PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Referred to the Subcommittee on Conservation and Forestry.
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in House · Jul 20, 2021
Forest Litigation Reform Act of 2021
This bill sets forth provisions regarding legal challenges to federal forest management activities on land suitable for timber production.
The bill revises the standard of review for a court considering a request for injunctive relief applicable to an agency's qualified forest management activity. Specifically, a court must balance the impact to the ecosystem of undertaking the agency action against not undertaking the agency action.
The bill also limits the length of preliminary injunctive relief and stays pending appeal in such cases to 60 days.
Additionally, the bill directs the Department of Agriculture, with respect to National Forest System lands, and the Department of the Interior, with respect to public lands, to each establish a discretionary arbitration pilot program as an alternative dispute resolution process for challenges to qualified forest management activities.
The bill prohibits amounts from being obligated or expended from the Claims and Judgment Fund and awards to pay any fees or other expenses to any plaintiff related to an action challenging a qualified forest management activity.
People & committees
Rep. Rosendale Sr., Matthew M. [R-MT-At Large] · R–MT
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 Conservation and Forestry.
Referred to the Subcommittee on National Parks, Forests, and Public Lands.
Referred to the Committee on Natural Resources, and in addition to the Committees on Agriculture, and the Judiciary, 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 Natural Resources, and in addition to the Committees on Agriculture, and the Judiciary, 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 Natural Resources, and in addition to the Committees on Agriculture, and the Judiciary, 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: Jan 24, 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.4579 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.4579 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.4579 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.4579 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.