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 · Jan 29, 2003
Wildfire Prevention Act of 2003 - Directs the Secretary of Agriculture, through the Chief of the Forest Service, to: (1) establish three Institutes (one each in Arizona at Northern Arizona University, New Mexico, and Colorado) to promote the use of adaptive ecosystem management to reduce the risk of wildfires, and improve the health of forest and woodland ecosystems in Arizona, Colorado, Idaho, Nevada, New Mexico, and Utah; and (2) assist the Institutes to promote such management.Defines adaptive ecosystem management as a natural resource management process under which planning, implementation, monitoring, research, evaluation, and incorporation of new knowledge are combined into a management approach that is: (1) based on scientific findings and the needs of society; and (2) used to modify future management methods and policy.Prescribes requirements for cooperation among the Institutes and Federal programs relating to ecological restoration, wildfire risk reduction, and wildfire management technologies.
People & committees
Rep. Hayworth, J. D. [R-AZ-5] · R–AZ
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.
Executive Comment Requested from USDA, Interior.
Referred to the Subcommittee on Forests and Forest Health.
Referred to the Subcommittee on National Parks, Recreation and Public Lands.
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: Jan 2, 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.460 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.460 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.460 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.460 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.