PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Referred to the Subcommittee on Forestry, Resource Conservation and Research.
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in House · Jul 14, 1998
New Mexico Forest Health and Fire Prevention of 1998 - Directs the District 3 Regional Forester of the State of New Mexico to commence a statewide program to restore and protect forest resources located on Federal forest lands within New Mexico through the performance of recovery projects in identified recovery areas. Requires: (1) the initial project under such program to be the thinning of Monument Canyon Research Natural Area located near Jemez Springs, New Mexico, on the Santa Fe National Forest; and (2) the research scientists located at such Area to provide the initial project standards and guidelines. Directs the Secretary of Agriculture, for each fiscal year of the New Mexico program, to allocate amounts from the Forest Health and Fire Prevention Fund (to be established under this Act) to Region 3 of the Forest Service for the purpose of conducting five-year recovery projects in identified recovery areas. Requires the District 3 Regional Forester to: (1) identify recovery areas within which allocated amounts should be used to conduct such projects; (2) prioritize such areas for the purpose of their receiving allocated amounts; and (3) select, in accordance with specified requirements, projects to be carried out within each area. Prohibits the selection or implementation of a project in specified locations, including units of the National Wilderness Preservation System. Credits to the Fund: (1) authorized and appropriated amounts; (2) unobligated amounts in, or that would otherwise be deposited in, the roads and trails fund; and (3) the Federal share of revenues generated by recovery projects undertaken pursuant to the Program. Authorizes appropriations. Directs the Comptroller General to conduct a specified audit of the program at the end of the fourth full fiscal year following the implementation date.
People & committees
Rep. Redmond, Bill [R-NM-3] · R–NM
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, Resource Conservation and Research.
Executive Comment Requested from USDA.
Referred to the Subcommittee on Forests and Forest Health.
Executive Comment Requested from USDA.
Referred to House Resources
Referred to the Committee on Agriculture, and in addition to the Committee on Resources, 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 House Agriculture
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: Aug 21, 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.4210 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.4210 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.4210 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.4210 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.