PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Executive Comment Requested from USDA.
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in House · Sep 9, 2004
Montana National Forests Boundary Adjustment Act of 2004 - Modifies the boundaries of the Helena, Lolo, and Beaverhead-Deerlodge National Forests (the Forests) in Montana as depicted on specified maps.
Requires such maps to be on file and available for public inspection in the offices of the Chief of the Forest Service and Regional Forester. Authorizes the Secretary of Agriculture to make technical corrections to the map.
Requires land acquired within the boundaries of the Forests for National Forest System (NFS) purposes to be managed in accordance with the Weeks Law and laws applicable to the NFS.
States that the boundaries of the Forests as modified under this Act shall, for purposes of certain fund allocation provisions of the Land and Water Conservation Fund Act of 1965 (LWCFA), be considered the boundaries of such Forests as of January 1, 1965 (the effective date of the LWCFA).
People & committees
Rep. Rehberg, Dennis R. [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.
Executive Comment Requested from USDA.
Referred to the Subcommittee on Forests and Forest Health.
Referred to the House Committee on Resources.
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 18, 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.5056 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.5056 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.5056 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.5056 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.