PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Received in the Senate and Read twice and referred to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.
Congressional Research Service
Version 36 · Passed House amended · Apr 17, 2007
Directs the Secretary of the Interior, acting through the Director of the National Park Service, to carry out a demonstration program that provides that receipts from timber sales shall be retained for expenditure within units of the National Park System from which the timber is removed as part of an approved plan for the restoration or protection of park resources or values.
Instructs the Secretary to permit each of the existing 24 National Battlefields, National Battlefield Parks, National Military Parks, and National Battlefield Sites to participate in the demonstration program if the unit has in place a general management plan, cultural landscape plan, or other resources management plan approved pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 that identifies specific timber for removal for purposes of cultural or historic landscape restoration or fuel load reduction.
Requires each unit selected to participate in the demonstration program to retain receipts from the sale or disposal of timber removed. Provides for such receipts to be available for expenditure for within a unit for the following purposes only: (1) landscape restoration; (2) interpretive services; (3) eradication of disease, insects, or invasive species; or (4) fuel load reduction.
Showing the opening paragraphs of the official summary.
Requires the Secretary to submit a report containing the results of such demonstration program, including: (1) a detailed accounting of the receipts generated in each unit by such program; (2) the expenditure by each unit of those receipts; and (3) any resource or other impacts, positive or negative, on each participating unit.
Terminates the authority granted to the Secretary to carry out the demonstration program under this Act four years after enactment of this Act.
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.
Received in the Senate and Read twice and referred to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.
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 voice vote. (text: CR H3414)
Passed/agreed to in House: On motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill, as amended Agreed to by voice vote.(text: CR H3414)
DEBATE - The House proceeded with forty minutes of debate on H.R. 309.
Considered under suspension of the rules. (consideration: CR H3414)
Mr. Grijalva moved to suspend the rules and pass the bill, as amended.
Placed on the Union Calendar, Calendar No. 55.
Reported (Amended) by the Committee on Natural Resources. H. Rept. 110-90.
Reported (Amended) by the Committee on Natural Resources. H. Rept. 110-90.
Ordered to be Reported (Amended) by Voice Vote.
Committee Consideration and Mark-up Session Held.
Subcommittee on National Parks, Forests, and Public Lands Discharged.
Referred to the Subcommittee on National Parks, Forests and Public Lands.
Referred to the House Committee on Natural Resources.
Introduced in House
Introduced in House
Primary sources
Text links open the official source. We currently store references to these documents.
No related bills are listed in this snapshot. This does not establish whether the proposal has appeared in earlier Congresses.
Source last updated: Sep 8, 2026. 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.309 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.309 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.309 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.309 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.