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 · Feb 1, 2005
Salt Cedar and Russian Olive Control Assessment and Demonstration Act - Directs the Secretary of of Agriculture, in cooperation with the Secretary of the Interior, to assess the extent of Salt Cedar and Russian Olive invasion in the western United States.
Directs the Secretaries to submit a report containing the results of such assessment and identifying: (1) long-term management and funding strategies; and (2) deficiencies or areas for further study and where actual field demonstrations would be useful in the control effort.
Authorizes the Secretaries to make grants to institutions of higher education or nonprofit organizations (or both) in order to obtain technical experience, support, and recommendations related to the identification of the long-term management and funding strategies required to be included in such report.
Directs the Secretaries to initiate a program of at least three demonstration projects in the western States designed to address deficiencies and areas for further study to address the invasion of Salt Cedar and Russian Olive. Sets forth required project elements.
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.
Referred to the Subcommittee on Department Operations, Oversight, Nutrition and Forestry.
Referred to the Subcommittee on Forests and Forest Health.
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.
No related bills are listed in this snapshot. This does not establish whether the proposal has appeared in earlier Congresses.
Source last updated: Aug 15, 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.489 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.489 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.489 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.489 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.