H. Res. 346 (119th)Bill Overview

Expressing the need for protecting and conserving at least 50 percent of the land, freshwater, and ocean ecosystems in the United States and encouraging diplomatic community efforts to achieve this goal worldwide.

Environmental Protection|Environmental Protection
Cosponsors
Support
Democratic
Introduced
Apr 24, 2025
Discussions
Bill Text
Current stageCommittee

Referred to the Committee on Natural Resources, and in addition to the Committee on Foreign Affairs, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for co…

Introduced
Committee
Floor
President
Law
Congressional Activities
01 · The brief

This is a non‑binding House resolution expressing that Congress should support protecting and conserving at least 50 percent of U.S. land, freshwater, and ocean ecosystems and encouraging diplomatic efforts to pursue a similar global goal.

The text cites biodiversity loss, climate risks, benefits of protected areas, inequitable impacts on frontline communities, Indigenous stewardship, public‑private partnerships, and praises the prior 30% by 2030 initiative while calling for early stakeholder consultation.

Passage10/100

As a House resolution it is non‑binding and cannot become law on its own; it could influence later legislation but conversion to law would require substantial, contentious follow‑on statutory action.

CredibilityAligned

Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill functions as a clear, nonbinding expression of the House's view on biodiversity and a 50% conservation goal, with strong problem framing but only minimal operational, fiscal, legal, and accountability detail as appropriate for a commemorative/sense resolution.

Contention70/100

Left emphasizes urgent biodiversity and climate benefits; right emphasizes property rights and economic costs.

02 · What it does

Who stands to gain, and who may push back.

Who this appears to help vs burden50% / 50%
Targeted stakeholdersFederal agencies
Likely helped
  • Targeted stakeholdersGreater area protection could enhance ecosystem services like water filtration, flood buffering, and carbon storage.
  • Targeted stakeholdersExpanded conservation may support growth in jobs for restoration, stewardship, and nature‑based recreation.
  • Targeted stakeholdersProtecting intact habitats can reduce species extinction risks and preserve biodiversity resilience.
Likely burdened
  • Targeted stakeholdersMeeting a 50 percent target could impose new restrictions on agriculture, energy, mining, and development operations.
  • Targeted stakeholdersAchieving the goal likely requires substantial public funding or land purchases, increasing budgetary demands.
  • Federal agenciesBroad area‑based targets can create conflicts over property rights and federal versus state land authority.
03 · Why people split

Why the argument around this bill splits.

Left emphasizes urgent biodiversity and climate benefits; right emphasizes property rights and economic costs.
Progressive90%

Likely very supportive of the 50% conservation ambition as necessary to address biodiversity and climate crises.

Views the resolution as a useful political and moral statement, but will press for binding laws, funding, and justice-focused implementation.

Leans supportive
Centrist65%

Generally sympathetic to stronger conservation goals but cautious about feasibility, costs, and federal versus state roles.

Sees the resolution as a low‑cost, symbolic step that should be followed by pragmatic planning, stakeholder engagement, and cost‑benefit analysis.

Split reaction
Conservative25%

Skeptical or opposed due to concerns about property rights, federal overreach, and economic impacts.

Views the resolution as agenda‑setting for future regulations unless explicitly limited to voluntary, locally led measures.

Likely resistant
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 likelihood10/100

As a House resolution it is non‑binding and cannot become law on its own; it could influence later legislation but conversion to law would require substantial, contentious follow‑on statutory action.

Scope and complexity
86%
Scopesweeping
24%
Complexitylow
Why this could stall
  • Whether leadership will schedule floor action
  • Degree of organized opposition from resource sectors
05 · Recent votes

Recent votes on the bill.

No vote history yet

The bill has not accumulated any surfaced votes yet.

06 · Go deeper

Go deeper than the headline read.

Included on this page

Left emphasizes urgent biodiversity and climate benefits; right emphasizes property rights and economic costs.

As a House resolution it is non‑binding and cannot become law on its own; it could influence later legislation but conversion to law would…

Unlocked analysis

Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill functions as a clear, nonbinding expression of the House's view on biodiversity and a 50% conservation goal, with strong problem framing but only minimal operational,…

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