PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Read twice. Placed on Senate Legislative Calendar under General Orders. Calendar No. 605.
Congressional Research Service
Version 36 · Passed House amended · Feb 24, 2004
Salt Cedar and Russian Olive Control Assessment and Demonstration Act - (Sec. 2) Directs the Secretary of of Agriculture, in cooperation with the Secretary of the Interior (the Secretaries) to assess the extent of Salt Cedar and Russian Olive invasion in the western United States (as defined by the 1902 Reclamation Act). Requires such assessment to include: (1) documentation of the quantity of water lost due to the infestation and of the quantity of water saved due to various control methods, including the portion of saved water that returns to surface water or groundwater supplies and at what rates; and (2) determination of the optimum control method for the various land types and land uses, of what conditions indicate the need to remove such growth and the optimal methods for disposal or use of such growth, and of the methods to prevent the regrowth and reintroduction of Salt Cedar and Russian Olive and to reestablish native species.
Directs the Secretaries to prepare and submit to specified congressional committees (the congressional committees) a report containing the results of such assessment and identifying: (1) long-term management and funding strategies that could be implemented by Federal, State, tribal, and private land managers and owners on all land management types to address the invasion of Salt Cedar and Russian Olive; and (2) deficiencies or areas for further study and where actual field demonstrations would be useful in the control effort.
Authorizes the Secretaries to make grants to institutions of higher education or nonprofit organizations (or both) with an established background and expertise in public policy issues associated with the control of Salt Cedar and Russian Olive in order to obtain technical experience, support, and recommendations related to the identification of the long-term management and funding strategies required to be included in such report. Limits each grant awarded to $250,000.
Showing the opening paragraphs of the official summary.
(Sec. 3) Directs the Secretaries, based on the assessment and report, to initiate a program of at least three demonstration projects in the western States designed to address deficiencies and areas for further study to address the invasion of Salt Cedar and Russian Olive, including the testing of additional control methods identified by such report.
Allows the Secretaries to enter into an agreement with a western State to carry out a project and, if the Secretaries select a demonstration project for implementation in national Forest System lands, makes the Secretary of Agriculture responsible for implementation of such project.
Requires projects to be designed with integrated methods and adaptive management strategies and carried out over time frames and spatial scales large enough to accomplish the goals laid out in the report. Provides that, before being carried out, the methods and strategies proposed for each project shall be subject to review by scientific experts, including non-Federal experts, selected by the Secretaries.
Limits the total cost of each project to $7 million, including planning, design, implementation, revegetation, maintenance, and monitoring costs. Allows the Secretaries to accept, but not require, in cases of projects conducted on lands under the jurisdiction of either Secretary, funds or in-kind contributions, including State agency provided services. Limits the Federal share of the costs of any activity on private lands funded under a project to 75 percent of the activity's total cost.
Requires projects to include: (1) documentation of the quantity of water saved due to various control methods, including the portion of water saved that returns to surface water or groundwater supplies and at what rates; and (2) optimal revegetative states to prevent regrowth and reintroduction of Salt Cedar and Russian Olive and to reestablish native species.
Requires the Secretaries to submit to the congressional committees annual reports on such projects.
(Sec. 4) Declares that nothing in this Act shall be construed to affect, or otherwise bias, use by the Secretaries of other statutory or administrative authorities to plan or conduct Salt Cedar or Russian Olive control and eradication.
(Sec. 5) Authorizes appropriations to the Secretaries to: (1) conduct the assessment; (2) award the grants specified above; and (3) carry out the program of demonstration projects specified above.
People & committees
Rep. Pearce, Stevan [R-NM-2] · R–NM
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Read twice. Placed on Senate Legislative Calendar under General Orders. Calendar No. 605.
Received in the Senate.
Motion to reconsider laid on the table Agreed to without objection.
On motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill, as amended Agreed to by the Yeas and Nays: (2/3 required): 367 - 40 (Roll no. 26). (text: CR H520)
House roll call 26 · Individual votesPassed/agreed to in House: On motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill, as amended Agreed to by the Yeas and Nays: (2/3 required): 367 - 40 (Roll no. 26).(text: CR H520)
House roll call 26 · Individual votesConsidered as unfinished business. (consideration: CR H529-530)
At the conclusion of debate, the Yeas and Nays were demanded and ordered. Pursuant to the provisions of clause 8, rule XX, the Chair announced that further proceedings on the motion would be postponed.
DEBATE - The House proceeded with forty minutes of debate on H.R. 2707.
Considered under suspension of the rules. (consideration: CR H520-523)
Mr. Pearce moved to suspend the rules and pass the bill, as amended.
Placed on the Union Calendar, Calendar No. 244.
Committee on Agriculture discharged.
Committee on Agriculture discharged.
House Committee on Agriculture Granted an extension for further consideration ending not later than Feb. 24, 2004.
Reported (Amended) by the Committee on Resources. H. Rept. 108-424, Part I.
Reported (Amended) by the Committee on Resources. H. Rept. 108-424, Part I.
Ordered to be Reported (Amended) by Unanimous Consent.
Committee Consideration and Mark-up Session Held.
Subcommittee on National Parks, Recreation and Public Lands Discharged.
Subcommittee on Forests and Forest Health Discharged.
Subcommittee Hearings Held.
Referred to the Subcommittee on Forests and Forest Health.
Referred to the Subcommittee on National Parks, Recreation and Public Lands.
Referred to the Subcommittee on Department Operations, Oversight, Nutrition and Forestry.
Referred to the Committee on Resources, and in addition to the Committee on Agriculture, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned.
Referred to the Committee on Resources, and in addition to the Committee on Agriculture, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned.
Referred to the Committee on Resources, and in addition to the Committee on Agriculture, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned.
Introduced in House
Introduced in House
Primary sources
Text links open the official source. We currently store references to these documents.
Source last updated: Apr 7, 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.R.2707 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.R.2707 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.R.2707 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.R.2707 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.