PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Referred to the Subcommittee on Department Operations, Oversight, Nutrition and Forestry.
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in House · Dec 16, 2009
National Forest Insect and Disease Emergency Act of 2009 - Designates certain areas of National Forest System land in the states of Arizona, California, Colorado, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, New Mexico, Oregon, South Dakota, Utah, Washington, and Wyoming as insect and disease emergency areas. Allows the designation of an area of System land as an additional insect and disease emergency area if the land: (1) is located in an affected state; and (2) is subject to an insect and disease infestation emergency. Excludes certain lands from inclusion in an insect and disease emergency area.
Sets forth requirements for the duration of insect and disease emergency areas designated under this Act.
Authorizes the Secretary of Agriculture (the Secretary), in implementing the emergency forest restoration program, to make payments to owners of nonindustrial private forest land to carry out emergency measures in response to an insect and disease infestation emergency under this Act.
Showing the opening paragraphs of the official summary.
Authorizes the: (1) Secretary to offer to enter into any contracts or other agreements with the state of Colorado to perform watershed restoration and protection services on System land in the state when similar and complementary restoration and protection services are being carried out on adjacent state or private land; and (2) Secretary of the Interior to carry out such activities on public land located in Colorado.
Extends permanently the authority under which the Forest Service may enter into such contracts with private persons and entities to perform services to achieve land management goals for the national forests that meet local and rural communities' needs. Bars the Forest Service from obligating funds to cover the costs of canceling Forest Service multiyear stewardship end result contracts until the date on which they are canceled.
People & committees
Rep. Salazar, John T. [D-CO-3] · D–CO
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 Department Operations, Oversight, Nutrition and Forestry.
Referred to the Subcommittee on National Parks, Forests and Public Lands.
Referred to House Natural Resources
Referred to the Committee on Agriculture, and in addition to the Committee on Natural 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.
Source last updated: Aug 14, 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.4398 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.4398 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.4398 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.4398 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.