PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Referred to the Subcommittee on Forestry and Horticulture.
Congressional Research Service
No official summary is available in the imported record yet.
People & committees
Rep. Maloy, Celeste [R-UT-2] · R–UT
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Referred to the Subcommittee on Forestry and Horticulture.
Referred to the House Committee on Agriculture.
Introduced in House
Introduced in House
Primary sources
Text links open the official source. We also preserved the text version used in the PlainBill explanation below.
Source last updated: Dec 5, 2025. Consult Congress.gov for the current record.
AI Conversation Starters
Choose a perspective, copy a prompt, and paste it into your preferred AI. Each prompt includes the bill version and available official source links, and asks for counterarguments as well as supporting evidence.
Analyze H.J.Res.36 as objectively as possible. Explain its main provisions, who would be affected, possible benefits and harms, implementation, exceptions, and uncertainties. Present the strongest arguments for and against it, and identify evidence needed to assess its public impact.
Examine H.J.Res.36 through a progressive lens, focusing on fairness, access, economic inequality, and effects on vulnerable communities. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and distinguish stated goals from demonstrated outcomes.
Examine H.J.Res.36 through a conservative lens, focusing on fiscal responsibility, institutional stability, federalism, and the scope of government. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and any provisions that challenge this perspective.
Examine H.J.Res.36 through a civil-liberties and limited-government lens. Consider individual rights, privacy, voluntary choice, accountability, and government power. Explain tradeoffs, possible safeguards, and the strongest counterarguments without assuming the proposal is beneficial or harmful.
PlainBill explanation
Based on the full Introduced in House · 2025-02-05 text. This explanation has not received human editorial review. This overview describes the proposal’s major provisions; it does not establish what its real-world effects would be.
This resolution proposes to cancel a Forest Service rule concerning law enforcement and criminal prohibitions. If enacted, it would make that rule legally ineffective.
Congress disapproves the rule submitted by the Forest Service of the Department of Agriculture relating to Law Enforcement; Criminal Prohibitions (89 Fed. Reg. 92808 (November 25, 2024)), and such rule shall have no force or effect.
The proposal targets the Forest Service rule published on November 25, 2024, at page 92808 of volume 89 of the Federal Register, the government's publication for agency rules and notices.
the rule submitted by the Forest Service of the Department of Agriculture relating to Law Enforcement; Criminal Prohibitions (89 Fed. Reg. 92808 (November 25, 2024))
The supplied December 5, 2025, action snapshot records introduction in the House and referral to the House Committee on Agriculture on February 5, 2025, followed by referral to the Subcommittee on Forestry and Horticulture on February 14, 2025.
Source snapshot updated 2025-12-05T21:58:13Z. 2025-02-14: Referred to the Subcommittee on Forestry and Horticulture. 2025-02-05: Referred to the House Committee on Agriculture. 2025-02-05: Introduced in House
A closer look
Reviewed version: Introduced in House · 2025-02-05. These findings describe provisions and who may benefit; they are not judgments of waste, corruption, or motive.
This review covers the supplied bill text. “None identified” does not rule out provisions in later versions or accompanying reports and disclosures.
Provisions outside the bill’s main subject, or policy changes attached to appropriations.
None identified in the reviewed text
No unrelated provision or policy change attached to appropriations was identified in the complete supplied introduced text. This conclusion is limited to that version.
Spending directed to particular recipients or places outside ordinary competitive or formula-based allocation.
None identified in the reviewed text
No congressionally directed spending for a particular recipient or place was identified in the complete supplied introduced text. This conclusion does not establish absence in other versions or accompanying materials.
Narrow exceptions, exemptions, or preferential treatment that warrant a closer look.
None identified in the reviewed text
No materially narrow carve-out, special exemption, or preferential treatment was identified in the complete supplied introduced text. This conclusion is limited to that version; the underlying rule is not supplied.
Full text preserved for this analysis. Legislative record snapshot: Dec 5, 2025. How PlainBill uses AI