property protection needs against environmental protection, non-target species safety (including endangered species), public health, and humane considerations.
Recommendation
- Obtain and review the actual text of H.R. 355 as introduced (or the enrolled resolution) from the official House or congressional records to confirm exact language, specific agencies addressed, and any explicit requests or deadlines. This will permit a definitive summary of provisions and any concrete timelines or reporting requirements.
Compiled from official sources — confirm details with the bill’s official record.
Sign in to ask a question.
