PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Became Public Law No: 109-320.
Congressional Research Service
Version 28 · Reported to House without amendment, Part I · Dec 13, 2005
(This measure has not been amended since it was introduced. The summary has been expanded because action occurred on the measure.)
Salt Cedar and Russian Olive Control Demonstration Act - Directs the Secretary of the Interior (the Secretary), acting through the Commissioner of Reclamation and the Director of the U.S. Geological Survey, to carry out a salt cedar (Tamarix spp) and Russian olive (Elaeagnus angustifolia) assessment and demonstration program to: (1) assess the extent of the infestation by salt cedar and Russian olive trees in the western United States; (2) demonstrate strategic solutions for the long-term management of such trees and the reestablishment of native vegetation; and (3) assess economic means to dispose of biomass created as a result of removal of those trees. Directs the Secretary and the Secretary of Agriculture to enter into a memorandum of understanding for the administration of such program.
Requires the Secretary to: (1) complete an assessment of the extent of the infestation; (2) identify long-term management and funding strategies that could be implemented by land managers in addressing the infestation and that should be tested as components of specified demonstration projects; and (3) establish a program that selects and funds at least five projects to demonstrate and evaluate the most effective methods of controlling salt cedar and Russian olive trees. Directs the Secretary to complete an analysis of economic means to use or dispose of biomass created by salt cedar and Russian olive tree removal.
Showing the opening paragraphs of the official summary.
Limits the costs of the assessment, identification and documentation of strategies (and the provision of grants), demonstration projects, and analysis. Requires the assessment, identification and documentation of strategies, and demonstration projects to be carried out on federal land and the analysis to be carried out at full federal expense. Limits the federal share of the costs of demonstration projects not carried out on federal land and allows in kind contributions.
Directs the Secretary to: (1) review the assessment, identification and documentation of strategies, demonstration projects, and analysis; (2) report to Congress annually, including a synopsis of any independent review and details of the manner and purposes for which funds are expended; and (3) facilitate public access to all information that results from carrying out this Act.
Authorizes appropriations.
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.
Became Public Law No: 109-320.
Became Public Law No: 109-320.
Signed by President.
Signed by President.
Presented to President.
Presented to President.
Message on Senate action sent to the House.
Passed Senate without amendment by Unanimous Consent. (consideration: CR S10537)
Passed/agreed to in Senate: Passed Senate without amendment by Unanimous Consent.(consideration: CR S10537)
Received in the Senate. Read twice. Placed on Senate Legislative Calendar under General Orders. Calendar No. 420.
Motion to reconsider laid on the table Agreed to without objection.
On motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill Agreed to by voice vote. (text: CR H1936-1937)
Passed/agreed to in House: On motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill Agreed to by voice vote.(text: CR H1936-1937)
DEBATE - The House proceeded with forty minutes of debate on H.R. 2720.
Considered under suspension of the rules. (consideration: CR H1936-1938)
Mr. Pearce moved to suspend the rules and pass the bill.
Placed on the Union Calendar, Calendar No. 190.
Committee on Agriculture discharged.
Committee on Agriculture discharged.
Reported by the Committee on Resources. H. Rept. 109-341, Part I.
Reported by the Committee on Resources. H. Rept. 109-341, Part I.
Ordered to be Reported by Unanimous Consent.
Committee Consideration and Mark-up Session Held.
Subcommittee on Forests and Forest Health Discharged.
Subcommittee on Water and Power Discharged.
Subcommittee Hearings Held.
Referred to the Subcommittee on Department Operations, Oversight, Nutrition and Forestry.
Executive Comment Requested from Interior.
Referred to the Subcommittee on Forests and Forest Health.
Referred to the Subcommittee on Water and Power.
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.2720 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.2720 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.2720 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.2720 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.